Yeah, I think we have to get together on our patent stance right away. Unfortunately, we might not be helped in this by IBM, and a number of other companies. Indeed, they might hinder.
Google sells domain parking with built-in advertising that pays the domain owner. That's how they got all of those domains. They don't own them, but they serve them.
Well, we're in a really bad position here. Anyone who helps to make our own Open Source software run better on the Microsoft platform is helping that platform take share from the Open Source platform.
Pretty good play by Microsoft, huh?
I am not saying that Apache is selling out. But I am saying that Apache licensing is being used here to reduce the share of our own platform. Which I think indicates that Apache licensing isn't the best strategy.
How can they honestly disavow the patent 'gun', while so many other players on the field have similar guns?
They can disavow it where we are concerned, because we're not aiming one at them. This doesn't mean they can't keep their options open against other proprietary software.
Yes, MySQL's license is cool. They get to follow the GPL, and make money from anyone who doesn't want to join the covenant of the GPL. I like that so much that I do it with my own software, too. Why not get paid for making GPL code?
MySQL mostly hired the active developers, so your assertion isn't really true for them. I think it is true for Sun, which is one reason that some of their products, like the tremendously important OpenOffice, don't get the community they should.
I have another solution for my dual-licensed stuff. If you assign me your copyright, I will give you a commitment to keep development of the product in the open for a year after your contribution, or remove your contribution.
Not from Free Software. They can completely put down the gun as far as we're concerned, while keeping it effective against proprietary software companies. It doesn't help them against Eolas at all, since Eolas doesn't make anything but patents.
A lot of outsiders won't understand the difference between no rules and rules in this case, and will think that Microsoft is doing more than they really are.
GPL actually makes it easier to make Open Source software and be paid. It's called dual-licensing. Note that MySQL used it and just sold their 9-year-old company for $1.1 Billion. There are some things you have to be careful about to make this work, and it's a per-project decision rather than a per-contributor decision.
They want to talk to regulators as "insiders" in the Open Source community, asking for increases in software patenting that will actually block Open Source.
Is there any reason to think that this would actually work? Why can't a "real" insider just coherently explain that that position does not make sense?
Well, last time I saw this happening they are using Novell to do just what you said.
high-quality software is high-quality software regardless of its origins.
You should be considering what the software is supposed to do to you besides what it's doing for you. For example, there's some high-quality software out there that has been designed to lock you in, such that you will find it difficult to port your applications to something else, and you'll never do so because of the expense.
3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
there's only a problem if they start doing undocumented things to the protocols. And it sounds like they've gotten much better about that lately, even if not by choice.
Undocumented things in the protocols is the modus opperandi of Embrace and Enhance. I agree that they've had to let go of a lot, mostly because of anti-trust prosecution. I don't trust them to give up the habit once the prosecutors are looking elsewhere. I see the Open Source involvement as a tool to get the prosecutors to look elsewhere.
Because all the community is GPL, and everyone else needs to be educated and brought into the fold.
Microsoft playing with strict rules would mean something. Microsoft playing with no rules means nothing.
Because the people paying [the Apache Foundation developers] for this want to use the proprietary platform instead?
I don't object to people who are being paid for this making a living. If you aren't being paid, it might be a good idea to think about what you're doing and what its eventual effect might be.
Yes, it would be a lot easier to live with Microsoft without the software patent situation, but also you have to acknowledge that Microsoft chose to use that ammunition and is still doing so.
Stupidly bad software patents are there in the U.S. because of our friend IBM, who brought the lawsuit against the government forcing them to allow software to be patented in the 80's.
Subsequent legislation to increase this trend worldwide has been pushed by Microsoft. I've been there to see this first-hand in discussions with European regulators.
Even without the patent problem, there would be significant problems associated with their monopolistic behavior. Much of their rise was achieved without use of software patent aggression.
They're trying to move in on Linux servers running Apache Foundation software, replacing them with Windows. Yes, that's an anti-Linux play:-) Why should an Open Source developer help them replace an Open Source platform with a proprietary platform in the market? Beats me, but some people seem to want to do so.
So if you make something available for everyone, you become the "unpaid employee" of anyone who improves it?
Let's take an extreme example. The Java Model Railroad Interface developer used the Artistic license. A toy train throttle manufacturer called KAM used his software in their product, and sent him a bill for about twice his annual income because KAM claims a broad patent on any two computers communicating to control a toy train. The JMRI developer got pretty cruelly used in this case.
It's not anyone who improves it who is a problem. But some folks, like KAM in this example, are really unsavory exploiters of the Open Source developer. Strong licensing (which doesn't mean the Artistic license, as the JMRI guy found out) is a good way to fight them.
1. They want to talk to regulators as "insiders" in the Open Source community, asking for increases in software patenting that will actually block Open Source.
2. Trying to become the dominant server for Apache Foundtion software is an anti-Linux play.
3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
4. If they really want to be sincere community members, let's see them play by GPL rules, not by Apache's "anything goes" rules. What they're doing now is trying to seem members of Open Source without any of the obligation.
They're trying to take the oxygen from Linux by becoming the dominant server for Open Source applications. But if you're an Open Source developer, helping them displace an Open Source platform isn't such a great idea, is it?
They're trying to take the oxygen from Linux and you're breathing a sigh of relief. But suddenly you gasp. No oxygen! The room is spinning. It's getting dark...
Nearly all closed-sourced shared libraries impose few - if any - restrictions to linking to them, and certainly none that require you to expose your source code.
In general, commercial shared libraries are "all rights reserved". They do not provide you with the right to link with or distribute them at all until you pay a royalty. If you link or distribute without that, pr of you violate any of their (usually very pernicious) license terms after you've paid, there are a number of penalties the court or a settlement could place upon you, including complete ownership of not just your code but your entire company if the damages are sufficiently high and you don't have the cash. And that one has happened before.
So, your assertion that commercial libraries give more rights is false, and against that you are putting up a rather silly assumption that any court anywhere could pay a king's ransom of code in exchange for a fingernail's worth of GPL code.
Negotiate? However this is (obviously) not a mandate on the original author. The original author can always say "no i dont want any money, you *must* give me your source code".
The original author doesn't really get to choose. If the plaintiff and defendant don't come to an agreement, the judge gets to decide what should be done. There haven't been any court cases where a judge compelled a party to free their code rather than remove the infringed code from their product. There may have been cases where damages have been paid, but those are under seal so I can't say if the damages were more than $1.
You can go in to a shop and buy MS Office, what is the realistic probability of a store saying - "cant buy this". 0.
You can buy the right to run a copy of MS office, that's about all you can buy. That comes with a very long license, with much worse terms than the GPL. I think you aren't even allowed to publish unfavorable reviews according to that license.
This is so ridiculous. So basically you're saying its OK to pirate software? and that software owners are *wrong* to prosecute you? Because thats what it sounds like to people outside the Stallman RDF.
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that it is not logically possible for you to show that proprietary software is fair AND the GPL is unfair. If you accept proprietary software, you've got to accept the GPL too, because it never asks for more than a proprietary license does.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think we have to get together on our patent stance right away. Unfortunately, we might not be helped in this by IBM, and a number of other companies. Indeed, they might hinder.
Google sells domain parking with built-in advertising that pays the domain owner. That's how they got all of those domains. They don't own them, but they serve them.
Bruce
Well, we're in a really bad position here. Anyone who helps to make our own Open Source software run better on the Microsoft platform is helping that platform take share from the Open Source platform.
Pretty good play by Microsoft, huh?
I am not saying that Apache is selling out. But I am saying that Apache licensing is being used here to reduce the share of our own platform. Which I think indicates that Apache licensing isn't the best strategy.
That's a good analysis, thanks very much for taking the time to write it!
They can disavow it where we are concerned, because we're not aiming one at them. This doesn't mean they can't keep their options open against other proprietary software.
Yes, MySQL's license is cool. They get to follow the GPL, and make money from anyone who doesn't want to join the covenant of the GPL. I like that so much that I do it with my own software, too. Why not get paid for making GPL code?
Netcraft says that Apache has more than 49 percent of web server share, while IIS has 35 percent and a fraction.
I have another solution for my dual-licensed stuff. If you assign me your copyright, I will give you a commitment to keep development of the product in the open for a year after your contribution, or remove your contribution.
Not from Free Software. They can completely put down the gun as far as we're concerned, while keeping it effective against proprietary software companies. It doesn't help them against Eolas at all, since Eolas doesn't make anything but patents.
Put down the gun. That means the software patent gun in this case. Completely, and without being forced by anti-trust regulators.
Bruce
No. A phone call is a closer contact than most trolls can handle emotionally. Most of them can't even sign their name in a textual communication.
A lot of outsiders won't understand the difference between no rules and rules in this case, and will think that Microsoft is doing more than they really are.
GPL actually makes it easier to make Open Source software and be paid. It's called dual-licensing. Note that MySQL used it and just sold their 9-year-old company for $1.1 Billion. There are some things you have to be careful about to make this work, and it's a per-project decision rather than a per-contributor decision.
Well, last time I saw this happening they are using Novell to do just what you said.
You should be considering what the software is supposed to do to you besides what it's doing for you. For example, there's some high-quality software out there that has been designed to lock you in, such that you will find it difficult to port your applications to something else, and you'll never do so because of the expense.
Undocumented things in the protocols is the modus opperandi of Embrace and Enhance. I agree that they've had to let go of a lot, mostly because of anti-trust prosecution. I don't trust them to give up the habit once the prosecutors are looking elsewhere. I see the Open Source involvement as a tool to get the prosecutors to look elsewhere.
Microsoft playing with strict rules would mean something. Microsoft playing with no rules means nothing.
I don't object to people who are being paid for this making a living. If you aren't being paid, it might be a good idea to think about what you're doing and what its eventual effect might be.
Stupidly bad software patents are there in the U.S. because of our friend IBM, who brought the lawsuit against the government forcing them to allow software to be patented in the 80's.
Subsequent legislation to increase this trend worldwide has been pushed by Microsoft. I've been there to see this first-hand in discussions with European regulators.
Even without the patent problem, there would be significant problems associated with their monopolistic behavior. Much of their rise was achieved without use of software patent aggression.
Bruce
How about a phone number: 510-984-1055. It turns away calls when we'd be asleep.
They're trying to move in on Linux servers running Apache Foundation software, replacing them with Windows. Yes, that's an anti-Linux play :-) Why should an Open Source developer help them replace an Open Source platform with a proprietary platform in the market? Beats me, but some people seem to want to do so.
Let's take an extreme example. The Java Model Railroad Interface developer used the Artistic license. A toy train throttle manufacturer called KAM used his software in their product, and sent him a bill for about twice his annual income because KAM claims a broad patent on any two computers communicating to control a toy train. The JMRI developer got pretty cruelly used in this case.
It's not anyone who improves it who is a problem. But some folks, like KAM in this example, are really unsavory exploiters of the Open Source developer. Strong licensing (which doesn't mean the Artistic license, as the JMRI guy found out) is a good way to fight them.
1. They want to talk to regulators as "insiders" in the Open Source community, asking for increases in software patenting that will actually block Open Source.
2. Trying to become the dominant server for Apache Foundtion software is an anti-Linux play.
3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
4. If they really want to be sincere community members, let's see them play by GPL rules, not by Apache's "anything goes" rules. What they're doing now is trying to seem members of Open Source without any of the obligation.
They're trying to take the oxygen from Linux by becoming the dominant server for Open Source applications. But if you're an Open Source developer, helping them displace an Open Source platform isn't such a great idea, is it?
They're trying to take the oxygen from Linux and you're breathing a sigh of relief. But suddenly you gasp. No oxygen! The room is spinning. It's getting dark...
In general, commercial shared libraries are "all rights reserved". They do not provide you with the right to link with or distribute them at all until you pay a royalty. If you link or distribute without that, pr of you violate any of their (usually very pernicious) license terms after you've paid, there are a number of penalties the court or a settlement could place upon you, including complete ownership of not just your code but your entire company if the damages are sufficiently high and you don't have the cash. And that one has happened before.
So, your assertion that commercial libraries give more rights is false, and against that you are putting up a rather silly assumption that any court anywhere could pay a king's ransom of code in exchange for a fingernail's worth of GPL code.
I answered this here.
The original author doesn't really get to choose. If the plaintiff and defendant don't come to an agreement, the judge gets to decide what should be done. There haven't been any court cases where a judge compelled a party to free their code rather than remove the infringed code from their product. There may have been cases where damages have been paid, but those are under seal so I can't say if the damages were more than $1.
You can buy the right to run a copy of MS office, that's about all you can buy. That comes with a very long license, with much worse terms than the GPL. I think you aren't even allowed to publish unfavorable reviews according to that license.
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that it is not logically possible for you to show that proprietary software is fair AND the GPL is unfair. If you accept proprietary software, you've got to accept the GPL too, because it never asks for more than a proprietary license does.