I am a board member of Telkel, Inc., which develops JBoss, a J2EE product currently under the GPL. So, I am dealing with exactly what you are talking about right now. I want to give people the right to put their proprietary programs in the container provided by JBoss, but I would prefer to see Telkel get improvements to JBoss back, and I'd like to see them able to run the program in a proprietary JVM. I don't see that the GPL makes such fine distinctions.
I don't have a good answer for this yet - I think it will take a new license.
The goal here is to get source code distributed in cases where the program would have been distributed, except that it's being offered as a service instead, circumventing the GPL requirement for source code distribution. IMO, there are two ways to do this:
Require source-code distribution as a consequence of public performance. Public performance is a right in copyright law that is distinct from use or distribution. Unfortunately, copyright law (in the U.S.) gives this right in connection with only some works, like moves, plays, and music, but not computer programs. That's just because copyright law lags behind the evolution of computer software. So, were we to assert a requirement for source distribution with public performance, it could be problematical simply because we'd have to prove that the public performance right is covered by copyright law for computer software.
A more conventional way to do this would be to require source code distribution for a certain class of use, where the use is equivalent to public performance. People don't like use restrictions because of the way licenses have discriminated about types of use, typically licenses say things like "for educational and non-commercial use only". Of course that's not OSD-compliant. However, this particular restriction would be OSD-compliant because its purpose is to achieve a goal of the OSD: source-code distribution.
Remember, the purpose of the GPL is to turn copyright law on its head through the use of copyright law. Now, technology has allowed people to circumvent the GPL and diminish freedom again. I want to see that fixed.
I don't think you are one of the people who says I'm not free unless I have the freedom to make someone else a slave, but that's my analogy for what people are doing with GPL loopholes - just using them to make their improvements to a GPL program proprietary software again.
I'm not RMS, and not even an FSF official, but I've been working on this issue on my own for a year or more. If anyone wants to leave questions about it here, I'll answer them later today, and pass them on to RMS.
I think Free Software has grown too large to work without forks - they may indeed have become essential to our process. We have too many coders now for them to all march in lock-step - indeed, that would discourage innovation.
Unix companies learned that consortium projects don't work. Think of all the failures the GUI efforts, the operating system efforts, etc. GNOME ate CDE's lunch, but I'm not sure it would even have happened if there wasn't a KDE too. Monolithic Free Software projects without competition are too much like consortia. Maybe that's the root of some of Mozilla's problems, too.
It's obviously a hoax. It's written from the perspective of someone intimate with the Free Software community writing as a devil's advocate and getting just enough wrong to sound (he thinks) like Gate's perspective. But it's not written from the perspective of a Bill Gates at all. Gates would not concern himself with the names of Stallman and Raymond, he would be content to state that there are divisions.
By the way, I am happy that a divison brought forth GNOME. Would that all forks were so successful!
SCO did this a while ago - they made their system run Linux applications, thinking that of course people would want the tried and tested SCO operating system. Nobody bought it. The dregs of SCO now belong to Caldera.
Linux apps run great on Linux, and if you don't like the GPL license they run on BSD, too.
Releasing free software doesn't make sense for everyone. OK, but using free software that other people have released sure makes sense to them. It doesn't seem like much of a fair exchange as far as I can tell.
I think Linux compatibility might make the QNX stockholders happy, for a while. But QNX should target to what they do well rather than trying to be a general-purpose OS. There's little value left for them in that market when so many competitors don't even want your money.
Actually, it's not at all clear that even the first license requires you to execute it. And it's not clear that the first license in this case is requiring you to execute the second. You don't have to sign it or indicate your compliance in any way. That's what I was getting at when I wrote that rule into the OSD - you shouldn't have to mail in a signed document to use a piece of Open Source software.
However, I do see the language about the grant in the PHP license, and the second license for Zend, to be pretty messy. They didn't have to word it that way to get the job done, they could simply have built two compatible licenses for the two different pieces.
In your place, I'd have them clean up the license language.
BeOpen were not the only people working on resolving the licensing problem. In all I think I put in a few days on the Python licensing issue, speaking with the CNRI person via email, phone, and an in-person meeting. I did it at the request of Digital Creations. DC's investor had changed the Zope license OSD at my request, so he was calling in the favor by asking me to work on another license that concerned them.
In general I don't charge for speaking, but I expect all of my transportation, lodging, and food expenses to be paid. I don't want to front the money, I want tickets and hotel on someone else's credit card, please.
I have a baby at home and in general try to only take a trip once a month. I have recently had to turn down a user group, well in advance of the event, simply because my schedule got too tight.
I look with especial kindness upon speaking engagements that are willing to pay for my wife and child to come with me, and will in general go out of my way to give them more than one talk, etc. If we can do a bit of sightseeing around the thing, it becomes something fun rather than another out-and-back trip with me missing the travel days away from my family.
I always show up. Always. That's pretty basic responsibility, but some people get that wrong and make us look bad.
I objected to APSL version 1.0 . The clause you quoted is in version 1.1 and does not have the part I objected to. Eric should indeed not have approved APSL 1.0 . However, the Open Source Initiative board has never approved of either license, to this day. Eric jumped the gun without their approval when he appeared to endorse the Apple license.
I bet this "mr" is Brett Glass. He's misquoting me, but he's never been able to get that particular comment out of his head. Yes, the BSD license would allow you to convert BSD work to GPL. I've always considered it odd how any proprietary license would be OK, but oh no! not the GPL.
And I doubt Sun is anywhere near an understanding that 'the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure'.
First there was IBM. Then, Digital provided an alternative. Then, Sun provided an alternative to Digital. Then a whole bunch of people marketed Unix-like systems based on Free Software and provided an alternative to Sun. Sun's got to notice, and they don't want to go the way of Digital. So I think they might be getting that message.
If I'm not mistaken, they use the original BSD license, which qualifies under the OSD. They also no doubt use GCC as their compiler, and it's GPL-ed. Maybe they don't like applying the GPL to their work, is that what you are trying to say? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
Java the environment takes in all of those pieces. I don't think it's bad to call a large package of different components that are meant to work together "Java".
The language definition is already out there for people to use, as are the APIs. That leaves the JDK and the various Java packages as the main thing that is not Open Source.
If you consider what happened with StarOffice having the GPL applied to it, and Sun seeding the GNOME foundation, this is a lot deeper than a reaction to C#. Sun looked at how the community felt about the SCSL license on StarOffice and decided we were right. They looked at GNOME as the right choice when CDE and other consortium projects didn't pan out. They've heard our criticism on Java's licensing, and they might percieve that their present strategy is holding Java back. Sun is coming to the understanding that the Free Software paradigm is the future for computer infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a good answer for this yet - I think it will take a new license.
Thanks
Bruce
Require source-code distribution as a consequence of public performance. Public performance is a right in copyright law that is distinct from use or distribution. Unfortunately, copyright law (in the U.S.) gives this right in connection with only some works, like moves, plays, and music, but not computer programs. That's just because copyright law lags behind the evolution of computer software. So, were we to assert a requirement for source distribution with public performance, it could be problematical simply because we'd have to prove that the public performance right is covered by copyright law for computer software.
A more conventional way to do this would be to require source code distribution for a certain class of use, where the use is equivalent to public performance. People don't like use restrictions because of the way licenses have discriminated about types of use, typically licenses say things like "for educational and non-commercial use only". Of course that's not OSD-compliant. However, this particular restriction would be OSD-compliant because its purpose is to achieve a goal of the OSD: source-code distribution.
Thanks
Bruce
I don't think you are one of the people who says I'm not free unless I have the freedom to make someone else a slave, but that's my analogy for what people are doing with GPL loopholes - just using them to make their improvements to a GPL program proprietary software again.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I've been baited by the best of them. One would hope that I've learned how to handle that by now.
Thanks
Bruce
That was added hours after I read the original message.
That "satire" message was added hours after I read the letter, please don't burn me down for it.
Yes, you can tell it's me by my user number. All of the impostors have a few more digits in theirs.
Bruce
I think Free Software has grown too large to work without forks - they may indeed have become essential to our process. We have too many coders now for them to all march in lock-step - indeed, that would discourage innovation.
Unix companies learned that consortium projects don't work. Think of all the failures the GUI efforts, the operating system efforts, etc. GNOME ate CDE's lunch, but I'm not sure it would even have happened if there wasn't a KDE too. Monolithic Free Software projects without competition are too much like consortia. Maybe that's the root of some of Mozilla's problems, too.
Bruce
I'll leave you with a question. What if all forks between projects were as successful as GNOME?
Bruce
By the way, I am happy that a divison brought forth GNOME. Would that all forks were so successful!
Bruce
Linux apps run great on Linux, and if you don't like the GPL license they run on BSD, too.
Releasing free software doesn't make sense for everyone. OK, but using free software that other people have released sure makes sense to them. It doesn't seem like much of a fair exchange as far as I can tell.
I think Linux compatibility might make the QNX stockholders happy, for a while. But QNX should target to what they do well rather than trying to be a general-purpose OS. There's little value left for them in that market when so many competitors don't even want your money.
Bruce
Bruce
However, I do see the language about the grant in the PHP license, and the second license for Zend, to be pretty messy. They didn't have to word it that way to get the job done, they could simply have built two compatible licenses for the two different pieces.
In your place, I'd have them clean up the license language.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I have a baby at home and in general try to only take a trip once a month. I have recently had to turn down a user group, well in advance of the event, simply because my schedule got too tight.
I look with especial kindness upon speaking engagements that are willing to pay for my wife and child to come with me, and will in general go out of my way to give them more than one talk, etc. If we can do a bit of sightseeing around the thing, it becomes something fun rather than another out-and-back trip with me missing the travel days away from my family.
I always show up. Always. That's pretty basic responsibility, but some people get that wrong and make us look bad.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
First there was IBM. Then, Digital provided an alternative. Then, Sun provided an alternative to Digital. Then a whole bunch of people marketed Unix-like systems based on Free Software and provided an alternative to Sun. Sun's got to notice, and they don't want to go the way of Digital. So I think they might be getting that message.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
The language definition is already out there for people to use, as are the APIs. That leaves the JDK and the various Java packages as the main thing that is not Open Source.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce