If you were to make a listing of the criteria required by a free software license, how would it differ from the Open Source Definition? If you can't answer this question, then you have no reason to claim that Open Source differs from free software.
Because the other's opinions were of the form "You are in error. Here's why". If you're trying to change people's minds, you don't point out their errors to the world at large. Geeks do it all the time. Geeks are bad at human relations. Right? -russ
No, because the purpose of their public statement was to spank us. If it was intended to change our behavior, it would have been sent directly to us. There is no excuse. -russ
What "media hoopla" are you talking about? OSI labelled the APSL Open Source, rightly or wrongly. ESR, our president, spoke for us. Bruce etal had a problem with that -- but went straight to the press with it. RMS had a problem, but went straight to the press (to his credit, he's currently talking to us about it).
OSI does not have a history of ignoring them. That is not why Bruce quit the OSI -- remember, I was *there*. -russ
Come to my talk at the Trenton Computer Festival in Edison, NJ, on May 1, and I'll tell you how. -russ p.s. the trick is to keep something proprietary.
Sun's Jini license is not Open Source. AT&T's DjVu license is not Open Source. IBM's Jikes license is not Open Source. I feel that we are being discriminating, and not accepting just any old source-available-with-some-restrictions license. -russ
Java (when it was Oak) was created for a handheld SPARC. Unfortunately, they couldn't put that much power in a handheld and still hit their price point. It was basically a PalmPilot, but too early. -russ
First, AT&T has not sought Open Source certification, so they cannot use the Open Source mark. Second, AFAICS, the license is clearly not open source.
I appreciate AT&T's efforts to distribute patented code in a way that preserves some value of the patents. However, unless the code is free *enough*, it's not Open Source. -russ
because a registration of a domain name is tied to a single party, and is exclusive, and
because you can buy or sell a domain name, and
because the registrar is in one country,
that a domain name is property in that country.
The confusion is turning a generic name registration into a U.S. name registration. This is a really bad precedent to set. I hope it will be appealed, but fear the victim cannot afford to do so. -russ
I'm an OSI director, and webmaster@qmail.org. I can definitely say that qmail is not Open Source, and will not be until and unless Dan lets people distribute modified binaries. -russ
WYSIWYG ends up sucking
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
Gee, Slashdot ends up having a theme, and CmdrTaco seems to avoid using a GUI.
In any case, when I load your page using NS 4.5 (not exactly a minority web client), I get a blank screen. If your GUI generates HTML that NS 4.5 can't display, then by definition it's broken. -russ
OpenSource / Debian Free
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Right, well, your opinion is exactly why I plan to try to get Apple to drop some parts of the APSL. If they're trying to get the Bazaar effect, and their license impedes that (as I expect it will) then they should change the license. -russ
We'll need just as many programmers
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
No, the programming field will not shrink -- we'll just have better-written and more programs. -russ
Battery life is everything, color is nothing. Twenty years ago, when a friend was eyeing a color display (it cost $1,200 for a 128x64 pixel display) I bought him a Hasbro Lite-Brite. You want portable color, buy some crayons. -russ
Can open source trademark be withdrawn from OSI?
on
OSI APSL Response
·
· Score: 1
It's a trademark, not a copyright. Bruce filed as an SPI officer for the trademark on behalf of SPI, who is listed as the official trademark holder. Some paperwork needs to be submitted in Bruce's name, which he has refused to do unless SPI makes him an officer (at least temporarily), and SPI refuses to do that.
Even better, the OpenSource domain name is registered in the name of SPI at Bruce's home address.
Yes, it's a big fat hairy mess. But to answer your question, the trademark rights probably reside in either Bruce or Eric or some combination of the two, even though the registration is in SPI's name. So yes, Bruce might be able to make a case for owning the trademark.
This is all totally aside from the question whose answer you're assuming -- whether OSI is doing a good job of managing the mark or not. -russ
Open Source trademark is not registered to OSI
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
Sheesh, you're as bad as Perens when it comes to overreacting. The APSL termination terms are *not* identical to the objectionable Jikes terms. -russ
Open Source trademark is not registered to OSI
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
SPI agrees that Eric Raymond is managing the mark, and Eric Raymond has agreed to be bound by decisions made by OSI. Therefore, it's a truthful statement to say that OSI manages the Open Source trademark. -russ
It's butty-ugly. Isn't that enough reason? -russ p.s. if it isn't enough, then what do you call Solaris with the GNU utilities installed? GNU/Solaris? Heck no -- you call it Solaris.
Slashdot Mirror
-russ
Because the other's opinions were of the form "You are in error. Here's why". If you're trying to change people's minds, you don't point out their errors to the world at large. Geeks do it all the time. Geeks are bad at human relations. Right?
-russ
No, because the purpose of their public statement was to spank us. If it was intended to change our behavior, it would have been sent directly to us. There is no excuse.
-russ
You're trying to rewrite history. Eric's "open message" was a response to Bruce's public criticisms.
The "good way" you're looking for would have been to send mail to board@opensource.org. You got a problem with what we do? Tell us.
-russ
What "media hoopla" are you talking about? OSI labelled the APSL Open Source, rightly or wrongly. ESR, our president, spoke for us. Bruce etal had a problem with that -- but went straight to the press with it. RMS had a problem, but went straight to the press (to his credit, he's currently talking to us about it).
OSI does not have a history of ignoring them. That is not why Bruce quit the OSI -- remember, I was *there*.
-russ
If you have a problem with a person or group, and you want to solve it, and they don't have a history of ignoring you, you go to them first.
Bruce et al, and RMS didn't do that. Makes me wonder which of the three predicates fails.
-russ
You must read the Stephenson essay.
-tank builder
Why shouldn't the current mouse coordinates be stored in a global? As long as they're written atomically, who cares?
-russ
Come to my talk at the Trenton Computer Festival in Edison, NJ, on May 1, and I'll tell you how.
-russ
p.s. the trick is to keep something proprietary.
Sun's Jini license is not Open Source. AT&T's DjVu license is not Open Source. IBM's Jikes license is not Open Source. I feel that we are being discriminating, and not accepting just any old source-available-with-some-restrictions license.
-russ
Java (when it was Oak) was created for a handheld SPARC. Unfortunately, they couldn't put that much power in a handheld and still hit their price point. It was basically a PalmPilot, but too early.
-russ
First, AT&T has not sought Open Source certification, so they cannot use the Open Source mark. Second, AFAICS, the license is clearly not open source.
I appreciate AT&T's efforts to distribute patented code in a way that preserves some value of the patents. However, unless the code is free *enough*, it's not Open Source.
-russ
Uninformed speculation is not helpful.
-russ
- because a registration of a domain name is tied to a single party, and is exclusive, and
- because you can buy or sell a domain name, and
- because the registrar is in one country,
- that a domain name is property in that country.
The confusion is turning a generic name registration into a U.S. name registration. This is a really bad precedent to set. I hope it will be appealed, but fear the victim cannot afford to do so.-russ
I'm an OSI director, and webmaster@qmail.org. I can definitely say that qmail is not Open Source, and will not be until and unless Dan lets people distribute modified binaries.
-russ
Gee, Slashdot ends up having a theme, and CmdrTaco seems to avoid using a GUI.
In any case, when I load your page using NS 4.5 (not exactly a minority web client), I get a blank screen. If your GUI generates HTML that NS 4.5 can't display, then by definition it's broken.
-russ
Right, well, your opinion is exactly why I plan to try to get Apple to drop some parts of the APSL. If they're trying to get the Bazaar effect, and their license impedes that (as I expect it will) then they should change the license.
-russ
No, the programming field will not shrink -- we'll just have better-written and more programs.
-russ
Battery life is everything, color is nothing. Twenty years ago, when a friend was eyeing a color display (it cost $1,200 for a 128x64 pixel display) I bought him a Hasbro Lite-Brite. You want portable color, buy some crayons.
-russ
It's a trademark, not a copyright. Bruce filed as an SPI officer for the trademark on behalf of SPI, who is listed as the official trademark holder. Some paperwork needs to be submitted in Bruce's name, which he has refused to do unless SPI makes him an officer (at least temporarily), and SPI refuses to do that.
Even better, the OpenSource domain name is registered in the name of SPI at Bruce's home address.
Yes, it's a big fat hairy mess. But to answer your question, the trademark rights probably reside in either Bruce or Eric or some combination of the two, even though the registration is in SPI's name. So yes, Bruce might be able to make a case for owning the trademark.
This is all totally aside from the question whose answer you're assuming -- whether OSI is doing a good job of managing the mark or not.
-russ
Sheesh, you're as bad as Perens when it comes to overreacting. The APSL termination terms are *not* identical to the objectionable Jikes terms.
-russ
SPI agrees that Eric Raymond is managing the mark, and Eric Raymond has agreed to be bound by decisions made by OSI. Therefore, it's a truthful statement to say that OSI manages the Open Source trademark.
-russ
If Linux is really GNU/Linux, then FreeBSD is really GNU/FreeBSD.
-russ
It's butty-ugly. Isn't that enough reason?
-russ
p.s. if it isn't enough, then what do you call Solaris with the GNU utilities installed? GNU/Solaris? Heck no -- you call it Solaris.
Shrinkwraps are only legal in the 7th circuit. If it gets to the supreme court, it'll get overturned.
-russ