There is much reason for caution. Historically, Microsoft helped to fund
SCO's attack on Linux - we have court testimony under oath on that. They
briefed HP on their plans to sue the the developers of Sendmail, Linux
and other programs - we have the HP memo, which HP admitted was real.
Their agreement with Novell was calculated
to break the spirit of the GPL without violating the letter, so they've shown
they are happy to cheat the developer community when it's to their advantage.
More recently, they have cheated every way they could in getting Office
Open XML through ISO, even having one of their executives pose as officer of
a national
standards organization.
The Apache and LGPL licenses aren't much of a threat
to them. GPL is, because GPL prevents "embrace and enhance", Microsoft's
commonly-exercised strategy to take over a market.
Microsoft has signed over work
to FSF in the past when it was necessary to get changes into GCC for one
of their (past) divisions that was making a Unix compatibility layer.
I don't think this is the first time they've had to deal with GPL, by far.
So, the big question is, have they turned over a new leaf? I think they're still a super-size multinational for-profit corporation, and the reality is that every one of those will be self-serving first, whether they are Microsoft or someone more usually identified as a "friend" to Open Source. But Microsoft has managed to set themselves ahead of other corporations as a frequent user of dirty-fighting tactics to get its way. I don't expect that corporate culture to go away.
I think we still have some big problems with Microsoft, primarily
around software patents. They are still in a position to attack Linux
with them, although they would probably do that using
a proxy, as they did with SCO.
Their increased
involvement in Open Source
organizations means that they will be taken as a member of the Open Source
community when they speak with national legislators. This is terrible for us,
because it means they'll be able to short-circuit our work to protect Open
Source from software patents by speaking to government as an insider in our
communities. They've been
lobbying for a software patent treaty between Europe and the U.S. (part of
the "anti-piracy treaty" currently under discussion but not available to the
public) which could make criminal
prosecution a new tool against suspected patent infringers on both sides of
the Atlantic. And
because this is a treaty rather than legislation, it effectively takes the
question out of public
debate and just leaves it to congress to approve or reject the entire
treaty. Want to guess how many people in congress want to be seen as
"for piracy"?
Any non-trivial software program infringes patents, Open Source or not.
We're still in rather deep trouble regarding this, if anyone wants to push
the issue. And their general counsel made clear, in a recent speech at OSBC, that they're still not willing to put down the patent "gun".
Does anyone else think it's silly to use Q signals on radiotelephone, and for that matter on TCP/IP with its full error correction and ample bandwidth? I don't live in a QTH, it's a house. And instead of QSY, "would you please change frequency" sounds a lot clearer. It makes sense to use them on Morse Code transmissions, and with people who don't understand the same language.
The Radio Quiet Zone still exists, but the observatory works effectively these days with local hams to make sure they can communicate and that there will be working repeaters, etc. when the next emergency comes up.
I think that Nokia has missed some obvious things that would have helped them build the Maemo community, too. Like, where's the distribution? Downloading applications from all of those different repositories and crossing your fingers that they will work is sub-optimal, they could have put more effort into integration and would have community cooperation on that.
If they paid some of us. I did explain that the Linux developers weren't going to be interested otherwise, but that Nokia could do what they wanted with their own paid engineers if they designed it the way I laid out. I will even help them, at my full consulting rate, if they want, and will put some of that back into my work on Free Software.
Meanwhile, I'm just out to dispel incorrect assumptions about Linux and the Linux developers. We are business-friendly, darn it. We're just not out to give business a gift.
Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed
When I wrote the Open Source definition, I prohibited the prohibition of any sort of field of endeavor whatsoever in an accepted Open Source license. It was a matter of making Open Source practical for people to use. RMS also rejects such a prohibition, and says we should speak out against unethical use rather than prohibit it in our licenses. This just came up in his statement about use of Free Software in the Oyster card system. The example I knew of then (the Berkeley Spice license prohibition on use by the police of South Africa) had persisted long past the end of apartheid, and thus had an effect opposite of what had been intended.
We do have this great big contrary example of the Internet. It interoperates really well where the standards are followed. The stability problems that exist are mostly due to malware, and exist on closed networks too, and can be managed, although Microsoft isn't a good example of how to manage them.
FSF is trying to get the most possible out of a unilateral-permission-based license rather than a contract-based one. If courts tightened up the definition of a derivative work, FSF might be forced to go to a contract-based license. Certainly that would let them control what is done with the software more than they do now. They would not have to concern themselves about the boundaries of derivative works. And yet they have refrained from taking that step so far, because they don't want to restrict you from doing anything that you would otherwise have the right to do. They feel that would reduce your freedom.
The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.
Slashdot can be frustrating at times, especially when people don't read the article pointed to before they comment. I sat down and spent two hours explaining that you can indeed do what Nokia wants in the context of GPL3, you just have to know how. And that's what this is about. Please do read it.
and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.
Jaaksi never explained fully what the problem was but I suspect he was concerned with licensing, and upcoming licensing like GPL3 that tries even harder to enforce the freeness. I've shown that he can live with that without getting any concession from the developers regarding DRM, SIM locking, and bondage business models.
The problem for Nokia and all is that building modern operating system features is horribly expensive, and unjustifiable when they are already there for the picking, no charge. But they haven't quite figured out how to put the two pieces - free and proprietary - together in a way that satisfies everyone. I can tell them how. I'd really prefer that they paid for this sort of lesson, that is one way I support myself after all, but could not let such a public example of mistaken corporate strategic thinking about Linux pass by unchallenged.
Since the GPL was considered to be incompatible with patents, I'd say this was more than simple sharing.
That was FUD, though. The GPL wants some of your patent rights, just enough to protect GPL software from patents. You still have lots of room to license them commercially.
We can certainly call this an achievement. But really, this sort of legal innovation is what any company that wants to be a sincere partner in the Open Source community to the extent Red Hat is would be expected to do. We're not upset with Novell because they "didn't give us a gift". We're upset with them because they didn't do what is expected of anyone in their position. Red Hat just made that especially clear.
Yeah, it would have been better for everyone but Red Hat if they let the case drag out until they won. Because there's lots of prior art on the patent. But then again, anyone can see that the plaintiffs paid big time by giving up that many rights, and it doesn't sound like they got much from Red Hat to do that, but settled before they were counter-sued. So, hopefully people will be less willing to go after deep-pockets Open Source companies because of this.
It's time you paid the royalties you owe on my DNA. After all, you're running half of it in each and every one of your cells, clearly an unlicensed derivative work. And don't you dare "make it available" without a license!
This would be a gift if Red Hat didn't get value from that community. But since they do, I think the best way to describe it is that Red Hat is sharing the way the community would like more companies to share.
Let's be honest about the self-replicating capacity of RepRap. If this device were even close to being able to produce the electronics embodied in itself, it would have to be much more complex than just a manufacturer of 3-D plastic parts. Without those electronics, the device is really just a skeleton.
I submit that without the capacity to manufacture a working integrated circuit, the claim that the device can replicate itself should be considered a deliberate act of fraud.
I have a start-up company making Open Source software. GPL3, and Affero GPL3, are my money-making tools. They filter the good guys who want to share their development, from the guys who just want some software and don't plan on sharing anything. The first party is happy with GPL3 and Affero GPL3. The other folks are happy with a commercial license, and I am happy with their money.
GPL is a capitalist tool!:-) Sounds funny, but it really is. Hey, it worked for MySQL, they sold their company for 1.1 Billion!
So, please don't tell me that the GPL is anti-profit.
I created the official definition of Open Source. I was part of OSI at the time. What made it official? After all, I was just a guy in a cubicle at Pixar, and I actually wrote it for Debian. OSI came along 10 months later. What makes it official is that people, organizations, businesses all followed. Governments followed. They still do.
It is the same one every time, isn't it? So, to clarify, Open Source is any source code that is published, according to the DinkyPoo Initiative. Membership including... uh, I'd better not get nasty about it - even if that is tempting, I try to maintain a certain tone. But there aren't very many of them.
Look, I'm sorry it annoys you. But the day I published the Open Source Definition, Open Source acquired a specific meaning which stands to this day. Eric Raymond and I took the authority to do that. What gave us the right? We chose to lead, and some Millions of people have followed. Today they use "Open Source" as in the definition.
It's a trademark too. Just not a registered one, because that got botched.
Can't you do something more constructive and work on hacker? The abuse of that to mean computer criminal is much more bothersome.
Keep in mind, the term 'open source' hugely predates the FSF and GPL, and was generally understood to mean 'source available' or 'source viewable'. It didnt go beyond that.
Dispite repeated attempts to rewrite history, there was no common use of "Open Source" to refer to software before the Open Source Definition. There are a few references on the net, but they do not equal common usage. There was a term "Open Source" that referred to military intelligence information, which is still current.
Before you accuse other folks on Slashdot of being ignorant, it is a trademark. It is not a registered trademark. This is (IMO) due to a lawyer suggesting that they abandon the mark when they could have gone through with the registration. The lawyer blames me for the way I filed the initial registration, but OSI had no lawyers when it started, and no money, and the other two registrations I filed at that time went through ("Debian", and "Technocrat"). OSI also abandoned the application for "OSI Certified Open Source" too (check uspto.gov) so they don't seem to have any valid trademarks.
I got a trademark on "Technocrat", which is descriptive.
Now, defending some of these marks might have taken more money than they had back then. Had they gone through with the registration, they might well have been able to defend the marks now.
Slashdot Mirror
The Apache and LGPL licenses aren't much of a threat to them. GPL is, because GPL prevents "embrace and enhance", Microsoft's commonly-exercised strategy to take over a market. Microsoft has signed over work to FSF in the past when it was necessary to get changes into GCC for one of their (past) divisions that was making a Unix compatibility layer. I don't think this is the first time they've had to deal with GPL, by far.
So, the big question is, have they turned over a new leaf? I think they're still a super-size multinational for-profit corporation, and the reality is that every one of those will be self-serving first, whether they are Microsoft or someone more usually identified as a "friend" to Open Source. But Microsoft has managed to set themselves ahead of other corporations as a frequent user of dirty-fighting tactics to get its way. I don't expect that corporate culture to go away.
I think we still have some big problems with Microsoft, primarily around software patents. They are still in a position to attack Linux with them, although they would probably do that using a proxy, as they did with SCO. Their increased involvement in Open Source organizations means that they will be taken as a member of the Open Source community when they speak with national legislators. This is terrible for us, because it means they'll be able to short-circuit our work to protect Open Source from software patents by speaking to government as an insider in our communities. They've been lobbying for a software patent treaty between Europe and the U.S. (part of the "anti-piracy treaty" currently under discussion but not available to the public) which could make criminal prosecution a new tool against suspected patent infringers on both sides of the Atlantic. And because this is a treaty rather than legislation, it effectively takes the question out of public debate and just leaves it to congress to approve or reject the entire treaty. Want to guess how many people in congress want to be seen as "for piracy"? Any non-trivial software program infringes patents, Open Source or not. We're still in rather deep trouble regarding this, if anyone wants to push the issue. And their general counsel made clear, in a recent speech at OSBC, that they're still not willing to put down the patent "gun".
So, I can't say I think this is a good thing.
Bruce
I caught it.
Bruce K6BP
Mostly let the EU run things.
The Radio Quiet Zone still exists, but the observatory works effectively these days with local hams to make sure they can communicate and that there will be working repeaters, etc. when the next emergency comes up.
I think that Nokia has missed some obvious things that would have helped them build the Maemo community, too. Like, where's the distribution? Downloading applications from all of those different repositories and crossing your fingers that they will work is sub-optimal, they could have put more effort into integration and would have community cooperation on that.
I'm using AGPL for the software that runs Technocrat.net see the "Source Code" link at the bottom of the page there.
If they paid some of us. I did explain that the Linux developers weren't going to be interested otherwise, but that Nokia could do what they wanted with their own paid engineers if they designed it the way I laid out. I will even help them, at my full consulting rate, if they want, and will put some of that back into my work on Free Software.
Meanwhile, I'm just out to dispel incorrect assumptions about Linux and the Linux developers. We are business-friendly, darn it. We're just not out to give business a gift.
When I wrote the Open Source definition, I prohibited the prohibition of any sort of field of endeavor whatsoever in an accepted Open Source license. It was a matter of making Open Source practical for people to use. RMS also rejects such a prohibition, and says we should speak out against unethical use rather than prohibit it in our licenses. This just came up in his statement about use of Free Software in the Oyster card system. The example I knew of then (the Berkeley Spice license prohibition on use by the police of South Africa) had persisted long past the end of apartheid, and thus had an effect opposite of what had been intended.
Bruce
We do have this great big contrary example of the Internet. It interoperates really well where the standards are followed. The stability problems that exist are mostly due to malware, and exist on closed networks too, and can be managed, although Microsoft isn't a good example of how to manage them.
Bruce
Not a library or plug-in module. It's got to be a separate program.
Thanks
Bruce
Jaaksi never explained fully what the problem was but I suspect he was concerned with licensing, and upcoming licensing like GPL3 that tries even harder to enforce the freeness. I've shown that he can live with that without getting any concession from the developers regarding DRM, SIM locking, and bondage business models.
The problem for Nokia and all is that building modern operating system features is horribly expensive, and unjustifiable when they are already there for the picking, no charge. But they haven't quite figured out how to put the two pieces - free and proprietary - together in a way that satisfies everyone. I can tell them how. I'd really prefer that they paid for this sort of lesson, that is one way I support myself after all, but could not let such a public example of mistaken corporate strategic thinking about Linux pass by unchallenged.
Bruce
That was FUD, though. The GPL wants some of your patent rights, just enough to protect GPL software from patents. You still have lots of room to license them commercially.
We can certainly call this an achievement. But really, this sort of legal innovation is what any company that wants to be a sincere partner in the Open Source community to the extent Red Hat is would be expected to do. We're not upset with Novell because they "didn't give us a gift". We're upset with them because they didn't do what is expected of anyone in their position. Red Hat just made that especially clear.
Bruce
It's time you paid the royalties you owe on my DNA. After all, you're running half of it in each and every one of your cells, clearly an unlicensed derivative work. And don't you dare "make it available" without a license!
Dad
:-)
This would be a gift if Red Hat didn't get value from that community. But since they do, I think the best way to describe it is that Red Hat is sharing the way the community would like more companies to share.
I wrote an editorial stating the case in greater depth here.
I submit that without the capacity to manufacture a working integrated circuit, the claim that the device can replicate itself should be considered a deliberate act of fraud.
Bruce
GPL is a capitalist tool! :-) Sounds funny, but it really is. Hey, it worked for MySQL, they sold their company for 1.1 Billion!
So, please don't tell me that the GPL is anti-profit.
Bruce
Bruce
It is the same one every time, isn't it? So, to clarify, Open Source is any source code that is published, according to the DinkyPoo Initiative. Membership including... uh, I'd better not get nasty about it - even if that is tempting, I try to maintain a certain tone. But there aren't very many of them.
It's a trademark too. Just not a registered one, because that got botched.
Can't you do something more constructive and work on hacker? The abuse of that to mean computer criminal is much more bothersome.
Bruce
Dispite repeated attempts to rewrite history, there was no common use of "Open Source" to refer to software before the Open Source Definition. There are a few references on the net, but they do not equal common usage. There was a term "Open Source" that referred to military intelligence information, which is still current.
Bruce
I got a trademark on "Technocrat", which is descriptive.
Now, defending some of these marks might have taken more money than they had back then. Had they gone through with the registration, they might well have been able to defend the marks now.
Bruce