That's one reason why I choose to use the BSD license. Everyone can use my code without having to worry about running afoul of any legal clause.
It's a pain in the butt having to reinvent the wheel just because the only wheels you can find are proprietary and closed. But it's every bit of a pain to reinvent the wheel because the existing wheels are open but legally incompatible with the axles.
Solution? Let the free market of licenses decide. If you take a good look, there are a great many licenses but only a small handful that are used by more than one project. It seems to me that the market is deciding upon (L)GPL, MPL, and BSD/MIT as the major licenses, with a few more minor licenses. If you look at those big three, you'll see that they can be classified as "strong copyleft", "weak copyleft" and "unrestricted". They balance nicely.
If you don't want people having to reinvent the wheel with regards to your own code, then choose one of those "big" three. Choose (L)GPL if you want strong copyleft, MPL if you want weak copyleft, and BSD or MIT if you want unrestricted.
It does seem to be a bit much. OSI's list of approved licences [opensource.org] is now at 26. In a few years, it may take longer to figure out which licence to use than to actually write the code itself!
OSI has recently instituted new rules for submitting new licenses. One new rule is that the submitter must state what existing license it is closest to, and why the license is inappropriate.
Hang out at license-discuss at opensource.org for a while. You'll find that the community does a very good job of weeding out the cruft, and that quite a few new license submitters have been persuaded to use and existing license instead.
But there is one big problem looming, which the OSI is working on right now. And that is someone wanting to use an existing license, but with the trivial change of using their own name instead of the license's name. For example, the Apache License is very appropriate for many projects, except that it specifies the Apache Project and Developers. What is needed is a set of license "templates". An example of a license "template" is the BSD license as presented at www.opensource.org.
p.s. Do you really think that the OSI is approving too many licenses? Have you checked at the FSF to see how many free licenses they have approved? I count FORTY!
Copyrights, including copyright-based licenses like the GPL or BSDL, do not cover API.
In the example (Kerberos), Microsoft took an existing protocol, extended it, then released a new implementation as a proprietary service. A GPL'd Kerberos would not have prevented this.
Microsoft could have reimplemented a GPL Kerberos and still released it, because the GPL does not cover protocols. And the result would have been the same. When you find an Open Source license that prevents "embrace and extend", let me know and we can discuss that particular license. But for right now there are zero Open Source / Free Software licenses that do.
The provisions for the free version are indeed generous: I don't have to pay for it. I am not complaining about the price. What I am complaining about is license that purports to be *free* being used as a legal instrument to take away a right already granted to me by copyright law.
I know of no single closed source or proprietary library that has the cojones to tell me what I can do with my own original non-derivative source code. There may be some, I just don't know of any. The proprietary licenses may dump a shitload of restrictions preventing me from distributing the library, but nothing prevents me from distributing my own work.
Yes, I am restricted from using an application that links to a GPL library, because in order for me to execute that application, I must first have it in my possession. That can be pretty hard to accomplish if the author is forbidden to give me a copy of it.
The FSF has held in the past, and continues to do so, that the act of linking two programs together in the same process space constitutes derivation. From what I can understand of their reasoning, you can distribute your own original source code that intends to link with a GPL library, but you cannot distribute object code from it unless that object code is also under the GPL.
It doesn't matter what copyright law says, it matters what the FSF says, because they're the ones everyone believes. It's small consolation if a court affirms your right to distribute your own 100% original code if you just spent several million dollars defending that right against Borland just because you used the "open" version of Kylix to write a MPL licensed application.
I have no fundamental problems with the LGPL being used for libraries. (I do have some nitpicky issues, but that's only because I work in C++ on embedded systems).
But there are several libraries out there released under the GPL and not the LGPL. The most recent one I discovered was the Kylix runtime libraries. I may not use the "open" version of Kylix to create any BSD, MIT, MPL or AL licensed applications. The sad irony with Kylix is that if I want to distribute my own 100% original BSDL code developed with Kylix, I must purchase the unfree and closed version of Kylix, because the free and open version won't let me.
The idea of "free" with regards to software licensing is to eliminate as many restrictions as possible. Since the BSD license has far, far fewer restrictions than the GPL, the BSDL is freer.
Standard response: "it's not free if someone can take it and make it unfree".
The trouble with that standard response is that information has a special property in that you can reproduce it with absolutely no change to the original. Thus, no one can "take" the orignal. No matter how hard they try, they end up with a mere copy. Nothing anyone can do can damage the original or in any way reduce the freedom of the users of the original. If you have made a copy of my software, you copy does not belong to me. It is yours. For me to tell you what you can do with your own property is unfree in the extreme.
If someone uses a copy of my software, then licenses it in an unfree manner, it is not *my* software that is unfree. It is theirs. They cannot take any rights or permissions away from my users. They cannot alter one byte on the software or licenses in my users' possession.
Could someone out there, somewhere, end up using a derivative of my software that is not free? Of course! But that's absolutely NONE of my business. I will have no part in telling someone what they can or cannot do with software I claim to be free.
No one is forced to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL software.
No, you don't have to agree. But you still won't have permission to execute a non-GPL application that dynamically links to a GPL library. Doing so is not in violation of any copyright laws, but it is in violation of the GPL.
This is the one area of the GPL that regulates the usage of the software. The only reason you can run non-GPL applications under Linux, is that Linus had the foresight to include an exception to the GPL in the kernel license.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote.
Except that it is not true. If you are talking about an application, you would be correct. But if you are talking about a library, then you are in error. If the library is released under the GPL, then you may not *use* that library except to link to other GPLd code. This is why the LGPL is much, much better for libraries.
Go use the GPL for any application you wish, and I won't have any problems with it. But when it comes to libraries then use the LGPL, or dual GPL/QPL, or dual MPL/GPL, or BSD, or at the very minimum use the GPL with an linking exception.
Good points. So much cruft was floating through the air last November and December that it's highly probable that I lost count of recounts, which were finished, etc.
I might dispute a couple of your points, but that would be taking this even further off topic.
The main thing, coming back to RMS's use of the word "unelected", was that Bush was elected by those authorized to elect him, in a legal manner. No, he was not elected by the popular vote, but the popular vote is not what determines the winner.
The problem is that the GPL lets me use the software without hindrance. A patent does not.
I can use ANY other Linux to run my programs on. But if RTLinux only lets me run a particular class of software (those covered by the GPL), then I could not run any X11 based software, no Python software, and no Apache. I could run KDE, but I coudln't run KWin or Kicker.
The president is elected by the electoral college. The members of the electoral college are selected by the individual states. The states have the right to determine how these electors will be chosen.
The Supreme Court decision was to determine which of TWO different methods would be used by Florida to determine its electors. The dispute was between two non Floridans regarding Florida law. The Supreme Court decided that the state rules in place at the time of the election would take precedence over rules proposed subsequent to the election.
The Constitution does NOT provide for the congress being a mediator in disputes. That's not the job of a legislative body, but for a court. Since the dispute was between two people from different states with regards to the laws of a third, the Constitution makes it clear that the Supreme Court was the proper venue.
Should there have been a recount? Of course! And there were! Five recounts completed. Every one of which had Bush as the winner. The only recount that was not finished was the statewide recount, which was started after the cutoff date for recounts as specified in Florida law.
In every instance the rule of law was followed to the letter. You may disagree with those laws (and I do to some small extent), but they were the laws in place at the time the election.
Yup, fewer than half. 49.99% versus 50.01%. Big whooptidoo!
More people actually cast a vote for Bush in 2000 than cast a vote for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush had a higher percentage of the total vote in 2000 than Clinton did in 1992 and 1996. Yet the Clinton victory was called a "mandate". Go figure.
Yup. But the popular vote isn't what elects presidents. Go read your constitution. Then go read your history books to see that this wasn't the first time. (hint: research the naming of the California town "Wilsonia").
Too many people here just don't understand bonehead economics.
From what I can see, the free market in relation to Microsoft is working very well. 95% of the consumers want to use Windows, and Windows has 95% of the market. Gee! Of the people that I know that want to run Linux, 100% of them are. Of the people that I know that want to run Mac, 100% of them are. Gee!
To be fair, I do know a number of people who use Windows who *don't* want to use Windows. I introduced them to Linux, and they went right back to Windows. Why? Because they discovered to their embarrassment, that even though they don't want to use Windows, they DO want to use something that is identical to Windows.
As long as Microsoft makes the only product that looks, acts and feels like Windows, and the public only wants to use systems that look, act and feel like Windows, then Microsoft will have a monopoly.
Consider this RMS quote, if you dare: "The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference."
Damn you! Don't mention Macs! Get with the program, why don't you?
You cannot buy a computer without Windows preinstalled. So don't mention Macs. And even if you could build your own computer without Windows, you still can't build a laptop. So don't mention Macs. All the software on the store shelves only runs on Windows. So don't mention Mac. KDE and GNOME are better than the Windows UI. So don't mention Mac.
The John Birch society views every event through the filter of "it's all a communist/insider conspiracy". You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".
Collaboration is great. Everyone uses it, even closed source development shops. But it can be overdone.
Pulic collaboration is a tricky beast. You CANNOT let just anyone commit into your code base. Someone you trust must review that code first. And if no one has time to review it, the code won't get in. This only makes sense. An Open Source software project is not a place where everyone wandering by is free to leave their mark on the fire hydrant.
The question to ask is "who gets commit privileges?" The answer is those you trust, and only some of them. Too many contributors and the project loses focus. Limit commit privileges to those who have proven their coding and domain expertise. But this doesn't mean that only a few people can participate.
I rather like the FreeBSD model. There is a small group with full commit privileges, but a much larger group called "contributors". These contributors may have commit privileges in limited areas of the code tree. Anyone else wishing to contribute may do so, at any time, but not directly to the tree. Instead the submit their code and patches to the appropriate contributor. Eventually a submitter will gain trust and be admitted to the ranks of privileged contributors, and maybe eventually to the core committers.
If the libraries for PNG and JPEG were GPL, they would be rare even under Linux.
But I wonder about IVM and the GPL. Will all programs executing under IVM also have to be GPL? If the programs have to link to an IVM module of some kind, they may have to. I guess it all depends upon how it's done.
But how in the world will one be able to write a IVM plugin for Mozilla? Or Galeon and Nautilus, which still use non-GPL Mozilla code? If IVM is truly GPL, and with no exceptions, then it may be limited to Konqueror only.
Granted, but this has absolutely no bearing on the RTLinux controversy, since the availability of modifications IS NOT THE PROBLEM!
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Anyone can twist anything into an excuse for evil. Remember Charley Manson? His excuse was to twist some words from Beatle songs.
We are civilized and educated people. So why don't we act like it?!?! It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that the acts of a few do not define the attitude of the whole.
The fact that it has happened with more than one religion (to name two: Islam and Christianity) indicates that it is not a problem confined to one religion.
Yes, and that includes all religions, even the exremely peaceful ones. Despite the peacefulness of Shintoism, Bhuddism, Hinduism and Taoism, the nations of Japan, China and India cannot claim to be free of twisted and evil men, or to have never initiated war.
And don't forget the atheists. The nation states founded on atheism have been anything but enlightened, to witness the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
There are folks out there trying to justify the forcible deportation of all Arabs and Muslims based on the actions of a handful of madmen. Why stop there? Let's deport everyone. If they don't go to your church, deport them! If they don't look like you, club them with a baseball bat! And if they didn't vote exactly like you did, time to pull out the rope and find a tree!
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a good answer to this scenario?
That's one reason why I choose to use the BSD license. Everyone can use my code without having to worry about running afoul of any legal clause.
It's a pain in the butt having to reinvent the wheel just because the only wheels you can find are proprietary and closed. But it's every bit of a pain to reinvent the wheel because the existing wheels are open but legally incompatible with the axles.
Solution? Let the free market of licenses decide. If you take a good look, there are a great many licenses but only a small handful that are used by more than one project. It seems to me that the market is deciding upon (L)GPL, MPL, and BSD/MIT as the major licenses, with a few more minor licenses. If you look at those big three, you'll see that they can be classified as "strong copyleft", "weak copyleft" and "unrestricted". They balance nicely.
If you don't want people having to reinvent the wheel with regards to your own code, then choose one of those "big" three. Choose (L)GPL if you want strong copyleft, MPL if you want weak copyleft, and BSD or MIT if you want unrestricted.
It does seem to be a bit much. OSI's list of approved licences [opensource.org] is now at 26. In a few years, it may take longer to figure out which licence to use than to actually write the code itself!
OSI has recently instituted new rules for submitting new licenses. One new rule is that the submitter must state what existing license it is closest to, and why the license is inappropriate.
Hang out at license-discuss at opensource.org for a while. You'll find that the community does a very good job of weeding out the cruft, and that quite a few new license submitters have been persuaded to use and existing license instead.
But there is one big problem looming, which the OSI is working on right now. And that is someone wanting to use an existing license, but with the trivial change of using their own name instead of the license's name. For example, the Apache License is very appropriate for many projects, except that it specifies the Apache Project and Developers. What is needed is a set of license "templates". An example of a license "template" is the BSD license as presented at www.opensource.org.
p.s. Do you really think that the OSI is approving too many licenses? Have you checked at the FSF to see how many free licenses they have approved? I count FORTY!
If you are using 100% original code, you don't owe anything to the GPL.
That's what you, I, and common sense believe. But it's not what the FSF believes.se".
Copyrights, including copyright-based licenses like the GPL or BSDL, do not cover API.
In the example (Kerberos), Microsoft took an existing protocol, extended it, then released a new implementation as a proprietary service. A GPL'd Kerberos would not have prevented this.
Microsoft could have reimplemented a GPL Kerberos and still released it, because the GPL does not cover protocols. And the result would have been the same. When you find an Open Source license that prevents "embrace and extend", let me know and we can discuss that particular license. But for right now there are zero Open Source / Free Software licenses that do.
The provisions for the free version are indeed generous: I don't have to pay for it. I am not complaining about the price. What I am complaining about is license that purports to be *free* being used as a legal instrument to take away a right already granted to me by copyright law.
I know of no single closed source or proprietary library that has the cojones to tell me what I can do with my own original non-derivative source code. There may be some, I just don't know of any. The proprietary licenses may dump a shitload of restrictions preventing me from distributing the library, but nothing prevents me from distributing my own work.
Yes, I am restricted from using an application that links to a GPL library, because in order for me to execute that application, I must first have it in my possession. That can be pretty hard to accomplish if the author is forbidden to give me a copy of it.
The FSF has held in the past, and continues to do so, that the act of linking two programs together in the same process space constitutes derivation. From what I can understand of their reasoning, you can distribute your own original source code that intends to link with a GPL library, but you cannot distribute object code from it unless that object code is also under the GPL.
It doesn't matter what copyright law says, it matters what the FSF says, because they're the ones everyone believes. It's small consolation if a court affirms your right to distribute your own 100% original code if you just spent several million dollars defending that right against Borland just because you used the "open" version of Kylix to write a MPL licensed application.
I have no fundamental problems with the LGPL being used for libraries. (I do have some nitpicky issues, but that's only because I work in C++ on embedded systems).
But there are several libraries out there released under the GPL and not the LGPL. The most recent one I discovered was the Kylix runtime libraries. I may not use the "open" version of Kylix to create any BSD, MIT, MPL or AL licensed applications. The sad irony with Kylix is that if I want to distribute my own 100% original BSDL code developed with Kylix, I must purchase the unfree and closed version of Kylix, because the free and open version won't let me.
The idea of "free" with regards to software licensing is to eliminate as many restrictions as possible. Since the BSD license has far, far fewer restrictions than the GPL, the BSDL is freer.
Standard response: "it's not free if someone can take it and make it unfree".
The trouble with that standard response is that information has a special property in that you can reproduce it with absolutely no change to the original. Thus, no one can "take" the orignal. No matter how hard they try, they end up with a mere copy. Nothing anyone can do can damage the original or in any way reduce the freedom of the users of the original. If you have made a copy of my software, you copy does not belong to me. It is yours. For me to tell you what you can do with your own property is unfree in the extreme.
If someone uses a copy of my software, then licenses it in an unfree manner, it is not *my* software that is unfree. It is theirs. They cannot take any rights or permissions away from my users. They cannot alter one byte on the software or licenses in my users' possession.
Could someone out there, somewhere, end up using a derivative of my software that is not free? Of course! But that's absolutely NONE of my business. I will have no part in telling someone what they can or cannot do with software I claim to be free.
No one is forced to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL software.
No, you don't have to agree. But you still won't have permission to execute a non-GPL application that dynamically links to a GPL library. Doing so is not in violation of any copyright laws, but it is in violation of the GPL.
This is the one area of the GPL that regulates the usage of the software. The only reason you can run non-GPL applications under Linux, is that Linus had the foresight to include an exception to the GPL in the kernel license.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote.
Except that it is not true. If you are talking about an application, you would be correct. But if you are talking about a library, then you are in error. If the library is released under the GPL, then you may not *use* that library except to link to other GPLd code. This is why the LGPL is much, much better for libraries.
Go use the GPL for any application you wish, and I won't have any problems with it. But when it comes to libraries then use the LGPL, or dual GPL/QPL, or dual MPL/GPL, or BSD, or at the very minimum use the GPL with an linking exception.
Good points. So much cruft was floating through the air last November and December that it's highly probable that I lost count of recounts, which were finished, etc.
I might dispute a couple of your points, but that would be taking this even further off topic.
The main thing, coming back to RMS's use of the word "unelected", was that Bush was elected by those authorized to elect him, in a legal manner. No, he was not elected by the popular vote, but the popular vote is not what determines the winner.
The problem is that the GPL lets me use the software without hindrance. A patent does not.
I can use ANY other Linux to run my programs on. But if RTLinux only lets me run a particular class of software (those covered by the GPL), then I could not run any X11 based software, no Python software, and no Apache. I could run KDE, but I coudln't run KWin or Kicker.
The president is elected by the electoral college. The members of the electoral college are selected by the individual states. The states have the right to determine how these electors will be chosen.
The Supreme Court decision was to determine which of TWO different methods would be used by Florida to determine its electors. The dispute was between two non Floridans regarding Florida law. The Supreme Court decided that the state rules in place at the time of the election would take precedence over rules proposed subsequent to the election.
The Constitution does NOT provide for the congress being a mediator in disputes. That's not the job of a legislative body, but for a court. Since the dispute was between two people from different states with regards to the laws of a third, the Constitution makes it clear that the Supreme Court was the proper venue.
Should there have been a recount? Of course! And there were! Five recounts completed. Every one of which had Bush as the winner. The only recount that was not finished was the statewide recount, which was started after the cutoff date for recounts as specified in Florida law.
In every instance the rule of law was followed to the letter. You may disagree with those laws (and I do to some small extent), but they were the laws in place at the time the election.
Yup, fewer than half. 49.99% versus 50.01%. Big whooptidoo!
More people actually cast a vote for Bush in 2000 than cast a vote for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Bush had a higher percentage of the total vote in 2000 than Clinton did in 1992 and 1996. Yet the Clinton victory was called a "mandate". Go figure.
Yup. But the popular vote isn't what elects presidents. Go read your constitution. Then go read your history books to see that this wasn't the first time. (hint: research the naming of the California town "Wilsonia").
Too many people here just don't understand bonehead economics.
From what I can see, the free market in relation to Microsoft is working very well. 95% of the consumers want to use Windows, and Windows has 95% of the market. Gee! Of the people that I know that want to run Linux, 100% of them are. Of the people that I know that want to run Mac, 100% of them are. Gee!
To be fair, I do know a number of people who use Windows who *don't* want to use Windows. I introduced them to Linux, and they went right back to Windows. Why? Because they discovered to their embarrassment, that even though they don't want to use Windows, they DO want to use something that is identical to Windows.
As long as Microsoft makes the only product that looks, acts and feels like Windows, and the public only wants to use systems that look, act and feel like Windows, then Microsoft will have a monopoly.
Maybe Bush read the works of RMS?
Consider this RMS quote, if you dare: "The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference."
Damn you! Don't mention Macs! Get with the program, why don't you?
You cannot buy a computer without Windows preinstalled. So don't mention Macs. And even if you could build your own computer without Windows, you still can't build a laptop. So don't mention Macs. All the software on the store shelves only runs on Windows. So don't mention Mac. KDE and GNOME are better than the Windows UI. So don't mention Mac.
You guys would make the John Bircher's proud!
The John Birch society views every event through the filter of "it's all a communist/insider conspiracy". You guys view everthing through a "it's all a Bush/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA conspiracy".
Collaboration is great. Everyone uses it, even closed source development shops. But it can be overdone.
Pulic collaboration is a tricky beast. You CANNOT let just anyone commit into your code base. Someone you trust must review that code first. And if no one has time to review it, the code won't get in. This only makes sense. An Open Source software project is not a place where everyone wandering by is free to leave their mark on the fire hydrant.
The question to ask is "who gets commit privileges?" The answer is those you trust, and only some of them. Too many contributors and the project loses focus. Limit commit privileges to those who have proven their coding and domain expertise. But this doesn't mean that only a few people can participate.
I rather like the FreeBSD model. There is a small group with full commit privileges, but a much larger group called "contributors". These contributors may have commit privileges in limited areas of the code tree. Anyone else wishing to contribute may do so, at any time, but not directly to the tree. Instead the submit their code and patches to the appropriate contributor. Eventually a submitter will gain trust and be admitted to the ranks of privileged contributors, and maybe eventually to the core committers.
If the libraries for PNG and JPEG were GPL, they would be rare even under Linux.
But I wonder about IVM and the GPL. Will all programs executing under IVM also have to be GPL? If the programs have to link to an IVM module of some kind, they may have to. I guess it all depends upon how it's done.
But how in the world will one be able to write a IVM plugin for Mozilla? Or Galeon and Nautilus, which still use non-GPL Mozilla code? If IVM is truly GPL, and with no exceptions, then it may be limited to Konqueror only.
I have a hard time with the common view around here that:
- The government should stay out of our business
- Unless we happen to be Microsoft
Oh come on! That's completely inaccurate! The real sentiments of Slashdot are MUCH closer to the following:
- The government should get involved in everyone's business.
- Unless it's me or my tribe.
Granted, but this has absolutely no bearing on the RTLinux controversy, since the availability of modifications IS NOT THE PROBLEM!
Anyone can twist anything into an excuse for evil. Remember Charley Manson? His excuse was to twist some words from Beatle songs.
We are civilized and educated people. So why don't we act like it?!?! It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that the acts of a few do not define the attitude of the whole.
The fact that it has happened with more than one religion (to name two: Islam and Christianity) indicates that it is not a problem confined to one religion.
Yes, and that includes all religions, even the exremely peaceful ones. Despite the peacefulness of Shintoism, Bhuddism, Hinduism and Taoism, the nations of Japan, China and India cannot claim to be free of twisted and evil men, or to have never initiated war.
And don't forget the atheists. The nation states founded on atheism have been anything but enlightened, to witness the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.
There are folks out there trying to justify the forcible deportation of all Arabs and Muslims based on the actions of a handful of madmen. Why stop there? Let's deport everyone. If they don't go to your church, deport them! If they don't look like you, club them with a baseball bat! And if they didn't vote exactly like you did, time to pull out the rope and find a tree!