Having the source to software is not very helpful if one does not have the right to do anything with it.
You are describing Source Available software, not Open Source. I cheerfully accept your criticisms of Source Available software. I agree with them! Fortunately, open source does not share those failings. -russ
Heh, doesn't that last bit just prove RMS's point?
No, in fact it doesn't. You may prefer freedom just because. You may prefer it because it leads to higher wealth. You may prefer it because you're a weirdo, and weirdos suffer without freedom. Or you may prefer freedom because it is the only moral choice -- which is what RMS wants you to believe. Open Source isn't a religion, and OSI isn't a religious organization. We don't care about your morality as long as you prefer freedom! -russ
Perhaps you want to back up a little and follow the implications of the train of thought you're pursing. I'm not sure you want to even *see* the next station down the line. -russ
Um.... I held down the Ctrl key and hit the ^C key. ^C is assigned to the intr function in most stty configurations. ^C, by the way, is ASCII ETX, which means end of text. ^B is STX, and ^A is SOH. I think somebody had the idea that somebody was going to ship records protected by mere control characters. Did anybody ever *actually* do that? The only protocol that I've seen that even came close was the 1200bps protocol for talking to a credit card processor. Oh, and you know why they only use 1200bps? Because you don't need to do any line evaluation. You can just blast out bits because the bauds for 1200bps fit within the 8Khz audio spectrum that POTS gives you.
Very well sir, your wit seems to be in order. You have my blessing to lead the OSI.;-)
Thank you. YOu are a scholar and a gentleman. What are you doing posting to slashdot?!? -russ p.s. yes, I realize that I, myself, am posting to slashdot. It's called irony, or stupidity, or something, I dunno......
[nelson@desk nelson]$ ping google.com PING google.com (216.239.39.99) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=90.3 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=103 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=75.5 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=129 ms
I fail to see how my wording or RMS' views of the open source philosophy fail to describe what's going on.
You do, don't you. Why should I stop you from failing? Why do you need me to save you from your error? Cannot the boot pull itself up? Why are the straps necessary? -russ p.s. we can have a serious discussion via email if you wish.
Sure! I love free software because it doesn't cost anything! -russ p.s. remember the venue in which you are writing. Natalie Portman, grits, Beowulf clusters, frist posters, the whole thing.
You've just put your finger on why the patent system is so evil (or, more technically, its costs exceed its benefits): because ideas are reinvented all the time. Rewards for inventing go, not to the inventor who has filed a patent, but to the inventor who gets his invention into the marketplace. A patent helps but slightly in that process even in the best hopes of the theory.
People used "open source" before us, but we made it stick. -russ
My point remains. Generally Americans are happy to let others live and let live. The American government, on the other hand, is a lot less tolerant. Lemme see, Trail of Tears: yup, US Federal Government policy of "Indian removal." -russ
Personally, I might take 'open source' to mean that the licensing terms meet the OSI's open source definition but there's no way I'd take it to mean that the license has been approved by someone. I'm sceptical of your claim that many people interpret the term the way you do.
You should be skeptical; that's not what I mean. I mean that an awful awful lot of people think of open source as "LAMP". Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl. If they get further into the subject they may run into Python, or Ruby, or gcc, etc. In general, nobody misconstrues Open Source to mean anything else. A few people have deliberately tried to muddy the water, but not a lot.
Further (you'll notice this is in a separate paragraph) all of that Open Source software is licensed under OSI approved licenses, and hence is OSI-Certified. We're the foundation under the billboard. Lots of people see the Open Source billboard. Not as many see the foundation underneath it. But still, the foundation is there.
I understand his point of view. I don't understand why he continues to misrepresent ours. What could he stand to gain from confusing people about OSI's goals? -russ
Sun's patent-encumbered license? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't think you understand what you're talking about either. Maybe you should explain it to both of us. Remember that I'm not very smart, so please use small words.
If the CDDL is a weapon against free software, why isn't the Mozilla license a weapon against free software? The two of them differ only slightly. -russ
First, 95% of the American Indians were basically doomed to die. Europeans were eventually going to come to the American continent, and when they did, they were going to bring their diseases. Even if all of them had been Quakers, the Indians still would have had their culture destroyed.
Second, when Americans met Indians, they generally traded with them peacefully. It was after the Civil War, when there were all these trained soldiers sitting around, that Washington decided to "Do Something" about the Indian Problem. That's when you got the Indian wars. Thank you, Washington (DC, not George)! -russ
It's not that freedom has ever been a non issue or a side issue. How could you have open source software without freedom? It's that we haven't tried to sell the idea of freedom in the way that RMS does. In a world where the citizens of most developed nations have half their incomes wrested from them by the state (slaves only paid about a quarter, effectively), how widely supported do you think the idea of "freedom" is? Look at the recent report about American high school students having almost no respect for the first amendment? In a world where there still exist ANY people who think socialism is a good thing (hello slashdot posters!), it's too risky to tie the acceptance of open source to the acceptance of freedom. The first, you see, is the reality of freedom; the second is the naming of it. I'd rather have a pound of gold and not know what to call it, than to have a piece of paper with the words "a pound of gold" written on them. The thing is not the name and never has been (outside certain fantasy books about magic, of course). -russ
in no way have any way to justify any claims regarding ownership or oversight of it, it is simply a discriptive phrase.
It has become more than a merely descriptive phrase, though. It has become a well known term; a trademark if even I may say. If you talk about Open Source Software, people know that you are referring to a specific class of software, all of which have licenses approved by OSI. There is cause and effect here between our promotion of the term, and people's use of it. Very early on, I heard the term, felt it to be more accurate than "Free Software" (after all, it's not about price, it's about openness), and adopted it for my own software, long before I was elected to the board of OSI. -russ
I'm just frustrated with RMS. I've tried to explain differently to him for, well, for years now. He continues to contend that open source is just a development methodology whereas free software has a philosophical basis. I was just reading in Reason Magazine today that Ayn Rand didn't like libertarians because they didn't have an epistemology explaining WHY they were libertarians. Who cares why you prefer freedom? The fact of the matter is that open source is inseparable from free software. Give up the one and you lose the other. So what is RMS worried about? I don't understand. -russ
No, the founders of OSI did indeed coin the term. However, the term is descriptive, and so has been subject to multiple independent coinings and recoinings. The same amount of descriptiveness is what makes it hard to protect as a trademark. It also resulted in substantial animosity towards OSI along the lines of "What? You mean we can't describe our code as open source anymore?? How can that be?? Who do these guys think they are?? The RIAA??" Sigh. Live and learn (The alterative is worse). -russ
For the sake of truth, the phrase existed. A few people were talking about open source code. You can find them by googling Usenet with a date. Still, they were using the phrase the same way we use it; the same way everybody else uses it. -russ
Re:Tweedle dumb replaced by tweedle dumber
on
ESR steps down from OSI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Say what you want about me, but Michael Tiemann is a pretty smart cookie. You like g++? He wrote it. -russ
Slashdot Mirror
You are describing Source Available software. Such software is usually neither free software nor open source software, although it can be.
-russ
Having the source to software is not very helpful if one does not have the right to do anything with it.
You are describing Source Available software, not Open Source. I cheerfully accept your criticisms of Source Available software. I agree with them! Fortunately, open source does not share those failings.
-russ
Heh, doesn't that last bit just prove RMS's point?
No, in fact it doesn't. You may prefer freedom just because. You may prefer it because it leads to higher wealth. You may prefer it because you're a weirdo, and weirdos suffer without freedom. Or you may prefer freedom because it is the only moral choice -- which is what RMS wants you to believe. Open Source isn't a religion, and OSI isn't a religious organization. We don't care about your morality as long as you prefer freedom!
-russ
Perhaps you want to back up a little and follow the implications of the train of thought you're pursing.
I'm not sure you want to even *see* the next station down the line.
-russ
Um .... I held down the Ctrl key and hit the ^C key. ^C is assigned to the intr function in most stty configurations. ^C, by the way, is ASCII ETX, which means end of text. ^B is STX, and ^A is SOH. I think somebody had the idea that somebody was going to ship records protected by mere control characters. Did anybody ever *actually* do that? The only protocol that I've seen that even came close was the 1200bps protocol for talking to a credit card processor. Oh, and you know why they only use 1200bps? Because you don't need to do any line evaluation. You can just blast out bits because the bauds for 1200bps fit within the 8Khz audio spectrum that POTS gives you.
There, don't you feel smarter now?
-russ
Very well sir, your wit seems to be in order. You have my blessing to lead the OSI. ;-)
Thank you. YOu are a scholar and a gentleman. What are you doing posting to slashdot?!?
-russ
p.s. yes, I realize that I, myself, am posting to slashdot. It's called irony, or stupidity, or something, I dunno......
[nelson@desk nelson]$ ping google.com
PING google.com (216.239.39.99) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=90.3 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=103 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=75.5 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=129 ms
--- google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 75.598/99.877/129.919/19.979 ms, pipe 2
I fail to see how my wording or RMS' views of the open source philosophy fail to describe what's going on.
You do, don't you. Why should I stop you from failing? Why do you need me to save you from your error? Cannot the boot pull itself up? Why are the straps necessary?
-russ
p.s. we can have a serious discussion via email if you wish.
Sure! I love free software because it doesn't cost anything!
-russ
p.s. remember the venue in which you are writing. Natalie Portman, grits, Beowulf clusters, frist posters, the whole thing.
You've just put your finger on why the patent system is so evil (or, more technically, its costs exceed its benefits): because ideas are reinvented all the time. Rewards for inventing go, not to the inventor who has filed a patent, but to the inventor who gets his invention into the marketplace. A patent helps but slightly in that process even in the best hopes of the theory.
People used "open source" before us, but we made it stick.
-russ
My point remains. Generally Americans are happy to let others live and let live. The American government, on the other hand, is a lot less tolerant. Lemme see, Trail of Tears: yup, US Federal Government policy of "Indian removal."
-russ
Thanks for making my point.
-russ
Personally, I might take 'open source' to mean that the licensing terms meet the OSI's open source definition but there's no way I'd take it to mean that the license has been approved by someone. I'm sceptical of your claim that many people interpret the term the way you do.
You should be skeptical; that's not what I mean. I mean that an awful awful lot of people think of open source as "LAMP". Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl. If they get further into the subject they may run into Python, or Ruby, or gcc, etc. In general, nobody misconstrues Open Source to mean anything else. A few people have deliberately tried to muddy the water, but not a lot.
Further (you'll notice this is in a separate paragraph) all of that Open Source software is licensed under OSI approved licenses, and hence is OSI-Certified. We're the foundation under the billboard. Lots of people see the Open Source billboard. Not as many see the foundation underneath it. But still, the foundation is there.
Is that more plausible?
-russ
I understand his point of view. I don't understand why he continues to misrepresent ours. What could he stand to gain from confusing people about OSI's goals?
-russ
Sun's patent-encumbered license? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't think you understand what you're talking about either. Maybe you should explain it to both of us. Remember that I'm not very smart, so please use small words.
If the CDDL is a weapon against free software, why isn't the Mozilla license a weapon against free software? The two of them differ only slightly.
-russ
First, 95% of the American Indians were basically doomed to die. Europeans were eventually going to come to the American continent, and when they did, they were going to bring their diseases. Even if all of them had been Quakers, the Indians still would have had their culture destroyed.
Second, when Americans met Indians, they generally traded with them peacefully. It was after the Civil War, when there were all these trained soldiers sitting around, that Washington decided to "Do Something" about the Indian Problem. That's when you got the Indian wars. Thank you, Washington (DC, not George)!
-russ
It's not that freedom has ever been a non issue or a side issue. How could you have open source software without freedom? It's that we haven't tried to sell the idea of freedom in the way that RMS does. In a world where the citizens of most developed nations have half their incomes wrested from them by the state (slaves only paid about a quarter, effectively), how widely supported do you think the idea of "freedom" is? Look at the recent report about American high school students having almost no respect for the first amendment? In a world where there still exist ANY people who think socialism is a good thing (hello slashdot posters!), it's too risky to tie the acceptance of open source to the acceptance of freedom. The first, you see, is the reality of freedom; the second is the naming of it. I'd rather have a pound of gold and not know what to call it, than to have a piece of paper with the words "a pound of gold" written on them. The thing is not the name and never has been (outside certain fantasy books about magic, of course).
-russ
in no way have any way to justify any claims regarding ownership or oversight of it, it is simply a discriptive phrase.
It has become more than a merely descriptive phrase, though. It has become a well known term; a trademark if even I may say. If you talk about Open Source Software, people know that you are referring to a specific class of software, all of which have licenses approved by OSI. There is cause and effect here between our promotion of the term, and people's use of it. Very early on, I heard the term, felt it to be more accurate than "Free Software" (after all, it's not about price, it's about openness), and adopted it for my own software, long before I was elected to the board of OSI.
-russ
I'm just frustrated with RMS. I've tried to explain differently to him for, well, for years now. He continues to contend that open source is just a development methodology whereas free software has a philosophical basis. I was just reading in Reason Magazine today that Ayn Rand didn't like libertarians because they didn't have an epistemology explaining WHY they were libertarians. Who cares why you prefer freedom? The fact of the matter is that open source is inseparable from free software. Give up the one and you lose the other. So what is RMS worried about? I don't understand.
-russ
No, the founders of OSI did indeed coin the term. However, the term is descriptive, and so has been subject to multiple independent coinings and recoinings. The same amount of descriptiveness is what makes it hard to protect as a trademark. It also resulted in substantial animosity towards OSI along the lines of "What? You mean we can't describe our code as open source anymore?? How can that be?? Who do these guys think they are?? The RIAA??" Sigh. Live and learn (The alterative is worse).
-russ
Sigh. I gotta learn to proff-read my postings before I hit send.
-russ
This movement's philosophy champions a development methodology aimed chiefly at businesses.
I think you've been drinking too much of the kook-aid that RMS has been handing out.
-russ
I'll ask my editor what the process is. If I were him, I'd want to wait until the whole book is out in print.
-russ
For the sake of truth, the phrase existed. A few people were talking about open source code. You can find them by googling Usenet with a date. Still, they were using the phrase the same way we use it; the same way everybody else uses it.
-russ
Say what you want about me, but Michael Tiemann is a pretty smart cookie. You like g++? He wrote it.
-russ