BSD: providing unencumbered software for 30 years Really? Tell me how do you did the math on that. I think you are confusing BSD Unix with the BSD license. Linux predated the first fully unemcumbered BSD distribution, heck tone of the most important reasons for Linux to caught on was exactly that. Furthermore the usage of the BSD license for BSD Unix was something that, imagine that, was in no small part due to the lobbying of people close to the FSF near the BSD developers of the time.
I can give references for everything in the preceding paragraph, btw.
Yes, that is also my view. I must however note that every community has its own set of flaws, and furthermore the actions or whishes of some do not bind the entire community. I find it unfortunate that so much air time is consumed in this.
No offense, but this reads like one of those Evangelical conversion stories.
Why were they shocked? What implications did you explain (I s'pose it was something along the lines "GPLv3 allows RMS to rape your puppies")? Why did they release code under licenses they apparently didn't understand? Did you told them about the "implications" of dual licensed code, as exposed by Theo? And, furthermore, if their goal was a reference implementation of something they want widely adopted (ad, say, a media format), why did they chose the GPL, given that the FSF itself suggests non-copyleft licenses when one has that kind of objective? Why are they considering changing to a BSD license? Have you explained to them the "implications" of that, and that Public Domain code is "more free" and that the BSD license places restrictions that prevent the sharing with developers that use the freer PD code?
Another point is the commercial friendliness of the BSD/MIT/ISC license. As I - and many people - said before, BSD is friendly when a company needs to use some code done by someone else. But why, in a purely commercial perspective, would a company realease a product under the BSD license? I mean, if it isn't proprietary then the GPL makes more sense since it effectively stops any competitors from gaining an edge using the code they released, while releasing it under a BSD license could potentially give competitors the ability to improve their offerings using code released by another company, while at the same time keeping it closed. Just don't see it happening (unfortunately, btw).
Er.... why don't you use BSD then? What's holding you? Most of the applications run just as fine on any BSD as in Linux (especially the properly made ones). You are waiting for Linux to become BSD licensed, or for people that develop GPL software to suddenly stop doing it and start using BSD?
Actually, the answer is almost always "no". You see, the question was about *users* (in your example, it would drive manufacturers), and apparently whomever made the question assumes that "some dislike from someone in the BSD community" == "great concern in the heards of ordinary users of the software". This kind of apocalytic stories about millions of poor users being death scared about their poor software being GPLv3 is a projection of the concerns of a specific group of developers (in this case, BSD) upon the wider world, without any kind of argument about the validity of that extrapolation.
By no we already know that many people in the BSD community dislike the GPLv3, a bit more than they disliked to GPLv2. Ok, I get it, but it is wishful thinking to paint this doom scenarios, reads like some kind of improptu soap opera with an ahppy ending: "BSD, long the best and REALLY REALLY free Unix OS available, finally gets a chance after millions of users find out that the GPLv3 is pure evil, retract from their old ways and find the true light in good, pure BSD!!! Vindication, AT LAST". It's understandable, but,again, merely whishful thinking.
Lotus Notes 8 is included in the image and it's much better since it is almost a complete rewrite (uses Eclipe and OO I think). The VPN is most likely Lotus Mobile Connect (http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=3183&uid=swg24013528). They are bundled with the Open c4eb that IBM uses internally (based on RH). There are also available for other dists used internally (namely Debian).
Ah, of course... Here we face the typical Portuguese citizen paradox : no one can rant about Portugal except *me*.
In all honestly you do have a point, but I think it's a global phenomenon: while people like to trash their country sometimes they don't react the same way when someone from another country does it.
You completely missed my point. "Western-ness" and "richness" are completely distinct concepts.
I fully agree.
And, no. I'm not an open-source fanboy, just as I'm not a Microsoft fanboy.
Hey, either way it wouldn't subtract from your point. I didn't imply you were either.
of course OSS *adoption* (not "infiltration", please. Microsoft gets infiltrated, OSS gets adopted)
Well, semantics, but correction accepted.
and "westernness" have nothing to do with each other ! If I was to follow that idea, then the United States of America (the core of "Westerness") would have to be leaders in open source adoption. Absurd...
Actually, you are up to something here. The whole concept of "Westerness" is a bit tied to the Atlantic relation and to the notion of Western Europe + USA. It's a bit silly in a purely civilisational POV since Eastern Europe partakes the same general common ground. In a way it's a bit like Latin America, an expression that is widely used but was at a time something created with a specific political goal. Your depiction of the USA as the "core" of "Westerness" is an example - and note, I'm not disagreeing.
I just can't stand watching my taxes money being wasted on things that could be a whole lot cheaper. How great would it be if our Government could spend just little more time considering cheaper alternatives for so many things... This (obvious) case of mismanagement is just *one* among many in other areas that we don't (get to) know about.
Quite, I fully agree. I'm not sure if you understood that we are, in fact, in full agreement in what regards FOSS adoption at Government level.
Oh, Portugal is not "that" poor and under-developed ? Sure, it all depends on your references.
Exactly. Since you didn't use any I went by the general definition...
If you compare it to a real African Banana's Republic, where there are children with inflated bellies and flies all over their eyes and mouths, then sure, Portugal is highly civilized and advanced !
True, but you don't need such extreme examples. Developed countries, regardless of their richness or position, all have several defining factors that are easily gathered.
Now, try to compare Portugal to the so called "European Average"... Whatever criteria you pick, this country scores next-to-last every time. Again, Kudos to the recent Governments.
Yes, not every time as you speak but I'll agree that in general, especially in economic indicators, the results are below my expectations and behind European average. And I agree with you on the attribution of blame BTW. I'm not including recently-joined Eastern European countries, but those have better indicators in other areas (e.g. education) and depending on the country will eventually surpass us no doubt, if current government practices around here continue. Note however that this is a far cry from being "non western" or almost "uneuropean" as you suggested. While I agree that things could be better, I think you have a rather skewed view on the day to day life around here.
I disagree with your point of view (i.e.: that other European countries are in worse situation). In many western European countries you can point one or two examples of OSS adoption in public/state institutions. Please, name one in Portugal...
Well, you can go to http://softwarelivre.citiap.gov.pt/ and see a kind of blog about FOSS use in Public Administration. You'll find that the current Government mentions FOSS as somet
Portugal belongs to Western Europe in cultural, ethnical and historical senses, in more ways than one more so than many of whom you apparently seem to consider so. Unless one has a personal definition of "Western Europe" constructed around some alternative world, that is. Don't mistake "Western Europe" by "presently rich countries in Europe". Heck, Greece isn't even in the West and I would submit that it's one of the most Western European countries of all, being the foundation of what is European civilisation. And, btw,it is indeed a part of the "rich, developed countries" - although less so than I would like, of course. As for the rest, I was the first to point out the deficincies in the process, but I spoke to soon: in Germany exactly the same happened, with DT and Google not allowed to vote. In my view this makes Germany also a Bananas' Republic in this regard.
You are indeed right in that MS has a lot of leverage around here, but it is by no means an exception. Your "really-western-european" countries have in some cases an even worse situation, and quite honestly I think that judging "westerness" by "ammount of open source infiltration" is some strange criteria. While I'm all for free software, and am indeed unhappy with what occured around here, I can't really let your generalisation of my words pass. I've heard the same talk about Spain some months ago, and even when it's not my country the arguments were the same and attempted to mix an apparent love for free software with some historical piss contest.
Have you seen the actual break down of which way countries voted? Scroll down a little way in the FTA comments and it's laid out in a table. It's amazing in that with the exception of the US, the voting is almost consistently "No" from rich, developed countries, and "Yes" from poorer Eastern European and African countries that are stereotypically more corrupt. The jokes people are making about Microsoft buying the votes of Banana Republics are not without a basis. Worth looking through the list. Well, here in Portugal the "comission" was chaired by Microsoft, more than half the other "representatives" were MS affiliates and, get this, Sun and IBM were not allowed because "there weren't enough chairs". No ammount of protesting by companies or organisations like ANSOL (FSF Europe affiliate in Portugal) had great effect as you can imagine.
After reading your comment I initially though "well, we were part of the almost, an exception to the rule", but to be blunt the truth is that *this is* a Bananas' Republic: only in one would the above happen.
I failed to address one imporant issue, that is the removing of one of the licences during distribution. My apologies for that. I was under the impression that it could be done, but it is less clear if a distributor (or developer) can, by choosing to be covered by one of the licenses, remove the other one. I think that it can be done - otherwise I'm not sure how would a company distribute dual-licensed code it reveiced without releasing it aslo under a GPL license, but it is less clear cut than my previous comment.
Just as somebody who developed GPL software probably wouldn't want to be forced into releasing it under the terms of the BSD license, a developer who releases their code under the BSD license doesn't want it GPL'ed. This is what I don't really understand here. I I write some code and offer it under a dual BSD/GPL license I'm obviously expecting that someone will say "I'll choose the BSD license, thanks". If I didn't, I wouldn't be releasing under a dual licensing scheme in the first place. If dual licensing (saying "you candistribute this code under the GPL *or* the BSD license, at your choice) is always covered by both licenses, then I don't get it. Furthermore, it would imply - and the post you replied to mentioned - that, say, perl (dual licensed under AL and GPL) should be removed from OpenBSD and put on the ports.
The scope of the debate has widden a bit, and with the topic buried we're talking to each other, but debating is always good.
The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over.
You see, this is where I think we diverge, and it's fundamental to understand the rest of the points... the GPL isn't about "open source" software nor is it destined to avoid reinventing the wheel, nor actually any kind of software methodology. While the Open Source movement has placed a great emphasis on those points the trith of the matter is that the GPL - and the FSF - have never considered those to be the main objectives... they are good side effects, but not the main goal, and since 1982 that it has been stated many times (more recently the FSF has distanced itself from the term "Open Source" exactely because of this points).
The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.
The restrictions of the GPL are the only reason for its existence. You have a perfect right to use whatever you want or need, but others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code according to their wishes as expressed by the licence they chose. It doesn't demand anything from you as a developer: you can write any code you want, and release it under any licence you like, if it's your code. If I want to use BSD/X11/ISC licenced code I should abid by their requirements, so if maintaining the copyright notices on the code I use is something I found unsavory and excessive I can always *not* use the code. If I'm not prepared to abid by the terms of *any* software licence I shouldn't really use the code. Simply imagine that the code wasn't there to begin with.
I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.
Why that relience on GPL'ed code? I mean, I wouldn't dream of using stolen proprietary code in an application I've been ordered to deliver just because it speeds up the development. GPL'ed code isn't there for the taking, and when developing software - especially proprietary software - that should be simply acknowledged, using it shouldn't be part of the equation in the first place. I can understand the apparent frustration in having code that you can look at but not use, but that's a choice made by the developer (or, more often than not, the company) when they choose a proprietary license.
The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.
That's true, they aren't always compatible, and in those situations just abstain from using it. Again, that's one of the main objectives of the GPL, and not an unfortunate side effect. Violating a licence because it's "easier" to do it isn't an option with *any* licence.
From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use cod
Mediocre code itself is better than nothing.
Mediocre code with onerous restrictions may be worse than nothing.
Thus, reduced value. ECON 101. Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all. It isn't there to maximize the available pool of code for anyone to pick and use as they wish. Developers that don't feel like abiding by the GPL are free to not use the code, and that's it. The fact that in your estimate most GPL'ed code is mediocre should make it even more simple to disregard it.
Are they guaranteed to notify all of their distributors and distributor partners when they do so?
No. And RMS knows it. And the GPLv3 attempts to saddle them with liabilities and obligations without their consent or knowledge. And that's unethical. The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users. You are not complaining about the GPLv3 but about the "and, at your option, any latter version" clause that has always existed in some GPL'ed code. Distributors should know that this clause exists and that it was likely that another version of the GPL would be released (as it's likely that a GPLv4 will be released, etc.) Distributors have as part of their duties to follow the licenses of the software they distribute, in this case GPLv3 software. If they can't, or are unnable to, they should stop distributing it. The vast majority of distributors are actually unaffected by the GPLv3 in any case, and those who are are generally inconvenienced on purpose.
Show me where in the GPLv3 it says the license doesn't apply if you don't know about it. Bad wording on my part, I meant that the distributors know (it's part of their minimum obligations and duties as distributors to know) the licenses of the software that they distribute, and so can either stop distributing the software or be covered by the obligations puth forth in the license.
That "penalizing the spirit" part is very important... most GPL violations (around 90% IIRC) are not made on purpose, but stem from sheer lack of knowledge. I would think that this would be even more the case with freeware Windows developers. Generally a simple conversation with the authors fixes things (the termination clause in situations of non-compliance was made more lenient in GPLv3 due to this).
In any event it's the copyright owners job to fix this... one should of course drop them a mail. One important point is that the FSF is *not* responsible from following up GPL violations in code they don't own, although I'm sure they could advise if it comes to that.
This reminds me of an unfortunate phenomenon that I've witness: people constantly complaining in some closed-sourced (or even "open source", but with a license that doesn't appeal to some) program mailing lists with "Gimme the code!!! Release the code!!!", especially since many of them don't actually plan to do anything with it, or even use the program.
No offense, but that pretty much sums up why this debate is unnecessary. You obviously have your own solid opinion on the FSF, so I doubt that any ammount of arguments will change it. Just don't pretend that you were "going to read" the press release but "stopped reading" because you found some specific definition you disagree with. You have your view on the FSF's opinions, language and actions pretty much defined, so it doesn't surprise me that you take issue with their usage of "intelectual property", or everything else in the press release you didn't read.
Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it?
This isn't a game in which you win by number of people who agree or disagree. I also disagree with you, just chose not to answer your "fruit" analogy because quite honestly it seems silly to me and fails to adress any of the points raised.
Words are words, they become propaganda terms when used in certain ways. "Terrorism" by itself also as a specific meaning, but can be used as a propaganda word when used in certain ways. "Intelectual property" is the same.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the average code WRITTEN today (GPL or not) is bad code written by mediocre developers, and the GPL reduces the value of that code to experienced developers. That's in no small part due to the fact that much more people program nowadays... I don't see how the GPL reduces the value of that code to experienced developers (who shouldn't be using it, being mediocre code in the first place). Better yet, it reduces the "value" of the code - good or bad - to anyone who doesn't want to follow the GPL, but that's strictly by design and *the* main objective of the GPL.
As was the bond of trust that what was permissible under the license today would not expose one to legal liability tomorrow. GPLv3 violates that trust. As I said, the GPLv3 is only applied if the authors change the code to it or the user specifically choses to use it in situations were "at your option, any latter version" is stated. And that part of the text would have to be there from the beginning, so it's not like nobody ever expected than a new version of the GPL would eventually be released.
You can't change the license behind someone's back. I can't say "I reserve the right to alter my license", get your signature, and then post a new license that says "all licensees must pay $500 (370) a month". No court in the world would uphold that. The GPLv3, however, expects to sneak in and demand distributors' interest in related source code - as if intellectual property rights are somehow different. It's theft, pure and simple, and all nobility aside Robin Hood was still just a thief. Again, the "licensee" (the final user) is the one that can chose which version of the GPL applies in the "at your option" situations. Your example is flawed since the GPLv3 only applies if one distributes the code, fully knowing that there is GPLv3 code in there. Don't distribute the code, no problem, exactly like the GPLv2. The anti-patent clause aimed at the MS/Novell deal only applies if something is distributed containing GPLv3 code, and distributors should take that into account. Your example is substantially different in that the licensee was a passive player, in this situation there must be an active move by some distributor.
And, clearly, I disagree. The GPL primarily benefits people who TAKE more code than they GIVE. Those with more to give rapidly start to get the short end of the stick, and with the exception of a few truly altruistic folks, they begin to migrate away from the GPL. This defeats the entire purpose of open source development: to attract high-quality volunteer coders who can meet or exceed the quality of commercial offerings. It's your right to view the body of work under the GPL today - including GNU/Linux, but not limited by it - as bad code made by mediocre developers. I personally think that it has worked quite nicely, even considering that the sheer quality of code never was the main purpose of the GPL. As everything the quality varies - I have code under the GPL that is awful,but that's because I'm not really a good programmer - but plenty of it seems to be good enough to apparently make some companies want to use it (and of these, some want to use it and not follow the license).
By altering the license in your next release, you can bring a company distributing your code under the GPLv3 for doing what was perfectly legitimate and permissible under the GPLv2. But that was always an integral part of the GPL - and of any license. They get updated... the code is only covered if the copyright owners wished for that to happen by placing their code under the GPLv3 (either explicitly or using the "...at your option, any latter version". This aso happened with the GPLv1->GPLv2 transition.
I do not believe this is an oversight. I believe this is exactly what RMS and the FSF want. And I believe it is a scummy thing to do. No, it isn't an oversight...it's IMO hindsight, by allowing the programs to update the license.
I also believe it won't stand up in court, and will be primarily used as an extortion technique against companies who can't afford to fight it. And I believe RMS knows that, too. I disagree, I see no reason for the GPL to be viewed as invalid.
> Quite a vast generalization don't you think?
Yes. You should be smart enough to infer the associated disclaimer. If you're not, you're undoubtedly not smart enough to understand my argument anyway. Oh, witty. You should be smart enough to infer that by that I meant that I think your blanket statement is wishful thinking.
Not precisely. The GPLv2 was a bad license, but it could be avoided. It was easy to tell whether you fell under the terms of the GPLv2.
My primary objection to the GPLv3 is that it is actively attempts to trick companies into falling under its restrictions, by extending its reach across things people are currently doing to stay out from under the GPLv2. I see, and can actually understand your reasoning. I view it as a good reason why the GPLv3 was created and was needed.
The clear intent is to provide an avenue where a company can be forced under GPLv3 without their knowledge. I don't think so... the clear intent is, as per your previous analysis, to close the loopholes that allowed some to stay out from under the GPLv2, while using GPL'ed code. I do not see how the GPLv3 changes anything in what regards forcing anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, jumped the gun to soon, you said "software" and not "OS". In that regard you are probably right.
I can give references for everything in the preceding paragraph, btw.
Yes, that is also my view. I must however note that every community has its own set of flaws, and furthermore the actions or whishes of some do not bind the entire community. I find it unfortunate that so much air time is consumed in this.
No offense, but this reads like one of those Evangelical conversion stories.
Why were they shocked?
What implications did you explain (I s'pose it was something along the lines "GPLv3 allows RMS to rape your puppies")?
Why did they release code under licenses they apparently didn't understand?
Did you told them about the "implications" of dual licensed code, as exposed by Theo?
And, furthermore, if their goal was a reference implementation of something they want widely adopted (ad, say, a media format), why did they chose the GPL, given that the FSF itself suggests non-copyleft licenses when one has that kind of objective?
Why are they considering changing to a BSD license?
Have you explained to them the "implications" of that, and that Public Domain code is "more free" and that the BSD license places restrictions that prevent the sharing with developers that use the freer PD code?
Another point is the commercial friendliness of the BSD/MIT/ISC license. As I - and many people - said before, BSD is friendly when a company needs to use some code done by someone else. But why, in a purely commercial perspective, would a company realease a product under the BSD license? I mean, if it isn't proprietary then the GPL makes more sense since it effectively stops any competitors from gaining an edge using the code they released, while releasing it under a BSD license could potentially give competitors the ability to improve their offerings using code released by another company, while at the same time keeping it closed. Just don't see it happening (unfortunately, btw).
Er.... why don't you use BSD then? What's holding you? Most of the applications run just as fine on any BSD as in Linux (especially the properly made ones). You are waiting for Linux to become BSD licensed, or for people that develop GPL software to suddenly stop doing it and start using BSD?
Actually, the answer is almost always "no". You see, the question was about *users* (in your example, it would drive manufacturers), and apparently whomever made the question assumes that "some dislike from someone in the BSD community" == "great concern in the heards of ordinary users of the software". This kind of apocalytic stories about millions of poor users being death scared about their poor software being GPLv3 is a projection of the concerns of a specific group of developers (in this case, BSD) upon the wider world, without any kind of argument about the validity of that extrapolation.
By no we already know that many people in the BSD community dislike the GPLv3, a bit more than they disliked to GPLv2. Ok, I get it, but it is wishful thinking to paint this doom scenarios, reads like some kind of improptu soap opera with an ahppy ending: "BSD, long the best and REALLY REALLY free Unix OS available, finally gets a chance after millions of users find out that the GPLv3 is pure evil, retract from their old ways and find the true light in good, pure BSD!!! Vindication, AT LAST". It's understandable, but,again, merely whishful thinking.
Lotus Notes 8 is included in the image and it's much better since it is almost a complete rewrite (uses Eclipe and OO I think). The VPN is most likely Lotus Mobile Connect (http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=3183&uid=swg24013528). They are bundled with the Open c4eb that IBM uses internally (based on RH). There are also available for other dists used internally (namely Debian).
Ah, of course... Here we face the typical Portuguese citizen paradox : no one can rant about Portugal except *me*.
In all honestly you do have a point, but I think it's a global phenomenon: while people like to trash their country sometimes they don't react the same way when someone from another country does it.
You completely missed my point. "Western-ness" and "richness" are completely distinct concepts.
I fully agree.
And, no. I'm not an open-source fanboy, just as I'm not a Microsoft fanboy.
Hey, either way it wouldn't subtract from your point. I didn't imply you were either.
of course OSS *adoption* (not "infiltration", please. Microsoft gets infiltrated, OSS gets adopted)
Well, semantics, but correction accepted.
and "westernness" have nothing to do with each other ! If I was to follow that idea, then the United States of America (the core of "Westerness") would have to be leaders in open source adoption. Absurd...
Actually, you are up to something here. The whole concept of "Westerness" is a bit tied to the Atlantic relation and to the notion of Western Europe + USA. It's a bit silly in a purely civilisational POV since Eastern Europe partakes the same general common ground. In a way it's a bit like Latin America, an expression that is widely used but was at a time something created with a specific political goal. Your depiction of the USA as the "core" of "Westerness" is an example - and note, I'm not disagreeing.
I just can't stand watching my taxes money being wasted on things that could be a whole lot cheaper. How great would it be if our Government could spend just little more time considering cheaper alternatives for so many things... This (obvious) case of mismanagement is just *one* among many in other areas that we don't (get to) know about.
Quite, I fully agree. I'm not sure if you understood that we are, in fact, in full agreement in what regards FOSS adoption at Government level.
Oh, Portugal is not "that" poor and under-developed ? Sure, it all depends on your references.
Exactly. Since you didn't use any I went by the general definition...
If you compare it to a real African Banana's Republic, where there are children with inflated bellies and flies all over their eyes and mouths, then sure, Portugal is highly civilized and advanced !
True, but you don't need such extreme examples. Developed countries, regardless of their richness or position, all have several defining factors that are easily gathered.
Now, try to compare Portugal to the so called "European Average"... Whatever criteria you pick, this country scores next-to-last every time. Again, Kudos to the recent Governments.
Yes, not every time as you speak but I'll agree that in general, especially in economic indicators, the results are below my expectations and behind European average. And I agree with you on the attribution of blame BTW. I'm not including recently-joined Eastern European countries, but those have better indicators in other areas (e.g. education) and depending on the country will eventually surpass us no doubt, if current government practices around here continue. Note however that this is a far cry from being "non western" or almost "uneuropean" as you suggested. While I agree that things could be better, I think you have a rather skewed view on the day to day life around here.
I disagree with your point of view (i.e.: that other European countries are in worse situation). In many western European countries you can point one or two examples of OSS adoption in public/state institutions. Please, name one in Portugal...
Well, you can go to http://softwarelivre.citiap.gov.pt/ and see a kind of blog about FOSS use in Public Administration. You'll find that the current Government mentions FOSS as somet
Portugal belongs to Western Europe in cultural, ethnical and historical senses, in more ways than one more so than many of whom you apparently seem to consider so. Unless one has a personal definition of "Western Europe" constructed around some alternative world, that is. Don't mistake "Western Europe" by "presently rich countries in Europe". Heck, Greece isn't even in the West and I would submit that it's one of the most Western European countries of all, being the foundation of what is European civilisation. And, btw,it is indeed a part of the "rich, developed countries" - although less so than I would like, of course. As for the rest, I was the first to point out the deficincies in the process, but I spoke to soon: in Germany exactly the same happened, with DT and Google not allowed to vote. In my view this makes Germany also a Bananas' Republic in this regard.
You are indeed right in that MS has a lot of leverage around here, but it is by no means an exception. Your "really-western-european" countries have in some cases an even worse situation, and quite honestly I think that judging "westerness" by "ammount of open source infiltration" is some strange criteria. While I'm all for free software, and am indeed unhappy with what occured around here, I can't really let your generalisation of my words pass. I've heard the same talk about Spain some months ago, and even when it's not my country the arguments were the same and attempted to mix an apparent love for free software with some historical piss contest.
After reading your comment I initially though "well, we were part of the almost, an exception to the rule", but to be blunt the truth is that *this is* a Bananas' Republic: only in one would the above happen.
I failed to address one imporant issue, that is the removing of one of the licences during distribution. My apologies for that. I was under the impression that it could be done, but it is less clear if a distributor (or developer) can, by choosing to be covered by one of the licenses, remove the other one. I think that it can be done - otherwise I'm not sure how would a company distribute dual-licensed code it reveiced without releasing it aslo under a GPL license, but it is less clear cut than my previous comment.
8% of human junk DNA has been shown to be formed by retrotransposons of Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)[5], although as much as 25% is recognisably formed of retrotransposons[6]. This is a lower limit on how much of the genome is retrotransposons because older remains might not be recognizable having accumulated too much mutation. New research suggests that genome size variation in at least two kinds of plants is mostly because of retrotransposons.
Indeed. I'm waiting for a "GPL violation found in Vista SP1 running of an Apple laptop" story. Should be fun.
The purpose of open source software is to avoid the constant grind of developers writing the same code over and over.
You see, this is where I think we diverge, and it's fundamental to understand the rest of the points... the GPL isn't about "open source" software nor is it destined to avoid reinventing the wheel, nor actually any kind of software methodology. While the Open Source movement has placed a great emphasis on those points the trith of the matter is that the GPL - and the FSF - have never considered those to be the main objectives... they are good side effects, but not the main goal, and since 1982 that it has been stated many times (more recently the FSF has distanced itself from the term "Open Source" exactely because of this points).
The GPL attaches onerous restrictions to this idea. Most damnably, it insists that whatever changes I make to the code must be made ready for distribution. It requires that I don't use patent-encumbered code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It requires that I don't use copyrighted code when I may have a perfect right to do so. It demands, in fact, that I don't write or use any code unless I am prepared to give it to everyone.
The restrictions of the GPL are the only reason for its existence. You have a perfect right to use whatever you want or need, but others also have the right to restrict your usage of their code according to their wishes as expressed by the licence they chose. It doesn't demand anything from you as a developer: you can write any code you want, and release it under any licence you like, if it's your code. If I want to use BSD/X11/ISC licenced code I should abid by their requirements, so if maintaining the copyright notices on the code I use is something I found unsavory and excessive I can always *not* use the code. If I'm not prepared to abid by the terms of *any* software licence I shouldn't really use the code. Simply imagine that the code wasn't there to begin with.
I'm not always in charge of that. When my project manager says "I need this feature in a week", and that feature demands that I interface with proprietary hardware using a patented protocol, there is no GPL software on the planet that can help me. Even though a package may provide 90% of the functionality I need, and the rest is just implementing the patented protocol, the GPL says I can't use it. I could be done in two normal days using the GPL code, but instead I have to start from scratch. By the end of the week, I'll have spent eighty hours building a half-assed piece of crap that some poor intern will have to support for years.
Why that relience on GPL'ed code? I mean, I wouldn't dream of using stolen proprietary code in an application I've been ordered to deliver just because it speeds up the development. GPL'ed code isn't there for the taking, and when developing software - especially proprietary software - that should be simply acknowledged, using it shouldn't be part of the equation in the first place. I can understand the apparent frustration in having code that you can look at but not use, but that's a choice made by the developer (or, more often than not, the company) when they choose a proprietary license.
The BSD and MIT and Apache and PHP licenses recognise that. They understand that these decisions are largely not mine to make. Even when they are mine to make, the ideals of free software with no patents and worldwide distribution simply aren't always compatible with the demands of real business.
That's true, they aren't always compatible, and in those situations just abstain from using it. Again, that's one of the main objectives of the GPL, and not an unfortunate side effect. Violating a licence because it's "easier" to do it isn't an option with *any* licence.
From my perspective, the GPL says I don't get to use cod
Mediocre code with onerous restrictions may be worse than nothing.
Thus, reduced value. ECON 101. Uh... again, you are complaining about the very reason the GPL exists at all. It isn't there to maximize the available pool of code for anyone to pick and use as they wish. Developers that don't feel like abiding by the GPL are free to not use the code, and that's it. The fact that in your estimate most GPL'ed code is mediocre should make it even more simple to disregard it. Are they guaranteed to notify all of their distributors and distributor partners when they do so?
No. And RMS knows it. And the GPLv3 attempts to saddle them with liabilities and obligations without their consent or knowledge. And that's unethical. The GPL isn't primarily concerned with distributors, but with end users. You are not complaining about the GPLv3 but about the "and, at your option, any latter version" clause that has always existed in some GPL'ed code. Distributors should know that this clause exists and that it was likely that another version of the GPL would be released (as it's likely that a GPLv4 will be released, etc.) Distributors have as part of their duties to follow the licenses of the software they distribute, in this case GPLv3 software. If they can't, or are unnable to, they should stop distributing it. The vast majority of distributors are actually unaffected by the GPLv3 in any case, and those who are are generally inconvenienced on purpose. Show me where in the GPLv3 it says the license doesn't apply if you don't know about it. Bad wording on my part, I meant that the distributors know (it's part of their minimum obligations and duties as distributors to know) the licenses of the software that they distribute, and so can either stop distributing the software or be covered by the obligations puth forth in the license.
That "penalizing the spirit" part is very important... most GPL violations (around 90% IIRC) are not made on purpose, but stem from sheer lack of knowledge. I would think that this would be even more the case with freeware Windows developers. Generally a simple conversation with the authors fixes things (the termination clause in situations of non-compliance was made more lenient in GPLv3 due to this).
In any event it's the copyright owners job to fix this... one should of course drop them a mail. One important point is that the FSF is *not* responsible from following up GPL violations in code they don't own, although I'm sure they could advise if it comes to that.
This reminds me of an unfortunate phenomenon that I've witness: people constantly complaining in some closed-sourced (or even "open source", but with a license that doesn't appeal to some) program mailing lists with "Gimme the code!!! Release the code!!!", especially since many of them don't actually plan to do anything with it, or even use the program.
The only entity I see use propaganda is the FSF.
No offense, but that pretty much sums up why this debate is unnecessary. You obviously have your own solid opinion on the FSF, so I doubt that any ammount of arguments will change it. Just don't pretend that you were "going to read" the press release but "stopped reading" because you found some specific definition you disagree with. You have your view on the FSF's opinions, language and actions pretty much defined, so it doesn't surprise me that you take issue with their usage of "intelectual property", or everything else in the press release you didn't read.
Ok, let me count the results: one Anonymous Coward doesn't agree with me... That's it?
This isn't a game in which you win by number of people who agree or disagree. I also disagree with you, just chose not to answer your "fruit" analogy because quite honestly it seems silly to me and fails to adress any of the points raised.
Words are words, they become propaganda terms when used in certain ways. "Terrorism" by itself also as a specific meaning, but can be used as a propaganda word when used in certain ways. "Intelectual property" is the same.
Yes. You should be smart enough to infer the associated disclaimer. If you're not, you're undoubtedly not smart enough to understand my argument anyway. Oh, witty. You should be smart enough to infer that by that I meant that I think your blanket statement is wishful thinking. Not precisely. The GPLv2 was a bad license, but it could be avoided. It was easy to tell whether you fell under the terms of the GPLv2.
My primary objection to the GPLv3 is that it is actively attempts to trick companies into falling under its restrictions, by extending its reach across things people are currently doing to stay out from under the GPLv2. I see, and can actually understand your reasoning. I view it as a good reason why the GPLv3 was created and was needed. The clear intent is to provide an avenue where a company can be forced under GPLv3 without their knowledge. I don't think so... the clear intent is, as per your previous analysis, to close the loopholes that allowed some to stay out from under the GPLv2, while using GPL'ed code. I do not see how the GPLv3 changes anything in what regards forcing anyone.