The only remaining question once a program is public domain is "Is the source code available?" If it is, the program is really Open Source.
Well that's adding a qualification now; public domain can be open source is not the same as public domain IS open source. And considering a great deal of the more useful public domain programs are, and have been for as long as I've been using computers, only distributed in binary form, it's not just an abstract theory. The OSD as it stands requires Open Source software to be distributed, at each stage, with source code.
I wasn't trying to be flip, I was trying to be sarcastically funny. This wasn't obvious to me at all, and sounded kind of complicated (but then again I'm not a biologist/geneticist/whatever).
The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded.
You can take a public domain, or Apache, or BSD program, and modify it, and keep the source code to yourself. At that point, the modification you've produced, which is called a "derivative work", is "All Rights Reserved" until you say otherwise. But the original program is still Open Source.
No, you're focusing on the person taking the public domain code and modifying it. I am focusing more on the act of releasing the code into the public domain, precisely because the Open Source Definition from the website analyzes whether a license is Open Source or not. I think the easiest way to analyze it would be to hypothesize an actual written license that mimics public domain. Such a license would not qualify under the definition. Ergo, under the definition, public domain code is not Open Source.
do states what must qualify
I don't see anything in the definition which precludes 3-clause BSD licenses, and as a matter of fact, they are open source. The definition does not preclude PD code either.
Quoted directly: "The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria...[t]he program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge."
This precludes public domain. I can release a binary version of my program into the public domain. Someone can take it, reverse engineer it, modify it, then recompile it and sell it, only in a binary version. At what stage in the process do you think this meshes with source code requirement?
I am familiar with the variant of BSD license OSI touts; it also does not comply with the source code requirement.
Where has reading comprehension gone these days? I was responding to where the GP said, and I quote, "Every resource of the nation-state becomes a valid target." Whether countries will attack civilians is not the issue; the issue is what becomes a VALID target. It's a moral issue, and that morality is enshrined in the Convention. Whether countries break it or not isn't particularly relevant to this point.
The Open Source Definition
Introduction
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Directly pasted from the OSI website. Please explain how someone releasing software into the public domain is compelled to include source code, or publicize the means of obtaining the source code.
I, by the way, am a working expert witness. That means in court.
This is allowed by many Open Source licenses, for example Apache and BSD. An Open Source license can require return of source code, but it's not required that it do so to be accepted as Open Source. Or Free Software, for that matter
Hey, I'm going by the definition of the OSI (not that I think the organization has any right to speak for the OSS community).
While a judge might be interested in the public domain issue, IMO it's moot. You have to consider how such a case would get to a judge, and what the judge would then have to decide.
You would be surprised how many ways it's possible to get a case before a judge.
Mark Radcliffe is enamored of fictions that only matter to legal theorists.
Like....judges?
For example, he tries to make a point that public domain software isn't Open Source
You and the rest of the OSI crowd created a definition of Open Source that precludes public domain software from being Open Source; I can take a public domain software, modify it, compile it, and sell it without the source code.
He then argues that software could be in the public domain, but contractually restricted. A lawyer might still see such a thing as "public domain" but any non-attorney of reasonable intelligence would see it as contractually restricted and ignore the rest.
OSI was founded by people who were unhappy with the Free Software Foundation and the GPL. OSI Founder Eric S. Raymond recently said that the GPL is no longer needed [osnews.com].
There's a very good reason few people listen to that fruitcake anymore.
No, it doesn't. Caldera used the term to advertise a release of DOS in 1997, before Bruce even claims to have invented the phrase.
Definitely. When I pointed that out to Perens on slashdot, he insisted it was just one occurrence and didn't count.
What also irritates me about the OSI is they have this image in their heads about immensely important they are to the open source community, despite the fact that the organization came very late into the game; years after most of the more important open source projects were already on the ground running. If OSI had not been formed I have little doubt that the computer world would look pretty much the same as it does now.
Glad to hear they're putting all those donations to use. There's no telling the impact on civil liberties that having access to a really large prime number will have...
In a less sarcastic, slightly more useful vein, patenting something is expensive but not prohibitively so. A few thousand dollars, unless you get unlucky and the patent office starts getting all resistant. Though, because of the state of the legal profession today you might be able to find a patent lawyer cheap.
This is slashdot, all patents are evil, and the most profitable thing for you to do would be to to let everyone know the details, and let them all build whatever it is you invented. That way, it gets worked on by different people in an open source way and you get a better ultimate product. And somehow you profit from that. I'm still trying to figure out that last part, but if a million slashdotters say something it can't be wrong.
Good point, but profitable isn't necessarily synonymous with large. I would count Microsoft, for example, a much more profitable company historically than say, Enron...
This may be an extreme case, but most people don't ever bother thinking to check to see whether a train can get them to their destination reasonably. A lot of people use the argument that as a less population-dense country, the US can't support rail. Well, population density arguments apply to *every* mode of public transportation, including air. Less population dense areas means fewer airports and fewer flights.
I check, and without fail the train tends to far more expensive than a flight. Or, takes 12 times (literally) as long.
Slashdot Mirror
The only remaining question once a program is public domain is "Is the source code available?" If it is, the program is really Open Source.
Well that's adding a qualification now; public domain can be open source is not the same as public domain IS open source. And considering a great deal of the more useful public domain programs are, and have been for as long as I've been using computers, only distributed in binary form, it's not just an abstract theory. The OSD as it stands requires Open Source software to be distributed, at each stage, with source code.
I wasn't trying to be flip, I was trying to be sarcastically funny. This wasn't obvious to me at all, and sounded kind of complicated (but then again I'm not a biologist/geneticist/whatever).
The first observation is that genes are actually stored in two locations. The first location acts as a cache where all active genes are kept. The second location is a denser storage area where inactive genes are kept. The second observation is that all genes are stored as fractal globules, which allows genes that are used together to be adjacent to each other when folded, even though they may be far apart when unfolded.
Well OBVIOUSLY.
Ignore that weird sentence fragment at the end, please, not sure where it came from.
You can take a public domain, or Apache, or BSD program, and modify it, and keep the source code to yourself. At that point, the modification you've produced, which is called a "derivative work", is "All Rights Reserved" until you say otherwise. But the original program is still Open Source.
No, you're focusing on the person taking the public domain code and modifying it. I am focusing more on the act of releasing the code into the public domain, precisely because the Open Source Definition from the website analyzes whether a license is Open Source or not. I think the easiest way to analyze it would be to hypothesize an actual written license that mimics public domain. Such a license would not qualify under the definition. Ergo, under the definition, public domain code is not Open Source. do states what must qualify
I don't see anything in the definition which precludes 3-clause BSD licenses, and as a matter of fact, they are open source. The definition does not preclude PD code either.
Quoted directly: "The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria...[t]he program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge."
This precludes public domain. I can release a binary version of my program into the public domain. Someone can take it, reverse engineer it, modify it, then recompile it and sell it, only in a binary version. At what stage in the process do you think this meshes with source code requirement?
I am familiar with the variant of BSD license OSI touts; it also does not comply with the source code requirement.
Where has reading comprehension gone these days? I was responding to where the GP said, and I quote, "Every resource of the nation-state becomes a valid target." Whether countries will attack civilians is not the issue; the issue is what becomes a VALID target. It's a moral issue, and that morality is enshrined in the Convention. Whether countries break it or not isn't particularly relevant to this point.
Directly pasted from the OSI website. Please explain how someone releasing software into the public domain is compelled to include source code, or publicize the means of obtaining the source code.
I, by the way, am a working expert witness. That means in court.
That is a complete nonsequitur.
Saatchi & Saatchi? They'll probably get more business because the dipshit MBAs will think that "there's no such thing as bad publicity."
The people in advertising firms make MBAs look well-grounded in reality by comparison.
This is allowed by many Open Source licenses, for example Apache and BSD. An Open Source license can require return of source code, but it's not required that it do so to be accepted as Open Source. Or Free Software, for that matter
Hey, I'm going by the definition of the OSI (not that I think the organization has any right to speak for the OSS community).
While a judge might be interested in the public domain issue, IMO it's moot. You have to consider how such a case would get to a judge, and what the judge would then have to decide.
You would be surprised how many ways it's possible to get a case before a judge.
Every resource of the nation-state becomes a valid target.
That's ridiculous; go read the Geneva Convention.
Well played, sir.
Mark Radcliffe is enamored of fictions that only matter to legal theorists.
Like....judges?
For example, he tries to make a point that public domain software isn't Open Source
You and the rest of the OSI crowd created a definition of Open Source that precludes public domain software from being Open Source; I can take a public domain software, modify it, compile it, and sell it without the source code.
He then argues that software could be in the public domain, but contractually restricted. A lawyer might still see such a thing as "public domain" but any non-attorney of reasonable intelligence would see it as contractually restricted and ignore the rest.
Do you have a link to his argument?
OSI was founded by people who were unhappy with the Free Software Foundation and the GPL. OSI Founder Eric S. Raymond recently said that the GPL is no longer needed [osnews.com].
There's a very good reason few people listen to that fruitcake anymore.
No, it doesn't. Caldera used the term to advertise a release of DOS in 1997, before Bruce even claims to have invented the phrase.
Definitely. When I pointed that out to Perens on slashdot, he insisted it was just one occurrence and didn't count.
What also irritates me about the OSI is they have this image in their heads about immensely important they are to the open source community, despite the fact that the organization came very late into the game; years after most of the more important open source projects were already on the ground running. If OSI had not been formed I have little doubt that the computer world would look pretty much the same as it does now.
Lately there seems to be a vocal group out to generate hate towards him
Lately? There has been a vocal group out to do that for a decade or more.
What would either the OSI
Wow, those guys are still around? Are they still pretending they invented open source?
Ok, that's better.
Unless you have the resources to hire a cadre of lawyers, you won't even be able to defend infringements.
If you have a really strong case, there are a few firms who will take it on contingency.
Glad to hear they're putting all those donations to use. There's no telling the impact on civil liberties that having access to a really large prime number will have...
In a less sarcastic, slightly more useful vein, patenting something is expensive but not prohibitively so. A few thousand dollars, unless you get unlucky and the patent office starts getting all resistant. Though, because of the state of the legal profession today you might be able to find a patent lawyer cheap.
This is slashdot, all patents are evil, and the most profitable thing for you to do would be to to let everyone know the details, and let them all build whatever it is you invented. That way, it gets worked on by different people in an open source way and you get a better ultimate product. And somehow you profit from that. I'm still trying to figure out that last part, but if a million slashdotters say something it can't be wrong.
It used to be that trains in Britain mostly worked, but the food aboard them was ghastly.
Well, they served British food after all...
Good point, but profitable isn't necessarily synonymous with large. I would count Microsoft, for example, a much more profitable company historically than say, Enron...
This may be an extreme case, but most people don't ever bother thinking to check to see whether a train can get them to their destination reasonably. A lot of people use the argument that as a less population-dense country, the US can't support rail. Well, population density arguments apply to *every* mode of public transportation, including air. Less population dense areas means fewer airports and fewer flights.
I check, and without fail the train tends to far more expensive than a flight. Or, takes 12 times (literally) as long.