If I were to rewrite it today, it would say what you can do, rather than what you can't. But it's held up really well. There is a tremendous amount of software conveyed as having that particular set of rights, and it touches everybody's lives daily. I can't complain:-)
One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that.
We need more than you think for something to be open even by your over-restrictive definition of "open". Consider that the report on the security of Sequoia voting machines
has been supressed by the court. In that case, the software was trade secret and all rights reserved. But what if it had been source code that was disclosed but still "all rights reserved"? Since that prohibits compilation and use, it would be difficult for security testers to legally do their work at all. Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes. And we'd be unable to distribute fixes.
The rights are a lot more important than you think. Even to have a kind of code that is disclosed mainly for the purpose of increasing trust, we'd have to design a license to convey significant rights, if the examiners were not to be placed at legal risk.
Number 6, about fields of endeavor, covers restrictions on distribution with fur coats.
The OSD is related to what people had tried to do with licenses at the time. For example, there was Alladin Ghostscript, which prohibited its distribution on the same medium with software that wasn't freely distributable. And there was the Berkeley Spice License, for their electrical engineering software, which prohibited the use of the software by the Police of South Africa, and still did a decade after apartheid was over.
I was trying to define what was Free Software for Debian's social contract. FSF didn't promote a definition of Free Software at the time, although they'd published one in their newsletter a long time before. RMS even said in a personal email that he liked my definition.
Then 7 or 8 months after this was all written and in use by Debian, Eric Raymond brought me the news of the meeting where a bunch of people had decided to promote Free Software as Open Source, and asked me to work on that. So, I filed off the Debian references and it became the Open Source Definition, and I announced Open Source to the world, including here on Slashdot (and that announcement still survives online today). That announcement was the first real use of "Open Source" to the public.
Timothy, you can do better than this. Some of the qualities of molecules, such as surface tension and the polarity of atomic dipoles, govern the ability of water to wet various materials. Chemicals, for example detergents, have been developed to modulate the wetting ability of water. And there are few more enthusiasticaly trademarked products than detergents.
By your definition, the latest feature films are "open" as well. After all, you can look at them. You can't copy them, distribute them, compile them, or anything else.
It's the rights that are important. You're missing that entirely.
I think mostly they'd like to dilute "Open Source" to mean any code with source code. This is important to them because it's the rights connected to Open Source that scare Microsoft (and others). If you can call it Open Source when there isn't even the right to compile the code, or to use the information you get from reading it, customers don't have a reason to ask for it any longer.
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Code with source-code available but without the particular set of rights defined in the OSD is called "Disclosed Source Code". It is possible to have disclosed source code with "All Rights Reserved", such that nobody would ever have rights to compile the code. Thus, it makes sense to have a name that is specific to the rights attached, not just the fact that there is source code. That's what "open source" and "Open Source" mean. The capital letters are not significant, if it says it's open source it has to have the rights specified by the OSD.
There was no "open source", capitals or not, regarding software until the Open Source Definition. If you look through past material, you can only find a few uses of the words together regarding software at all, with no consistent meaning.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Sorry for responding to this so late, I was flying back from Europe.
Consider that the target readers of my Datamation editorial - which someone summarized here on Slashdot - are not even as deep into the law as folks who have been following Groklaw for a while. Thus I tried to base the editorial on human interest to keep them reading - the nice Open Source guy vs. the Patent Troll. What the court found is (simplifying again) that 1) we aren't limited to prosecuting under contract law, and can use copyright law which has a more powerful enforcement tool-set; 2) there is economic damage connected with the infringement even when the software isn't generally sold, so we have a basis for prosecution, "standing", etc.
The main purpose of the editorial is to dispel any question that Open Source licenses can not be enforced with something like an injunction, punitive damages, etc.
It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969. Orion has a very "back to the past" flavor about it - it looks like a big Apollo. The space shuttle architecture is being abandoned as too complicated to fly any longer, and the space station doesn't have much of a mission to justify it.
We learned how to make good robots.
I think Europe and Japan will make some progress. The U.S. is going to Europe for its next manned vehicle, a man-capable version of the Jules Verne.
The nice thing about Open Source is that it doesn't require billion-dollar budgets.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars. But unfortunately, that wasn't the first priority for the United States. We want to fight stupid wars with insignificant countries. We want 1% of the population to essentially own the rest, and we're willing to manipulate the economy to make that more and more the case every day.
This is not a country that does great things any longer. It's not been one since 1969. It's time to stop pretending.
And don't tell me that Obama will fix this. He can't win.
Radio amateurs ran a wide area IP network over 1200 baud AX.25 half-duplex links in 1985, and wide area networks without IP before then. You could literally hear your packet being relayed from point to point. The IP software of the time (KA9Q NOS, and later on Linux) could handle the delays just fine. It wasn't the 30-minute delays of planetary communications, but certainly much slower than conventional IP networks, seconds per packet and tens of seconds for packets to be forwarded and acknowledged. Linux has had the features necessary to do this way back in the Waltje (Fred Van Kempen) networking software, before Alan Cox started working on it. Waltje was a Dutch CB packet enthusiast. Sometimes people turn that stuff on and don't realize they aren't the first ones.
Debian uses a hardware cryptography devices so that hackers can't get the key even if the systems are compromised?
Last I checked, an eToken Pro cost less than $50. I have one on my keychain. It works with OpenSSL. I can sign with it, and the private key never leaves the device. This is not rocket science. Lots of folks use smartcards rather than the eToken to do this, the eToken is just smaller and doesn't require a reader.
Debian has trusted servers not connected to the internet?
"Server" is the wrong word here. Debian has non-writable resources that are used to check the writable, on-net resources. These are also available for individual Debian users to create for checking their own systems, using one of the Debian security packages that is available to everyone. This again is not rocket science, it's been really cheap and easy to do since CD writing became available.
Debian has systems with one function (hg, db, etc)?
Oh yes, for more than 10 years. Debian has lots of donations of system resources, meaning entire systems and network homes for them all over the world, and more money than it needs to do this stuff.
Debian has IDS software monitoring the network?
It's more than one network, since Debian has geographical diversity, but yes various Debian systems are behind IDS, and the packages for making your own IDS are part of Debian.
You do know that you're talking about really basic security stuff, right?
The UIDs were up there before I made the statement about the real Bruce having my UID, otherwise I would not have been able to make it.
If anyone is to blame, it is Tio Paco for refusing to turn off posting privileges for users with handles that are obvious attempts to defraud regarding their own identity.
Well, I think the whole community's strength is in openness. We discuss how we do things, we fix them the best we know how, all in public where others can see. It attracts the knowledgible, and scares away the ignorant. I remember someone who wrote that he won't use Linux because he saw a comment "/* What does this do? */" in the kernel. Of course, nobody knows the entire kernel, and "what does this do?" is generally the first statement in a conversation that fixes a bug or removes dead code. I'd rather be able to ask "what does this do?" than suffer in ignorance.
The other compromise was detected by a 'filesystem integrity check'
Debian runs the same security tools as any high-security organization. Indeed, they made some of the ones that others are using, and are in general the prototype for process among Linux distributions. They had a cryptographic trust network before other distributions, there was an SELinux version of Debian before Red Hat picked it up, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
where I worked on making movies they were compiled.
If I were to rewrite it today, it would say what you can do, rather than what you can't. But it's held up really well. There is a tremendous amount of software conveyed as having that particular set of rights, and it touches everybody's lives daily. I can't complain :-)
We need more than you think for something to be open even by your over-restrictive definition of "open". Consider that the report on the security of Sequoia voting machines has been supressed by the court. In that case, the software was trade secret and all rights reserved. But what if it had been source code that was disclosed but still "all rights reserved"? Since that prohibits compilation and use, it would be difficult for security testers to legally do their work at all. Since it prevents derivative works and redistribution, we'd be unable to include code snippets in any report. We would be legally unable to modify the software for the purpose of testing bug fixes. And we'd be unable to distribute fixes.
The rights are a lot more important than you think. Even to have a kind of code that is disclosed mainly for the purpose of increasing trust, we'd have to design a license to convey significant rights, if the examiners were not to be placed at legal risk.
Bruce
The OSD is related to what people had tried to do with licenses at the time. For example, there was Alladin Ghostscript, which prohibited its distribution on the same medium with software that wasn't freely distributable. And there was the Berkeley Spice License, for their electrical engineering software, which prohibited the use of the software by the Police of South Africa, and still did a decade after apartheid was over.
I was trying to define what was Free Software for Debian's social contract. FSF didn't promote a definition of Free Software at the time, although they'd published one in their newsletter a long time before. RMS even said in a personal email that he liked my definition.
Then 7 or 8 months after this was all written and in use by Debian, Eric Raymond brought me the news of the meeting where a bunch of people had decided to promote Free Software as Open Source, and asked me to work on that. So, I filed off the Debian references and it became the Open Source Definition, and I announced Open Source to the world, including here on Slashdot (and that announcement still survives online today). That announcement was the first real use of "Open Source" to the public.
Bruce
Go here and search for "wet". It's already trademarked :-) . There are also a very large number of trademarks containing or related to "wet".
Timothy, you can do better than this. Some of the qualities of molecules, such as surface tension and the polarity of atomic dipoles, govern the ability of water to wet various materials. Chemicals, for example detergents, have been developed to modulate the wetting ability of water. And there are few more enthusiasticaly trademarked products than detergents.
It's the rights that are important. You're missing that entirely.
Bruce
Their publicity agencies are here on Slashdot pumping that angle every day.
Bruce
Code with source-code available but without the particular set of rights defined in the OSD is called "Disclosed Source Code". It is possible to have disclosed source code with "All Rights Reserved", such that nobody would ever have rights to compile the code. Thus, it makes sense to have a name that is specific to the rights attached, not just the fact that there is source code. That's what "open source" and "Open Source" mean. The capital letters are not significant, if it says it's open source it has to have the rights specified by the OSD.
Open Source is what is defined by the Open Source Definition.
A number of microsoft dweebs and/or campaigners would like to have it otherwise. But then Microsoft would like to have a lot of things. It's called corporate totalitarianism.
Bruce
Consider that the target readers of my Datamation editorial - which someone summarized here on Slashdot - are not even as deep into the law as folks who have been following Groklaw for a while. Thus I tried to base the editorial on human interest to keep them reading - the nice Open Source guy vs. the Patent Troll. What the court found is (simplifying again) that 1) we aren't limited to prosecuting under contract law, and can use copyright law which has a more powerful enforcement tool-set; 2) there is economic damage connected with the infringement even when the software isn't generally sold, so we have a basis for prosecution, "standing", etc.
The main purpose of the editorial is to dispel any question that Open Source licenses can not be enforced with something like an injunction, punitive damages, etc.
Thanks
Bruce
I didn't get any farther than that before turning off the fantasy channel.
We learned how to make good robots.
I think Europe and Japan will make some progress. The U.S. is going to Europe for its next manned vehicle, a man-capable version of the Jules Verne.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars. But unfortunately, that wasn't the first priority for the United States. We want to fight stupid wars with insignificant countries. We want 1% of the population to essentially own the rest, and we're willing to manipulate the economy to make that more and more the case every day.
This is not a country that does great things any longer. It's not been one since 1969. It's time to stop pretending.
And don't tell me that Obama will fix this. He can't win.
Bruce
So, what's the telephone area code for the moon, Mr. Anonymous?
Oh, there is none? Why, because nobody has been there for 40 years. The United States does not have the competence to operate space research.
It's irrational to consider that the United States, in its current condition, could or should operate a Mars mission.
Here's an industry that isn't ready to farm out its work to cloud computing. Internally, they operate their own clouds.
Bruce
Uh-oh. Red Hat said those didn't get out. Send me an email, or call me at 510-984-1055, please.
You should take a look at Debian's user security manual. This will give you some idea of how seriously they take it. Also, there's a lot of material under www.debian.org/security/ that is worth looking at.
Last I checked, an eToken Pro cost less than $50. I have one on my keychain. It works with OpenSSL. I can sign with it, and the private key never leaves the device. This is not rocket science. Lots of folks use smartcards rather than the eToken to do this, the eToken is just smaller and doesn't require a reader.
"Server" is the wrong word here. Debian has non-writable resources that are used to check the writable, on-net resources. These are also available for individual Debian users to create for checking their own systems, using one of the Debian security packages that is available to everyone. This again is not rocket science, it's been really cheap and easy to do since CD writing became available.
Oh yes, for more than 10 years. Debian has lots of donations of system resources, meaning entire systems and network homes for them all over the world, and more money than it needs to do this stuff.
It's more than one network, since Debian has geographical diversity, but yes various Debian systems are behind IDS, and the packages for making your own IDS are part of Debian.
You do know that you're talking about really basic security stuff, right?
If anyone is to blame, it is Tio Paco for refusing to turn off posting privileges for users with handles that are obvious attempts to defraud regarding their own identity.
His famous quote: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Well, I think the whole community's strength is in openness. We discuss how we do things, we fix them the best we know how, all in public where others can see. It attracts the knowledgible, and scares away the ignorant. I remember someone who wrote that he won't use Linux because he saw a comment "/* What does this do? */" in the kernel. Of course, nobody knows the entire kernel, and "what does this do?" is generally the first statement in a conversation that fixes a bug or removes dead code. I'd rather be able to ask "what does this do?" than suffer in ignorance.
Debian runs the same security tools as any high-security organization. Indeed, they made some of the ones that others are using, and are in general the prototype for process among Linux distributions. They had a cryptographic trust network before other distributions, there was an SELinux version of Debian before Red Hat picked it up, etc.