I think that you would have a hard time convincing Microsoft that Winamp is part of the operating system:).
Besides there is another license written by the FSF that is specifically targetted at this sort of application. It is the LGPL (for Lesser GPL) and it permits dynamic linking. The beautty is that if anyone makes modifications to your library and distributes them they will still be required to share the source code. This allows you to protect your investment in the library. On the other hand anyone will be free to link to your library from closed source projects (like Winamp).
If you are really interested in getting a handle on this particular issue (and being able to intelligently participate in License War Discussions is worth the price of entry) I would suggest reading the excellent article that Bruce Perens wrote about the Open Source Definition. Especially germane is the section titled "Analysis of Licenses and their Open Source Compliance." You can find it here.
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
You probably already do:). For example Perl is released under a both the Artistic License and the GPL. If you are using Perl then you are already using GPLed software.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL doesn't in any way prohibit how you USE GPLed software. It merely prohibits distributing the software without including source code.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
Actually this question is misleading. If you include GPLed source in your code, or if you even link to GPLed libraries then you need to release the source code to your software if you choose to distribute binaries. Whether you have to release source because you include one line probably depends on what is on that line. If you were to reformat the source to gcc so that it was exactly one line long (a really long line), and included that in your program then you would probably have to release your source code (not that anyone would probably want it:). If you "borrowed" the line:
int foo;
then I doubt that the FSF lawyers are going to come after you.
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, you do. In fact you can even change the licensing terms on future incarnations of your software.
The FSF routinely asks that contributions of new GPL software (and contributions of existing GNU software) be accompanied by a document passing copyright ownership to the FSF. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, requires that all contributors keep their copyrights.
In other words this area is covered by normal copyright law. There are some accepted norms for participating in the various GPL communities, but if you are writing your own program then the rules are probably up to you.
Of course, if you only have five users, then what in the heck do you need Oracle for? Honestly, you would probably be better of with Access if you have an application with five users.
PostgreSQL has many of the cool features of Oracle, and combined with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution (on which it is packaged expertly, thanks Oliver) and you have a very capable system which will set you back the price of a couple of CD's. Plus you get source code.
Now, there certainly are cases where it makes sense to spend the money for a genuine Oracle database. However, you only need an aircraft carrier if you plan on landing aircraft on the ocean. If you are out fishing for trout (and five users is definitely in the trout range) you will probably find yourself better served by a much smaller craft.
That's what I get for posting without reading the article first. Bruce Momjian is quoted extensively throughout the article. Since I am not paranoid enough to assume that they have kidnapped Bruce and are using torture to get him to cooperate I have to assume that the PostgreSQL team knows about and accepts the "intrusion" of the Great Bridge folks:).
The end result is the same however. There will be even more development of PostgreSQL, and that is good for everyone.
Except, of course, those people who make a living writing closed source commercial databases. Oh well, you can't please everyone.
Actually Sendmail is BSD code, as is Apache, as is (obviously FreeBSD). All of these have commercial arms of some sort. They also have managed to stay in charge of development despite the fact that their projects could be forked (and could even be forked under a GPL style license) if they got lax in updating.
There is no question that the GPL ensures a certain amount of safety to the consumer, but it is certainly possible to have truly open BSD projects. BSD licenses are probably a little more reassuring for investors as well, because they maintain the option of making proprietary extensions. BSD licenses have their own set of problems (for example, they can't accept GPL or LGPL code), but it's nothing that a diligent Free Software advocate can't handle. Stick with the freely available software and you'll be fine.
Besides, if the project does get off track you can always take the last BSD licensed version and fork the code. You can even release your extensions under the GPL and create was is essentially a GPL version of the software.
Note: don't try this with the current PostgreSQL team, however. GPL software will not make it into PostgreSQL (although it might make it into contrib).
The PostgreSQL team has come a long way. They inherited a codebase with known bugs and some fairly serious failures. They have worked hard and have turned the quirky Postgres of yesterday into a powerful and dependable tool. Anyone who has used past versions of Postgres will tell you that the latest versions are a completely different beast.
PostgreSQL 6.5 has been out for nearly a year, and the 7.0 release will be out any day. In fact, I am currently running one of the release candidates in production because of the added performance. PostgreSQL has a full set of reqression tests, a rich set of features, a dedicated development team, and an extremely helpful mailing list.
What PostgreSQL doesn't have, however, is a marketing department that is going to feed you pap. The developers are perfectly willing to tell you which parts of the database are in a state of flux. Historically the list of features that were less than stellar was fairly long, but that is no longer the case. The flip side of the PostgreSQL team's honesty is that, when they tell you that a feature is ready for prime time, you can bet that it is indeed ready to be put into production. How often have you put commercial software to the test only to find that some of the new features are lacking? With PostgreSQL there is no guessing which parts are ready to go.
Clearly the PostgreSQL database isn't right for everyone. But it's no slouch either. And you only As I mentioned before I am currently using it in production and am quite happy with it. I have several tables with millions of rows in them and performance has been more than acceptable. I have been very impressed.
The PostgreSQL mailing lists are full of developers that have migrated from MySQL. MySQL is great for 90% of database tasks, and it has the advantage of being very fast at straight selects, but if you need ACID features then MySQL isn't going to get you there. PostgreSQL will, however, and it also throws in a raft of useful features like triggers stored procedures (in 4 different languages including Perl and Tcl), views, etc. PostgreSQL's support of subselects could very well improve your application's performance.
Not too mention the fact that PostgreSQL is truly Open Source (BSD style license) while the current version of MySQL is clearly not. That is why you get announcements like this for PostgreSQL and not for MySQL.
I am a bit skeptical about this particular announcement myself (since I hadn't heard anything to this effect on the PostgreSQL mailing lists), but whether this particular venture pans out or not it will almost certainly mean that some more PostgreSQL code will be generated.
field=> \h alter table Command: ALTER TABLE Description: Modifies table properties Syntax: ALTER TABLE table [ * ] ADD [ COLUMN ] column type ALTER TABLE table [ * ] ALTER [ COLUMN ] column { SET DEFAULT value | DROP DEFAULT } ALTER TABLE table [ * ] RENAME [ COLUMN ] column TO newcolumn ALTER TABLE table RENAME TO newtable
Seriously, anyone who is basing their PostgreSQL experience on anything older than 6.5.3 needs to run, not walk, to their nearest ftp client and download the newest 7.0 release candidate.
PostgreSQL flat rocks, and it gets better every day. It may not beat MySQL for raw speed on simple selects, but it has sped up significantly in the latest releases, and it has a whole raft of features that MySQL will probably _never_ have.
Plus, PostgreSQL is released under a BSD style license. To those of us who value libertad that's quite valuable.
Consumers are already being taken to the cleaners. Part of the reason that Open Source software has done so well is that you would be hard pressed to find software of any kind that is as well done as Apache, Bind, Sendmail (flexibility wise, anyway), Perl, Python, Linux, etc. Honestly, what commercial software would you stack up against this list in terms of sheer value. There is a whole raft of Open Source software that is a deal at any price, much less free.
Besides, there already are thousands of software mechanic shops. How many small software houses are there that are building some vertical application. The company I work for recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to a group of consultants and we didn't even receive one single line of code in return.
Open Source software is simply a way of making sure that the consumer has a way of fixing the software that they use. If they buy a lemon from a disreputable software house they can still go to someone else, with a better reputation hopefully, to get it fixed.
Software consumers know when software works in much the same way that I know that my mechanic actually fixed my car. It's quite simple, if the software (or the car) gets you where you are going, then your mechanic did a good job.
Besides, everyone knows that the easiest way to stay clear of disreputable mechanics is to simply seek a second opinion. Mechanics are readily available and will happily bid out prices for fixing your car. If one mechanics prices are way out of line, then you probably won't hire him. Software could easily work the same way if you owned the source code to your applications. If you didn't like the work your programmers were doing you simply get a second opinion.
While our present day automotive mechanic situation isn't perfect it is a lot better than it would be if only the manufacturer could work on your car.
Before you start pointing out the contradictions in ESR's position perhaps you should take the time to actually read his position. You can choose to agree or disagree with ESR, but he is quite consistent.
I have included a quote from round two of the discussion that shows that ESR is firmly against the DOJ anti-trust action.
The open-source community famously despises Microsoft, and for good reason; none of Judge Penfield Jackson's findings of fact came as any surprise to us. Indeed, we think the government and trade press still seriously underestimate the pernicious effects of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy. There is no doubt among us that Microsoft's behavior has been destructive, sleazy, and frequently unethical by any reasonable standard.
Nevertheless, it is notable that not a single major influence leader of the open-source community has stepped forward to endorse the DOJ [Department of Justice] antitrust action. Those like myself who have spoken out have tended to be vocally critical of its underlying law and premises. There are good reasons for this; even when open-source developers are not explicitly among Nathan Newman's "techno-libertarians," we share a gut-level sense, born of experience, that handing governments more power is more likely in the long term to injure the Internet (and all its potentials for human freedom and property) than to help it grow.
The difference, of course, is that Microsoft is trying to gain marketshare for their device. As it currently stands Microsoft has been running the Windows CE flag out, at a continual loss, for quite some time and the Palm OS guys are eating them for breakfast. As things now stand Palm OS is going to be the de-facto handheld OS in much the same way that Windows is the de-facto desktop OS.
If you think that the OS running on your PDA isn't a big deal then you clearly haven't ever synched your schedule with your wife's via Infared (sick, I know). Right now getting a Palm OS device is clearly the "safe" choice. There are plenty of applications, there are plenty of happy and knowledgeable users that can help you out, and it is much easier to share PDA information with other Palm OS users.
While it certainly is true that most of these PDAs will get synched with Windows desktops, it is also true that the Palm OS devices will also synch with Windows devices. In fact, one of the reasons that the Palm has become so popular was because it was generally easier to get your Palm Pilot to connect to your PC than your WinCE device. I know, I have had to support both. Microsoft has no advantage in this area (other than the fact that they can change the APIs on the desktop).
In Microsoft's current position they desperately need to include the greatest number of users possible. Ignoring entire sectors of the computer populace (especially sectors with as many PDAs as the Linux community) is a sure fire way to lose customers. After all, their competition's PDA will synch up with Linux without any problem. In the desktop arena Microsoft can afford to ignore us because they already have the majority, but in the PDA arena Microsoft is gearing up to be an "also ran."
Of course, Microsoft isn't planning on supporting Linux, nor are they planning (probably) on releasing the information required to allow Linux users to support Windows CE devices. The reason for this is simple. In the short run the desktop is a much more important (and lucrative) market, and Microsoft will do everything in their power to make sure that all of their software ties users to Windows.
When you're behind in the standards race it becomes important to use every means possible to make up lost ground. Microsoft may have added features to their product, but they certainly haven't added any freedom. They want to maintain control of Windows CE in the same manner that they maintained control of DOS. Well, the industry has already seen how that worked out. This is why almost all of the development in the handheld arena has been done for the Palm OS. The Palm folks have gone out of their way to make it possible for third party developers to hack the Palm. If it wasn't for Microsoft's billions propping WinCE up it would already be dead. No one else is writing applications for their OS, and hardly anyone uses WinCE devices. Microsoft isn't willing to pull out the stops, and so the makers of the Palm devices (who are willing) are going to eat them for lunch, plain and simple.
How could you not have a poor opinion of Be Inc. after an episode like this. Apparently they have included software in their distribution without reading the licensing agreement! This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert clicked on the Accept Agreement button on a piece of software and found out that he had agreed to be Bill Gates's towel boy.
On the other hand, at least they have taken the necessary steps to clear up the problem rapidly. In my book that speaks highly of Be Inc. We all make mistakes, fortunately Bruce isn't out to crucify Be Inc. for theirs.
On the other hand, if some company violated the copyrights on someone else's non-GPLed software they would find themselves in court. Why exactly should GPL software be any different?
Honestly, I don't see how getting a lot of angry email from Linux fanatics is too much of a price to pay for the theft of copyright material. This sort of screw-up would have cost Be Inc. big money if they had "borrowed" someone's proprietary code.
Bruce is certainly being much more calm about it than he needs to be. After all, it's not like Be Inc. is doing him a favor using his software. It's Bruce that has done all of the work, and now Be is doing precisely what Bruce was trying to prevent when he released the software under the GPL.
Linux fanatics are a picnic compared to intellectual property lawyers. Be should count themselves fortunate that Bruce is being as reasonable as he is. If he were an unscrupulous sort he could probably do Be Inc. some serious harm.
By reading this comment (or clicking this box, or opening this package, etc) you give me the right to kill you. Now, when I'm holding the smoking gun, I'll have a hard time staying out of jail.
You bring up a valid point. The MS EULA, as it currently stands, is probably not legal. However, the fact that Microsoft would print such a EULA, legal or no, should give some sort of idea as to how much they are likely to support you. After all, despite the fact that Microsoft's EULA is probably not legal, and despite the fact that Microsoft installations have been known to melt down and lose companies millions of dollars, there has never been a case that has even tried the legality of the EULA.
Why is that, you ask? It's quite simple. If you did sue Microsoft the only thing that you could be sure of is that you would be in court for the rest of your natural life with the most capitalized company on the planet. Microsoft has the resources to completely bury all but the best-funded of companies. You could spend millions of dollars, waste hundreds of man-hours and then lose the case in the end. The only way that a court case like this would be worth your company's time and money would be if they happened to be able to prove, in a court of law, that they lost even more money than the court battle would cost due to Microsoft's negligence.
Dr. Kevorkian's case, on the other hand, was a criminal case. That means several very important things. First of all it meant that the US Government (possibly the only group in the world better funded than Microsoft) would be paying the lawyer fees. In other words the money in the equation was on the other side. If Dr. Kevorkian would have had unlimited funds the case might well have ended up like the O.J. Simpson trial. First rate lawyers clearly can make a big difference (Dr. Kevorkian actually waived his right to a lawyer and defended himself, Yikes!).
The second major difference between Dr. Kevorkian's trial and the trial that you would get were you to take Microsoft to court regarding the EULA is that there is very little legal precedence for responding to issues of software failure. Dr. Kevorkian had a video of him killing one of his patients. He even admitted that this was the case. Given that evidence the state laws were quite clear. As a plaintiff against Microsoft you would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Microsoft knowingly created a defective software product, and that the defective software product was responsible for your lost income.
Good Luck trying to prove that against Microsoft's lawyers.
Not to mention that with UCITA becoming law in many states across the nation soon the MS EULA might become completely legal. The fact that Microsoft is lobbying hard to make the UCITA law in all 50 states should give you an idea as to how much Microsoft is concerned about its customers...
I pride myself on being an optimistic pragmatist. And we need to make sure that the regulations that will exist (unless politicians stop accepting corporate and holding fundraisers for executives) need to be shaped so that they don't stifle the small start-ups.
Optimism and pragmatism are both good qualities, and I share them. That is why I refuse to give ground on some of the more imporant Internet issues until it is clear that the issue has been lost. For example, I do not think that it is entirely inevitable that states and cities will be allowed to charge sales tax on purchases made from companies without some sort of physical presence in their jurisdiction. I also don't think that it is entirely inevitable that the federal government be able to enact some sort of federal sales tax on e-commerce.
Most importantly IMHO we should not allow the government to assume e-commerce is a whole new ball o' wax. It's still all about buying and selling. The fact that the buyer and seller need not be in the same physical location is the only thing that differentiates it from the same type of stuff that we have been doing for centuries. There are already tax laws for transactions that are carried out over state boundaries, why not simply use those? Thanks for the discussion.
These kind of regulations certainly would make it easier for startups, and I can see why you would hope that the Internet regulations lean that way. On the other hand there are plenty of people that want to make it as hard for new startups as possible:). The big businesses that you are invested in, and who you are sure will force regulation and taxes onto the Internet are among the people that do not want to make it easier for pesky new startups to pollute the waters.
Also remember that there are plenty of companies that like the fact that e-commerce is presently un-taxed, and there are also precedents for disallowing states to tax sales from businesses that don't have a presence in their state (catalogs). I would also imagine that a federal sales tax would be met with pretty heavy resistance from all sorts of people.
This does not necessarily mean that I don't believe that e-commerce will eventually be taxed, but there are all sorts of thorny issues. Part of the reason that legislators are waiting to decide these types of issues is that they would like to see the direction that e-commerce is going so that when the do start writing new tax laws they have some idea of how to do it intelligently.
What exactly leads you to this analysis? I think that it is ludicrous to think that any kind of legislation that specifically targets big business for higher taxes is likely to fly. Politics aside, why should successful businesses have to pay more taxes than less successful businesses?
Not too mention the fact that big business can afford lobbyists, fancy tax lawyers, etc., and small businesses can not.
The fact that the Oscars are _interesting_ doesn't necessarily mean that they are a useful tool for picking good movies. This is especially true when the judges (for some reason that only an "elite insider" would fathom) vote differently than the people buying tickets at the box office.
I suppose that I personally just don't like movies that were written for Hollywood "insider elites."
Personally, I have a problem with any rating system in which a small group of industry "experts" tells me what is good or bad, especially when it comes to something as subjective as "Best Motion Picture." I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome (even if my voice gets mixed in with the unwashed masses).
Which is why I am glad that the metric that really counts is box office sales. When push comes to shove a movie has to make money to be sucessful. Make too many critically-aclaimed flops and even the PHBs in the movie industry will balk at making your next flick.
Now I suppose I have some washing up to do, and after that maybe some sit-ups and some side-bends are in order. After all, I wouldn't want Mr. cultural elite to mistake me for a sheep or a moron. Oh wait I forgot, I don't really care what you think.
You are certainly correct in assuming that Microsoft will act in Microsoft's best interests, but in this case I think that you are seriously mistaken in what their best interests might be.
The fact of the matter is that Windows CE is going no where in a hurry. The Palm OS is creaming it for handhelds, and if it loses any more of the embedded market then it will be the first program in history to actually have negative marketshare. The only people interested in Windows CE are the people that Microsoft is paying to use it.
Needless to say, there isn't much of business model in paying your customers to use your product.
That's the whole point of this article. Microsoft can afford to give away the source code to Windows CE. Heck, they can even license it in such a way that it is basically free to use. What they can't afford is to be a non-entity in what is poised to be the next big thing. Hand-held and embedded devices are poised to become a market that is an order of magnitude bigger than the PC market. Microsoft has to have an OS that contends in this space even if they have to pay people to use it. After all, in the long run they can always recoup their money by selling development tools, or by charging small licensing fees. Licensing fees of less than a dollar a processor could be worth billions if Windows CE ran on every single one of your kitchen appliances, your car, your pager, your cellphone, your toilet, and your pet AIBO.
Microsoft is finally coming to the realization that being the king of the desktop does not mean squat when it comes to PDAs and embedded OSes. They are faced with actual competition in this arena, and they are being handed their head. What's worse is they have very little leverage in this industry. No one cares if Office 2000 runs on their cell phone, and there are plenty of embedded OSes that are either free or ridiculously inexpensive (Linux being one that comes to mind). So Microsoft has to do something, and lowering the price and offering some access to the source code is a fairly obvious move. Their only real alternative is to give up this particular market as a lost cause.
What you can bet that Microsoft won't do is release Windows CE under a license that would allow someone to fork the code base. I completely agree with you there. They are certainly not going to use a license like the GPL or BSDL. They probably won't even use a license as free as the Netscape Public License, but they will instead probably opt for something like Sun's Community Source License (or worse).
Sorry about that. It's been a long time since I paid attention to what's going on in the kernel space, and I am not a kernel hacker by any stretch of the imagination.
The point I was trying to make is that GPL coders can freely borrow code from BSD codebases while the BSD coders can not borrow code from GPL codebases. I happen to know of several cases where the would _really_ like to (some of the file locking bits in Samba spring to mind).
If I implied (even indirectly) that the Linux hackers relied on the BSD codebase to solve sticky problems please forgive me. I stand corrected.
ipfwadm is a good example of what I was trying to demonstrate however. Due to the fact that Linux coders can use BSD codebases in their GPLed works there is nothing stopping them from borrowing ipfwadm until such time as they can come up with something else that they like better.
This is a definite advantage that hackers who don't mind contributing to GPL projects have.
One of the major reasons that hackers use the BSD style licenses (as opposed to the GPL style licenses) is that it allows people to create proprietary versions of the software. If that is part of the original goal of the project then I can see why it would be annoying to have to contend with people adding pieces to the software that are licensed under the GPL.
The Linux kernel is a good example of why BSD advocates have a hard row to hoe. There are huge parts of the Linux kernel that were "borrowed" from one or another of the BSDs, and now find themselves under the GPL. The sticky part is that now that this code is under the GPL it can't be used in BSD style projects without tainting their code (and causing it to fall under the GPL).
In this manner GPL code is far more dangerous to BSD codebases than proprietary code. Proprietary code simply borrows code, GPL code not only borrows code, but it oftentimes borrows Open Source developers as well. Much of the work that is being done by Linux developers can't be used by BSD developers unless they are willing to use the GPL style licenses as well.
I understand why this would be annoying.
However, to many people the politics behind the GPL are very attractive. They aren't concerned about the rights of people who want to make software proprietary, and they want to make sure that their contributions remain open. If the BSD advocates really have a problem with the GPL then they should release their software under a license that didn't allow it to be co-opted by GPL hackers. What you need is the anti-GPL.
In the meantime, you can't hardly blame the GPL advocates for feeling strongly about their politics. You feel strongly about your politics, don't you?
It gets even more exciting when you take into consideration software written under licenses similiar to the BSD style license.
Basically these licenses allow you to change the license that you release derivative software under as long as you give them credit for the software you are borrowing. This not only allows for things like the BSD TCP/IP stack to be used in Windows, but it also allows for GPL hackers to "borrow" BSD code, make a few modifications and release the derivative under the GPL.
For some reason BSD advocates don't mind it when their work becomes proprietary, but they tend to hate it when their work becomes GPLed.
I actually quite liked the license. I think that it is a welcome addition to the growing array of documentation licenses. I can understand why it would be important to some parties (the FSF among them) to have a license that allowed subsequent authors to make changes to the documentation, and yet still allow for commercial sale of the resulting work. Technical documentation of Free Software isn't very useful if it cannot be updated when new features are added to the software. On the other hand, no author wants to have his good name associated with someone else's bad writing.
It would appear to me (IANAL) that the FDL takes care of both of these issues while guaranteeing that it is still possible to actually publish the book. This is also a key concern. The FSF (and RedHat, Caldera, VA Linux, et al) want documentation that they can actually print up as manuals. They probably wouldn't even mind having other organizations "borrow" some of their work as long as they could also use the "improvements" and they could guarantee that any mistakes that might be introduced are accredited to their good name.
The Linux Documentation Project has allowed publishers to publish their materials for years without them receiving any royalties. The FDL will simply codify what has already been happening in this type of project.
On a more personal note, I have a piece of documentation that I have been itching to write for some time. I spend a small portion of my time teaching teenage children to program (in Python most recently). I have been meaning to take some of my experience and turn it into some sort of a manual. Since I am not a professional writer, nor am I the world's most gifted Python hacker it would be beneficial to to be able to accept "patches" from my more talented peers. That way I could do the majority of the grunt work of actually writing the manuscript and people that are interested in using the manuscript along with me could help me make it better than I could by myself. The FDL would assure me that the parts of the manuscript that I wanted to remain inviolate would, I could also guarantee that the front text and back text were legible and visible to anyone perusing the work no matter who published it.
Of course, it is much easier for me to say something like this because it is not very likely that I could get a book published on my own. There is very little chance that a publishing company would be interested in what I have to say. So I have very little to lose under the FDL and quite a bit to gain (user input, help with proofreading and maintaining, reputation, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I think that you would have a hard time convincing Microsoft that Winamp is part of the operating system :).
Besides there is another license written by the FSF that is specifically targetted at this sort of application. It is the LGPL (for Lesser GPL) and it permits dynamic linking. The beautty is that if anyone makes modifications to your library and distributes them they will still be required to share the source code. This allows you to protect your investment in the library. On the other hand anyone will be free to link to your library from closed source projects (like Winamp).
If you are really interested in getting a handle on this particular issue (and being able to intelligently participate in License War Discussions is worth the price of entry) I would suggest reading the excellent article that Bruce Perens wrote about the Open Source Definition. Especially germane is the section titled "Analysis of Licenses and their Open Source Compliance." You can find it here.
Take care
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
You probably already do :). For example Perl is released under a both the Artistic License and the GPL. If you are using Perl then you are already using GPLed software.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL doesn't in any way prohibit how you USE GPLed software. It merely prohibits distributing the software without including source code.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
Actually this question is misleading. If you include GPLed source in your code, or if you even link to GPLed libraries then you need to release the source code to your software if you choose to distribute binaries. Whether you have to release source because you include one line probably depends on what is on that line. If you were to reformat the source to gcc so that it was exactly one line long (a really long line), and included that in your program then you would probably have to release your source code (not that anyone would probably want it :). If you "borrowed" the line:
int foo;
then I doubt that the FSF lawyers are going to come after you.
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, you do. In fact you can even change the licensing terms on future incarnations of your software.
The FSF routinely asks that contributions of new GPL software (and contributions of existing GNU software) be accompanied by a document passing copyright ownership to the FSF. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, requires that all contributors keep their copyrights.
In other words this area is covered by normal copyright law. There are some accepted norms for participating in the various GPL communities, but if you are writing your own program then the rules are probably up to you.
That's why I said probably. I would personally opt for PostgreSQL. It's less expensive than both Access and Oracle, and will scale _well_ past Access.
Of course, if you only have five users, then what in the heck do you need Oracle for? Honestly, you would probably be better of with Access if you have an application with five users.
PostgreSQL has many of the cool features of Oracle, and combined with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution (on which it is packaged expertly, thanks Oliver) and you have a very capable system which will set you back the price of a couple of CD's. Plus you get source code.
Now, there certainly are cases where it makes sense to spend the money for a genuine Oracle database. However, you only need an aircraft carrier if you plan on landing aircraft on the ocean. If you are out fishing for trout (and five users is definitely in the trout range) you will probably find yourself better served by a much smaller craft.
That's what I get for posting without reading the article first. Bruce Momjian is quoted extensively throughout the article. Since I am not paranoid enough to assume that they have kidnapped Bruce and are using torture to get him to cooperate I have to assume that the PostgreSQL team knows about and accepts the "intrusion" of the Great Bridge folks :).
The end result is the same however. There will be even more development of PostgreSQL, and that is good for everyone.
Except, of course, those people who make a living writing closed source commercial databases. Oh well, you can't please everyone.
Actually Sendmail is BSD code, as is Apache, as is (obviously FreeBSD). All of these have commercial arms of some sort. They also have managed to stay in charge of development despite the fact that their projects could be forked (and could even be forked under a GPL style license) if they got lax in updating.
There is no question that the GPL ensures a certain amount of safety to the consumer, but it is certainly possible to have truly open BSD projects. BSD licenses are probably a little more reassuring for investors as well, because they maintain the option of making proprietary extensions. BSD licenses have their own set of problems (for example, they can't accept GPL or LGPL code), but it's nothing that a diligent Free Software advocate can't handle. Stick with the freely available software and you'll be fine.
Besides, if the project does get off track you can always take the last BSD licensed version and fork the code. You can even release your extensions under the GPL and create was is essentially a GPL version of the software.
Note: don't try this with the current PostgreSQL team, however. GPL software will not make it into PostgreSQL (although it might make it into contrib).
The PostgreSQL team has come a long way. They inherited a codebase with known bugs and some fairly serious failures. They have worked hard and have turned the quirky Postgres of yesterday into a powerful and dependable tool. Anyone who has used past versions of Postgres will tell you that the latest versions are a completely different beast.
PostgreSQL 6.5 has been out for nearly a year, and the 7.0 release will be out any day. In fact, I am currently running one of the release candidates in production because of the added performance. PostgreSQL has a full set of reqression tests, a rich set of features, a dedicated development team, and an extremely helpful mailing list.
What PostgreSQL doesn't have, however, is a marketing department that is going to feed you pap. The developers are perfectly willing to tell you which parts of the database are in a state of flux. Historically the list of features that were less than stellar was fairly long, but that is no longer the case. The flip side of the PostgreSQL team's honesty is that, when they tell you that a feature is ready for prime time, you can bet that it is indeed ready to be put into production. How often have you put commercial software to the test only to find that some of the new features are lacking? With PostgreSQL there is no guessing which parts are ready to go.
Clearly the PostgreSQL database isn't right for everyone. But it's no slouch either. And you only As I mentioned before I am currently using it in production and am quite happy with it. I have several tables with millions of rows in them and performance has been more than acceptable. I have been very impressed.
The PostgreSQL mailing lists are full of developers that have migrated from MySQL. MySQL is great for 90% of database tasks, and it has the advantage of being very fast at straight selects, but if you need ACID features then MySQL isn't going to get you there. PostgreSQL will, however, and it also throws in a raft of useful features like triggers stored procedures (in 4 different languages including Perl and Tcl), views, etc. PostgreSQL's support of subselects could very well improve your application's performance.
Not too mention the fact that PostgreSQL is truly Open Source (BSD style license) while the current version of MySQL is clearly not. That is why you get announcements like this for PostgreSQL and not for MySQL.
I am a bit skeptical about this particular announcement myself (since I hadn't heard anything to this effect on the PostgreSQL mailing lists), but whether this particular venture pans out or not it will almost certainly mean that some more PostgreSQL code will be generated.
Heck, it might even make it into 7.1.
field=> \h alter table
Command: ALTER TABLE
Description: Modifies table properties
Syntax:
ALTER TABLE table [ * ]
ADD [ COLUMN ] column type
ALTER TABLE table [ * ]
ALTER [ COLUMN ] column { SET DEFAULT value | DROP DEFAULT }
ALTER TABLE table [ * ]
RENAME [ COLUMN ] column TO newcolumn
ALTER TABLE table
RENAME TO newtable
Seriously, anyone who is basing their PostgreSQL experience on anything older than 6.5.3 needs to run, not walk, to their nearest ftp client and download the newest 7.0 release candidate.
PostgreSQL flat rocks, and it gets better every day. It may not beat MySQL for raw speed on simple selects, but it has sped up significantly in the latest releases, and it has a whole raft of features that MySQL will probably _never_ have.
Plus, PostgreSQL is released under a BSD style license. To those of us who value libertad that's quite valuable.
Consumers are already being taken to the cleaners. Part of the reason that Open Source software has done so well is that you would be hard pressed to find software of any kind that is as well done as Apache, Bind, Sendmail (flexibility wise, anyway), Perl, Python, Linux, etc. Honestly, what commercial software would you stack up against this list in terms of sheer value. There is a whole raft of Open Source software that is a deal at any price, much less free.
Besides, there already are thousands of software mechanic shops. How many small software houses are there that are building some vertical application. The company I work for recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to a group of consultants and we didn't even receive one single line of code in return.
Open Source software is simply a way of making sure that the consumer has a way of fixing the software that they use. If they buy a lemon from a disreputable software house they can still go to someone else, with a better reputation hopefully, to get it fixed.
Software consumers know when software works in much the same way that I know that my mechanic actually fixed my car. It's quite simple, if the software (or the car) gets you where you are going, then your mechanic did a good job.
Besides, everyone knows that the easiest way to stay clear of disreputable mechanics is to simply seek a second opinion. Mechanics are readily available and will happily bid out prices for fixing your car. If one mechanics prices are way out of line, then you probably won't hire him. Software could easily work the same way if you owned the source code to your applications. If you didn't like the work your programmers were doing you simply get a second opinion.
While our present day automotive mechanic situation isn't perfect it is a lot better than it would be if only the manufacturer could work on your car.
Before you start pointing out the contradictions in ESR's position perhaps you should take the time to actually read his position. You can choose to agree or disagree with ESR, but he is quite consistent.
I have included a quote from round two of the discussion that shows that ESR is firmly against the DOJ anti-trust action.
The open-source community famously despises Microsoft, and for good reason; none of Judge Penfield Jackson's findings of fact came as any surprise to us. Indeed, we think the government and trade press still seriously underestimate the pernicious effects of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy. There is no doubt among us that Microsoft's behavior has been destructive, sleazy, and frequently unethical by any reasonable standard.
Nevertheless, it is notable that not a single major influence leader of the open-source community has stepped forward to endorse the DOJ [Department of Justice] antitrust action. Those like myself who have spoken out have tended to be vocally critical of its underlying law and premises. There are good reasons for this; even when open-source developers are not explicitly among Nathan Newman's "techno-libertarians," we share a gut-level sense, born of experience, that handing governments more power is more likely in the long term to injure the Internet (and all its potentials for human freedom and property) than to help it grow.
Writing a web server in sh or Postscript is a very wizardly feats. To be truly sick, however, your project must be written in Intercal.
The difference, of course, is that Microsoft is trying to gain marketshare for their device. As it currently stands Microsoft has been running the Windows CE flag out, at a continual loss, for quite some time and the Palm OS guys are eating them for breakfast. As things now stand Palm OS is going to be the de-facto handheld OS in much the same way that Windows is the de-facto desktop OS.
If you think that the OS running on your PDA isn't a big deal then you clearly haven't ever synched your schedule with your wife's via Infared (sick, I know). Right now getting a Palm OS device is clearly the "safe" choice. There are plenty of applications, there are plenty of happy and knowledgeable users that can help you out, and it is much easier to share PDA information with other Palm OS users.
While it certainly is true that most of these PDAs will get synched with Windows desktops, it is also true that the Palm OS devices will also synch with Windows devices. In fact, one of the reasons that the Palm has become so popular was because it was generally easier to get your Palm Pilot to connect to your PC than your WinCE device. I know, I have had to support both. Microsoft has no advantage in this area (other than the fact that they can change the APIs on the desktop).
In Microsoft's current position they desperately need to include the greatest number of users possible. Ignoring entire sectors of the computer populace (especially sectors with as many PDAs as the Linux community) is a sure fire way to lose customers. After all, their competition's PDA will synch up with Linux without any problem. In the desktop arena Microsoft can afford to ignore us because they already have the majority, but in the PDA arena Microsoft is gearing up to be an "also ran."
Of course, Microsoft isn't planning on supporting Linux, nor are they planning (probably) on releasing the information required to allow Linux users to support Windows CE devices. The reason for this is simple. In the short run the desktop is a much more important (and lucrative) market, and Microsoft will do everything in their power to make sure that all of their software ties users to Windows.
When you're behind in the standards race it becomes important to use every means possible to make up lost ground. Microsoft may have added features to their product, but they certainly haven't added any freedom. They want to maintain control of Windows CE in the same manner that they maintained control of DOS. Well, the industry has already seen how that worked out. This is why almost all of the development in the handheld arena has been done for the Palm OS. The Palm folks have gone out of their way to make it possible for third party developers to hack the Palm. If it wasn't for Microsoft's billions propping WinCE up it would already be dead. No one else is writing applications for their OS, and hardly anyone uses WinCE devices. Microsoft isn't willing to pull out the stops, and so the makers of the Palm devices (who are willing) are going to eat them for lunch, plain and simple.
How could you not have a poor opinion of Be Inc. after an episode like this. Apparently they have included software in their distribution without reading the licensing agreement! This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert clicked on the Accept Agreement button on a piece of software and found out that he had agreed to be Bill Gates's towel boy.
On the other hand, at least they have taken the necessary steps to clear up the problem rapidly. In my book that speaks highly of Be Inc. We all make mistakes, fortunately Bruce isn't out to crucify Be Inc. for theirs.
On the other hand, if some company violated the copyrights on someone else's non-GPLed software they would find themselves in court. Why exactly should GPL software be any different?
Honestly, I don't see how getting a lot of angry email from Linux fanatics is too much of a price to pay for the theft of copyright material. This sort of screw-up would have cost Be Inc. big money if they had "borrowed" someone's proprietary code.
Bruce is certainly being much more calm about it than he needs to be. After all, it's not like Be Inc. is doing him a favor using his software. It's Bruce that has done all of the work, and now Be is doing precisely what Bruce was trying to prevent when he released the software under the GPL.
Linux fanatics are a picnic compared to intellectual property lawyers. Be should count themselves fortunate that Bruce is being as reasonable as he is. If he were an unscrupulous sort he could probably do Be Inc. some serious harm.
By reading this comment (or clicking this box, or opening this package, etc) you give me the right to kill you. Now, when I'm holding the smoking gun, I'll have a hard time staying out of jail.
You bring up a valid point. The MS EULA, as it currently stands, is probably not legal. However, the fact that Microsoft would print such a EULA, legal or no, should give some sort of idea as to how much they are likely to support you. After all, despite the fact that Microsoft's EULA is probably not legal, and despite the fact that Microsoft installations have been known to melt down and lose companies millions of dollars, there has never been a case that has even tried the legality of the EULA.
Why is that, you ask? It's quite simple. If you did sue Microsoft the only thing that you could be sure of is that you would be in court for the rest of your natural life with the most capitalized company on the planet. Microsoft has the resources to completely bury all but the best-funded of companies. You could spend millions of dollars, waste hundreds of man-hours and then lose the case in the end. The only way that a court case like this would be worth your company's time and money would be if they happened to be able to prove, in a court of law, that they lost even more money than the court battle would cost due to Microsoft's negligence.
Dr. Kevorkian's case, on the other hand, was a criminal case. That means several very important things. First of all it meant that the US Government (possibly the only group in the world better funded than Microsoft) would be paying the lawyer fees. In other words the money in the equation was on the other side. If Dr. Kevorkian would have had unlimited funds the case might well have ended up like the O.J. Simpson trial. First rate lawyers clearly can make a big difference (Dr. Kevorkian actually waived his right to a lawyer and defended himself, Yikes!).
The second major difference between Dr. Kevorkian's trial and the trial that you would get were you to take Microsoft to court regarding the EULA is that there is very little legal precedence for responding to issues of software failure. Dr. Kevorkian had a video of him killing one of his patients. He even admitted that this was the case. Given that evidence the state laws were quite clear. As a plaintiff against Microsoft you would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Microsoft knowingly created a defective software product, and that the defective software product was responsible for your lost income.
Good Luck trying to prove that against Microsoft's lawyers.
Not to mention that with UCITA becoming law in many states across the nation soon the MS EULA might become completely legal. The fact that Microsoft is lobbying hard to make the UCITA law in all 50 states should give you an idea as to how much Microsoft is concerned about its customers...
I pride myself on being an optimistic pragmatist. And we need to make sure that the regulations that will exist (unless politicians stop accepting corporate and holding fundraisers for executives) need to be shaped so that they don't stifle the small start-ups.
Optimism and pragmatism are both good qualities, and I share them. That is why I refuse to give ground on some of the more imporant Internet issues until it is clear that the issue has been lost. For example, I do not think that it is entirely inevitable that states and cities will be allowed to charge sales tax on purchases made from companies without some sort of physical presence in their jurisdiction. I also don't think that it is entirely inevitable that the federal government be able to enact some sort of federal sales tax on e-commerce.
Most importantly IMHO we should not allow the government to assume e-commerce is a whole new ball o' wax. It's still all about buying and selling. The fact that the buyer and seller need not be in the same physical location is the only thing that differentiates it from the same type of stuff that we have been doing for centuries. There are already tax laws for transactions that are carried out over state boundaries, why not simply use those? Thanks for the discussion.
These kind of regulations certainly would make it easier for startups, and I can see why you would hope that the Internet regulations lean that way. On the other hand there are plenty of people that want to make it as hard for new startups as possible :). The big businesses that you are invested in, and who you are sure will force regulation and taxes onto the Internet are among the people that do not want to make it easier for pesky new startups to pollute the waters.
Also remember that there are plenty of companies that like the fact that e-commerce is presently un-taxed, and there are also precedents for disallowing states to tax sales from businesses that don't have a presence in their state (catalogs). I would also imagine that a federal sales tax would be met with pretty heavy resistance from all sorts of people.
This does not necessarily mean that I don't believe that e-commerce will eventually be taxed, but there are all sorts of thorny issues. Part of the reason that legislators are waiting to decide these types of issues is that they would like to see the direction that e-commerce is going so that when the do start writing new tax laws they have some idea of how to do it intelligently.
We live in interesting times.
What exactly leads you to this analysis? I think that it is ludicrous to think that any kind of legislation that specifically targets big business for higher taxes is likely to fly. Politics aside, why should successful businesses have to pay more taxes than less successful businesses?
Not too mention the fact that big business can afford lobbyists, fancy tax lawyers, etc., and small businesses can not.
Good point.
The fact that the Oscars are _interesting_ doesn't necessarily mean that they are a useful tool for picking good movies. This is especially true when the judges (for some reason that only an "elite insider" would fathom) vote differently than the people buying tickets at the box office.
I suppose that I personally just don't like movies that were written for Hollywood "insider elites."
Personally, I have a problem with any rating system in which a small group of industry "experts" tells me what is good or bad, especially when it comes to something as subjective as "Best Motion Picture." I would much rather have a system where I have some say in the outcome (even if my voice gets mixed in with the unwashed masses).
Which is why I am glad that the metric that really counts is box office sales. When push comes to shove a movie has to make money to be sucessful. Make too many critically-aclaimed flops and even the PHBs in the movie industry will balk at making your next flick.
Now I suppose I have some washing up to do, and after that maybe some sit-ups and some side-bends are in order. After all, I wouldn't want Mr. cultural elite to mistake me for a sheep or a moron. Oh wait I forgot, I don't really care what you think.
You are certainly correct in assuming that Microsoft will act in Microsoft's best interests, but in this case I think that you are seriously mistaken in what their best interests might be.
The fact of the matter is that Windows CE is going no where in a hurry. The Palm OS is creaming it for handhelds, and if it loses any more of the embedded market then it will be the first program in history to actually have negative marketshare. The only people interested in Windows CE are the people that Microsoft is paying to use it.
Needless to say, there isn't much of business model in paying your customers to use your product.
That's the whole point of this article. Microsoft can afford to give away the source code to Windows CE. Heck, they can even license it in such a way that it is basically free to use. What they can't afford is to be a non-entity in what is poised to be the next big thing. Hand-held and embedded devices are poised to become a market that is an order of magnitude bigger than the PC market. Microsoft has to have an OS that contends in this space even if they have to pay people to use it. After all, in the long run they can always recoup their money by selling development tools, or by charging small licensing fees. Licensing fees of less than a dollar a processor could be worth billions if Windows CE ran on every single one of your kitchen appliances, your car, your pager, your cellphone, your toilet, and your pet AIBO.
Microsoft is finally coming to the realization that being the king of the desktop does not mean squat when it comes to PDAs and embedded OSes. They are faced with actual competition in this arena, and they are being handed their head. What's worse is they have very little leverage in this industry. No one cares if Office 2000 runs on their cell phone, and there are plenty of embedded OSes that are either free or ridiculously inexpensive (Linux being one that comes to mind). So Microsoft has to do something, and lowering the price and offering some access to the source code is a fairly obvious move. Their only real alternative is to give up this particular market as a lost cause.
What you can bet that Microsoft won't do is release Windows CE under a license that would allow someone to fork the code base. I completely agree with you there. They are certainly not going to use a license like the GPL or BSDL. They probably won't even use a license as free as the Netscape Public License, but they will instead probably opt for something like Sun's Community Source License (or worse).
Sorry about that. It's been a long time since I paid attention to what's going on in the kernel space, and I am not a kernel hacker by any stretch of the imagination.
The point I was trying to make is that GPL coders can freely borrow code from BSD codebases while the BSD coders can not borrow code from GPL codebases. I happen to know of several cases where the would _really_ like to (some of the file locking bits in Samba spring to mind).
If I implied (even indirectly) that the Linux hackers relied on the BSD codebase to solve sticky problems please forgive me. I stand corrected.
ipfwadm is a good example of what I was trying to demonstrate however. Due to the fact that Linux coders can use BSD codebases in their GPLed works there is nothing stopping them from borrowing ipfwadm until such time as they can come up with something else that they like better.
This is a definite advantage that hackers who don't mind contributing to GPL projects have.
One of the major reasons that hackers use the BSD style licenses (as opposed to the GPL style licenses) is that it allows people to create proprietary versions of the software. If that is part of the original goal of the project then I can see why it would be annoying to have to contend with people adding pieces to the software that are licensed under the GPL.
The Linux kernel is a good example of why BSD advocates have a hard row to hoe. There are huge parts of the Linux kernel that were "borrowed" from one or another of the BSDs, and now find themselves under the GPL. The sticky part is that now that this code is under the GPL it can't be used in BSD style projects without tainting their code (and causing it to fall under the GPL).
In this manner GPL code is far more dangerous to BSD codebases than proprietary code. Proprietary code simply borrows code, GPL code not only borrows code, but it oftentimes borrows Open Source developers as well. Much of the work that is being done by Linux developers can't be used by BSD developers unless they are willing to use the GPL style licenses as well.
I understand why this would be annoying.
However, to many people the politics behind the GPL are very attractive. They aren't concerned about the rights of people who want to make software proprietary, and they want to make sure that their contributions remain open. If the BSD advocates really have a problem with the GPL then they should release their software under a license that didn't allow it to be co-opted by GPL hackers. What you need is the anti-GPL.
In the meantime, you can't hardly blame the GPL advocates for feeling strongly about their politics. You feel strongly about your politics, don't you?
It gets even more exciting when you take into consideration software written under licenses similiar to the BSD style license.
Basically these licenses allow you to change the license that you release derivative software under as long as you give them credit for the software you are borrowing. This not only allows for things like the BSD TCP/IP stack to be used in Windows, but it also allows for GPL hackers to "borrow" BSD code, make a few modifications and release the derivative under the GPL.
For some reason BSD advocates don't mind it when their work becomes proprietary, but they tend to hate it when their work becomes GPLed.
Go figure.
I actually quite liked the license. I think that it is a welcome addition to the growing array of documentation licenses. I can understand why it would be important to some parties (the FSF among them) to have a license that allowed subsequent authors to make changes to the documentation, and yet still allow for commercial sale of the resulting work. Technical documentation of Free Software isn't very useful if it cannot be updated when new features are added to the software. On the other hand, no author wants to have his good name associated with someone else's bad writing.
It would appear to me (IANAL) that the FDL takes care of both of these issues while guaranteeing that it is still possible to actually publish the book. This is also a key concern. The FSF (and RedHat, Caldera, VA Linux, et al) want documentation that they can actually print up as manuals. They probably wouldn't even mind having other organizations "borrow" some of their work as long as they could also use the "improvements" and they could guarantee that any mistakes that might be introduced are accredited to their good name.
The Linux Documentation Project has allowed publishers to publish their materials for years without them receiving any royalties. The FDL will simply codify what has already been happening in this type of project.
On a more personal note, I have a piece of documentation that I have been itching to write for some time. I spend a small portion of my time teaching teenage children to program (in Python most recently). I have been meaning to take some of my experience and turn it into some sort of a manual. Since I am not a professional writer, nor am I the world's most gifted Python hacker it would be beneficial to to be able to accept "patches" from my more talented peers. That way I could do the majority of the grunt work of actually writing the manuscript and people that are interested in using the manuscript along with me could help me make it better than I could by myself. The FDL would assure me that the parts of the manuscript that I wanted to remain inviolate would, I could also guarantee that the front text and back text were legible and visible to anyone perusing the work no matter who published it.
Of course, it is much easier for me to say something like this because it is not very likely that I could get a book published on my own. There is very little chance that a publishing company would be interested in what I have to say. So I have very little to lose under the FDL and quite a bit to gain (user input, help with proofreading and maintaining, reputation, etc.).