Would the laser printer company whose proprietary programming interface Stallman wanted access to have been required to disclose it?
Of course not. Nor were they required to disclose it under the existing copyright regime. If a company chooses not to release their programming interface to the public domain, they could still have trade secrets. They would not have any protection when someone reverse engineers the interface, but there is arguably no reason why they should have such protection.
Would you say then then GPL should be replaced on code more than 5 years old and a do as you please license attached?
The GPL (a copyleft license) was specifically designed to encourage sharing despite copyright. The GPL derives its authority from copyright law but if copyright didn't exist there would be no need for the GPL - the public domain would suffice.
A very similar story was mentioned on the Now Show on Radio 4 today. This version had specially manufactured 18 inch condoms (marked as "Made in Britain" and "Medium") used to protect sten guns from the cold. There is a link to the latest episode on the Now Show website.
Copyrights must be defended. Failing to do so means you lose your copyright. By intentionally placing a copyrighted work into an area in which it can be used freely and not placing such use under the protections of a license, a very good argument can be made that the copyright owner is not practicing due diligence in the defense of their copyright and the copyright is then no longer valid.
Congratulations! You win the award for the most wrong post ever on/.
Trademarks need to be defended. Copyright is automatic and you cannot lose it by making work available. You can assign copyright to someone else, but the only way that work comes out of copyright is if you explicitly grant it to the public domain or die several decades beforehand.
What is to stop criminals from modifying legitimate readers, or placing the legitimate chips in dodgy readers, thereby sending legitimate data to the bank but a) reading my card data, and b) capturing my PIN, in the process?
With the uk chip and pin, the pin *is* stored on the card. But, it doesnt just hand the pin over to the reader, the reader tells the card what you typed in, and the card says if its right or not.
The really big problem is that there is absolutely no way for the customer to know if the reader is legitimate or not. People have been putting fake ATM covers with embedded cameras and card readers over legitimate cash machines here in the UK recently. It would be much easier just to replace a card reader with a card reader/logger. How can I possibly know what the reader is recording?
At Tesco at least, you can just pull the reader from its holder and hold it out of other peoples view, yet not many people take advantage of this.
The readers in my local Tesco don't look as if they will come out of the holders. I will have to try next time I pay.
the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.
Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders. If the same rights are given to GPL authors, and DRM is mandated that can enforce the terms of the GPL just as effectively as it can enforce Sony's terms for its movies and CDs, then we have a playing field that's just as level (or perhaps more so) than it would be in the absence of any copyright at all.
The world does not consist entirely of large corporations and GPL software developers. Copyright, etc. exist to serve the purposes of society as a whole, not just content producers. If such laws do not serve consumers as well as producers, the playing field is not level.
Dentist's don't have the right to tell you how to use teeth that they repair. Mechanics don't have the right to tell you how to drive your car. Pen manufacturers don't have the right to tell your what to write. Similarly, it is not to society's benefit for the entertainment industry to tell you how to be entertained.
Perhaps it is worse than GnomeBaker and K3B. But at least they recognize the Linux community. Encouraging Nero to try harder, rather than posting trollish comments about how it's not free and not as good as other software, would do more to help Linux's image in the corporate world.
If they are offering inferior software at a greater price than the competition, they cannot really complain if their product is not greeted with rapturous approval. When you consider that freedom is more important than free for many GNU/Linux users, the arrival of a non-free, inferior product will not make much impact.
It is good that companies are taking notice of GNU/Linux, but if they want to make an impact their software should be superior to that which currently exists or free. Or both.
I once had a US-built car (a Jeep Cherokee). Never, ever, again! European or Asian, I don't care, but never again a US car. The notion of build quality just doesn't seem to apply to them.
The earth would appear to be eroding away by massive solar winds. Scientists predict the earth to be completely disintegrated in 20 to 30 billion years.
No, it will be destroyed by Sun within the next 5 billion years!
The law is in a large part proposed due to a EU directive (Norway isn't even a member the EU, but in the EC).
<pedantic mode="euro-acronyms">
Assuming that you are not referring to the European Commission (the EU's civil service), the EC (European Community) is the previous name for the EU (European Union), which came about when they dropped the "Economic" from European Economic Community (EEC). Norway, which is not a member of the EU, and was not a member of the EEC or EC, is a member of the EEA, the European Economic Area.
What this means, I believe, is that if they implement EU directives voluntarily, they can have the economic benefits of EU membership without the political pressures. What it appears to mean in reality, is that they have no ability to influence EU directives, but take a very, very strict interpretation of them and implement them quicker that the real EU members.
</pedantic>
What about publishing these definitions so that the general public can see them? Not in jolly old Blighty...
I would be the last to defend the UK Patent Office's handling of this directive. In this case, however, you are being too harsh.
The workshops are open to the public - if you want to see the suggestions, register.
The SIX LAWS of the NEW SOFTWARE GO AHEAD AND PRINT THIS. This manifesto
continued
is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.
by Dror Eyal NEXT
Not using Adobe Acrobat? Please go to http://changethis.com/content/reader
The first wave of software is over, it is doubtful that any one company will capture the market like Microsoft or SAP did. Not because the software they write isn't better or has less functionality, they've simply arrived too late. Most home consumers have all the software they will ever need, and most companies out there already have all the basic technologies they need to successfully compete right now. I can hear their objections all the way down here, and I agree, your software is better designed, faster, has more features, is more user-friendly and can indeed make seven flavours of coffee. We have something similar, it isnt well designed, it doesnt have half of the features that yours has and no, it doesnt run on Service Orientated Architecture. We did however pay a small fortune for the per-seat licences, we have learnt to use it quite comfortably over the last five years and this is the system that our business runs on. This view isnt limited to us -- Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon, in a 2000 article published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, argued that "the most important GO AHEAD AND PRINT uses of THIS. This manifesto computers were developed more than a decade into the past, not currently."
is toner-friendly: the Its a fairly bleak view to be sure, but one that isnt unique to Mr Gordon. Many business backgrounds wont executives print on paper and are are turning away from purchasing new technologies and looking for new ways to use their only visible on-screen existing technologies effectively. Not because the new software entering the market to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.
isnt better, but because the functionality that they need already exists in software that was bought years ago. Budgets for software expenditure are dropping and the accountants are starting to question why the software that was essential last year needs an upgrade this year. What this means to the average software developer is that the window of opportunity for selling into the corporate market and to some the degree the home market is getting smaller than ever before. So does this mean that this is the end for the software industry? Obviously not, we will continue to develop better products, occasionally new technology will get developed and or a new idea will start a trend and software will get developed around it. Software that meets a new need will always be welcome. Who knew that we needed file sharing software before Napster turned the music industry on its ear? Or that social software and bloging tools were essential if your company was to be seen to be on the cutting edge? No, it isnt the end, but for every tool that revolutionizes the industry and strikes a path into a new territory there are several hundred software companies out there trying to build a better CRM or CMS -- the software industry equivalent of the mousetrap. Obviously it would be better if we all developed software that met a new need and created new markets, but just as obviously we cant all develop revolutionary new software. Most of the software being developed right now in studios around the world is trying to find a niche in existing and saturated markets. So how do you build software that stands out and can compete in this new environGO AHEAD AND PRINT ment? You build a tool based on new generation software laws. THIS. This manifesto is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrob
What I'd like to see more than a GPL revision is a set of CC licenses designed specifically for software licensing.
On the CC license discussion lists, most requests for a software oriented-CC license get referred to the GPL. One of the problems is that requiring distribution of the "source" of artistic works is not straightforward.
Why do you think a CC license would be more appropriate for software than a license that is specifically designed for software?
Of course lots of people don't mention freedom to run or distribute! Lots of people don't mention that I have dark hair when they say "Russ Nelson". Google for "Russ" and you'll find very few mentions of dark hair. Does that mean that I don't have dark hair? Of course not.
However, if you bleached your hair, would you stop being Russ? If you remove the freedom to run and distribute from free software, it stops being free. This is really the essence of the issue. The OSI hardly, if ever, mentions these freedoms other than their presence in the OSD (which is not normally quoted in press releases).
Obviously you've gotten this idea from somewhere -- that open source is not free software. Could you explain where you got it from?
Er, not really - sorry. I also don't remember exactly where I got the idea that a table is different from a chair, although they can certainly be used interchangeably if you really want to.
The OSD describes Free Software. However, just as the FSF cannot prevent people interpreting free software as "freeware", the OSI cannot stop people interpreting what you call "Source Available" as open source. I think the game was really given up when the phrase "OSI approved license" started being used instead of "open source license".
If the OSI really wants people to equate Open Source with Free Software, it will have to push all four freedoms much harder, not just those that require the source code.
In current common usage, if the source code is available, it is open source;
I need more evidence to be persuaded that this is current common usage. Whenever I see somebody who says that, I correct them. I haven't run across any such examples for many months now.
$ ping google.com PING google.com (216.239.37.99): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=239 time=92.3 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=239 time=93.5 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=239 time=93.1 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.37.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=239 time=102.8 ms
--- google.com ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 92.3/95.4/102.8 ms
Sorry, couldn't resist. Lots of people don't mention freedom to run or distribute when describing "open source".
Open source is free software. Can you name any open source software that isn't?
Well, off the top of my head, the "Reduce" Computer Algebra System. The source is made available to anyone organisation which buys it, but it cannot be distributed freely.
If not, why do you think we need to change the common usage of open source?
I don't think that we need to change the common usage of open source. However, that is what you are doing by creating a new category of "Source Available". In current common usage, if the source code is available, it is open source; if the source code is secret, it is not open source. Free software is a special subset of open source in which the user also inherits certain rights.
You are describing Source Available software, not Open Source.
Oh dear, in that case there is a problem. "Free software" is a good name because it emphasises the freedoms that the user gets. Unfortunately, it also carries other connotations so that it gets confused with "freeware", "shareware" and "cheap and poor quality".
I have always thought that "open source" was a better phrase because, even though it doesn't emphasise the important freedoms, *everyone* understands exactly what it means. I really don't think there is any chance that you will successfully change the common usage of open source now with any kind of semantic games. I wish you well in your efforts to draw a distinction, but I don't foresee success unless you also stress the freedom part, which brings us full circle.
He continues to contend that open source is just a development methodology whereas free software has a philosophical basis.
Having the source to software is not very helpful if one does not have the right to do anything with it. Open source development can occur in any organisation - the developers have the right to work on the code. However, if they do not pass freedoms on to the users, the users gain little practical benefit. Users have the right to report bugs and the ability to submit patches for the software vendor's consideration.
If freedoms are passed on to the user, then there are immense benefits to the user, almost regardless of the code quality.
There is an immense difference between free software and open source software. There are good reasons for encouraging open source development even for proprietary software. However, free software proponents see far greater benefits if the users get the freedom to run, study, distribute and improve code.
Open source and free software are not the same. If you are going to be an advocate for OSI, you should really understand the difference. Even if you don't agree with RMS's vision, you should understand what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not. Nor were they required to disclose it under the existing copyright regime. If a company chooses not to release their programming interface to the public domain, they could still have trade secrets. They would not have any protection when someone reverse engineers the interface, but there is arguably no reason why they should have such protection.
Why?
The GPL (a copyleft license) was specifically designed to encourage sharing despite copyright. The GPL derives its authority from copyright law but if copyright didn't exist there would be no need for the GPL - the public domain would suffice.
Hmm, I think we need a poll: does Barry Cryer read slashdot?
Yes
No
I'm sorry, I haven't a clue
Barry Cryer is Cowboy Neal
I don't know who Barry Cryer is, you insensitive clod!
A very similar story was mentioned on the Now Show on Radio 4 today. This version had specially manufactured 18 inch condoms (marked as "Made in Britain" and "Medium") used to protect sten guns from the cold. There is a link to the latest episode on the Now Show website.
Congratulations! You win the award for the most wrong post ever on /.
Trademarks need to be defended. Copyright is automatic and you cannot lose it by making work available. You can assign copyright to someone else, but the only way that work comes out of copyright is if you explicitly grant it to the public domain or die several decades beforehand.
What is to stop criminals from modifying legitimate readers, or placing the legitimate chips in dodgy readers, thereby sending legitimate data to the bank but a) reading my card data, and b) capturing my PIN, in the process?
The really big problem is that there is absolutely no way for the customer to know if the reader is legitimate or not. People have been putting fake ATM covers with embedded cameras and card readers over legitimate cash machines here in the UK recently. It would be much easier just to replace a card reader with a card reader/logger. How can I possibly know what the reader is recording?
At Tesco at least, you can just pull the reader from its holder and hold it out of other peoples view, yet not many people take advantage of this.
The readers in my local Tesco don't look as if they will come out of the holders. I will have to try next time I pay.
Dentist's don't have the right to tell you how to use teeth that they repair. Mechanics don't have the right to tell you how to drive your car. Pen manufacturers don't have the right to tell your what to write. Similarly, it is not to society's benefit for the entertainment industry to tell you how to be entertained.
If they are offering inferior software at a greater price than the competition, they cannot really complain if their product is not greeted with rapturous approval. When you consider that freedom is more important than free for many GNU/Linux users, the arrival of a non-free, inferior product will not make much impact.
It is good that companies are taking notice of GNU/Linux, but if they want to make an impact their software should be superior to that which currently exists or free. Or both.
Finns. In an Alpine village? Shouldn't that be an Arctic village? Finland is nowhere near the Alps!
There is just something very wrong with the idea of using English as a lingua franca !
Standard German is also decided from on high, but not necessarily as efficiently as in France.
I once had a US-built car (a Jeep Cherokee). Never, ever, again! European or Asian, I don't care, but never again a US car. The notion of build quality just doesn't seem to apply to them.
You may find this helpful.
No, it will be destroyed by Sun within the next 5 billion years!
<pedantic mode="euro-acronyms">
Assuming that you are not referring to the European Commission (the EU's civil service), the EC (European Community) is the previous name for the EU (European Union), which came about when they dropped the "Economic" from European Economic Community (EEC). Norway, which is not a member of the EU, and was not a member of the EEC or EC, is a member of the EEA, the European Economic Area.
What this means, I believe, is that if they implement EU directives voluntarily, they can have the economic benefits of EU membership without the political pressures. What it appears to mean in reality, is that they have no ability to influence EU directives, but take a very, very strict interpretation of them and implement them quicker that the real EU members.
</pedantic>
I would be the last to defend the UK Patent Office's handling of this directive. In this case, however, you are being too harsh. The workshops are open to the public - if you want to see the suggestions, register.
The SIX LAWS of the NEW SOFTWARE
GO AHEAD AND PRINT THIS. This manifesto
continued
is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.
by Dror Eyal
NEXT
Not using Adobe Acrobat? Please go to http://changethis.com/content/reader
The first wave of software is over, it is doubtful that any one company will capture the market like Microsoft or SAP did. Not because the software they write isn't better or has less functionality, they've simply arrived too late. Most home consumers have all the software they will ever need, and most companies out there already have all the basic technologies they need to successfully compete right now.
I can hear their objections all the way down here, and I agree, your software is better designed, faster, has more features, is more user-friendly and can indeed make seven flavours of coffee. We have something similar, it isnt well designed, it doesnt have half of the features that yours has and no, it doesnt run on Service Orientated Architecture. We did however pay a small fortune for the per-seat licences, we have learnt to use it quite comfortably over the last five years and this is the system that our business runs on. This view isnt limited to us -- Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon, in a 2000 article published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, argued that "the most important GO AHEAD AND PRINT uses of THIS. This manifesto computers were developed more than a decade into the past, not currently."
is toner-friendly: the Its a fairly bleak view to be sure, but one that isnt unique to Mr Gordon. Many business backgrounds wont executives print on paper and are are turning away from purchasing new technologies and looking for new ways to use their only visible on-screen existing technologies effectively. Not because the new software entering the market to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrobat feature.
isnt better, but because the functionality that they need already exists in software that was bought years ago. Budgets for software expenditure are dropping and the accountants are starting to question why the software that was essential last year needs an upgrade this year. What this means to the average software developer is that the window of opportunity for selling into the corporate market and to some the degree the home market is getting smaller than ever before. So does this mean that this is the end for the software industry? Obviously not, we will continue to develop better products, occasionally new technology will get developed and or a new idea will start a trend and software will get developed around it. Software that meets a new need will always be welcome. Who knew that we needed file sharing software before Napster turned the music industry on its ear? Or that social software and bloging tools were essential if your company was to be seen to be on the cutting edge? No, it isnt the end, but for every tool that revolutionizes the industry and strikes a path into a new territory there are several hundred software companies out there trying to build a better CRM or CMS -- the software industry equivalent of the mousetrap. Obviously it would be better if we all developed software that met a new need and created new markets, but just as obviously we cant all develop revolutionary new software. Most of the software being developed right now in studios around the world is trying to find a niche in existing and saturated markets. So how do you build software that stands out and can compete in this new environGO AHEAD AND PRINT ment? You build a tool based on new generation software laws. THIS. This manifesto
is toner-friendly: the backgrounds wont print on paper and are only visible on-screen to aid readability. We recommend printing a test page as some older printers do not support this Acrob
On the CC license discussion lists, most requests for a software oriented-CC license get referred to the GPL. One of the problems is that requiring distribution of the "source" of artistic works is not straightforward.
Why do you think a CC license would be more appropriate for software than a license that is specifically designed for software?
However, if you bleached your hair, would you stop being Russ? If you remove the freedom to run and distribute from free software, it stops being free. This is really the essence of the issue. The OSI hardly, if ever, mentions these freedoms other than their presence in the OSD (which is not normally quoted in press releases).
Obviously you've gotten this idea from somewhere -- that open source is not free software. Could you explain where you got it from?
Er, not really - sorry. I also don't remember exactly where I got the idea that a table is different from a chair, although they can certainly be used interchangeably if you really want to.
The OSD describes Free Software. However, just as the FSF cannot prevent people interpreting free software as "freeware", the OSI cannot stop people interpreting what you call "Source Available" as open source. I think the game was really given up when the phrase "OSI approved license" started being used instead of "open source license".
If the OSI really wants people to equate Open Source with Free Software, it will have to push all four freedoms much harder, not just those that require the source code.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Lots of people don't mention freedom to run or distribute when describing "open source".
Well, off the top of my head, the "Reduce" Computer Algebra System. The source is made available to anyone organisation which buys it, but it cannot be distributed freely.
If not, why do you think we need to change the common usage of open source?
I don't think that we need to change the common usage of open source. However, that is what you are doing by creating a new category of "Source Available". In current common usage, if the source code is available, it is open source; if the source code is secret, it is not open source. Free software is a special subset of open source in which the user also inherits certain rights.
Oh dear, in that case there is a problem. "Free software" is a good name because it emphasises the freedoms that the user gets. Unfortunately, it also carries other connotations so that it gets confused with "freeware", "shareware" and "cheap and poor quality".
I have always thought that "open source" was a better phrase because, even though it doesn't emphasise the important freedoms, *everyone* understands exactly what it means. I really don't think there is any chance that you will successfully change the common usage of open source now with any kind of semantic games. I wish you well in your efforts to draw a distinction, but I don't foresee success unless you also stress the freedom part, which brings us full circle.
Having the source to software is not very helpful if one does not have the right to do anything with it. Open source development can occur in any organisation - the developers have the right to work on the code. However, if they do not pass freedoms on to the users, the users gain little practical benefit. Users have the right to report bugs and the ability to submit patches for the software vendor's consideration.
If freedoms are passed on to the user, then there are immense benefits to the user, almost regardless of the code quality.
There is an immense difference between free software and open source software. There are good reasons for encouraging open source development even for proprietary software. However, free software proponents see far greater benefits if the users get the freedom to run, study, distribute and improve code.
Open source and free software are not the same. If you are going to be an advocate for OSI, you should really understand the difference. Even if you don't agree with RMS's vision, you should understand what it is.