Well, The Open Group isn't doing X development anymore.
And absolutely nobody misses them. Of course they didn't develop X, they just took it over when the X consortium disbanded. Much of X development was paid for with public funds.
There's not much point in doing more X development, the product is nearing the end of its life-cycle. Look at the good work being done by the Berlin Consortium and other groups. That's the future.
This is sort of what I was trying to do when I proposed the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which became the Open Source Definition). It's been pretty successful - even IBM bought into it. I think a check-box approach (as I use at the end of my Open Sources chapter is more useful, but the bottom line is of course you've got to read the license before you put serious work into something.
I've thought about auditing Red Hat and the others - of course it would take a lot of time, and that's something I don't necessarily have. If someone else wants to do this there's a good article in it and I can help you get it published.
Their new license is very clearly not conformant with the Open Source Definition. Certainly this won't get into Debian, I doubt Red Hat would be interested either.
I'll try to get them interested in an OSD-compliant license. However, there are perfectly up-to-date versions of rdist that are real free software, and there are several good replacements for rdist, too.
Distributions won't be riddled with holes because they'll be too careful to include poorly-licensed software in the first place.
Red Hat made a mistake in this case. It was their policy to not put this kind of software in their distribution, and one package slipped by. We all had some fun razzing them, but this was never a controversy - we knew they'd revert to another version of the package.
We also had fun exploring the alternatives to the problem package, there were at least two of them, at least one of which was much more powerful and both had no questions about their licenses.
In other words, this is no big deal. It's nice to note that Red Hat did the right thing, though.
We had a press release a few weeks ago from a Sun staffer who said that AOL/Netscape was considering using their development paradigm rather than Open Source. AOL/Netscape said they had no such plans and that the Sun staffer was talking out of place.
Now, another Sun staffer claims Open-Source-like attributes when the SCSL is clearly not Open Source. More distortion.
Does it seem that Sun is grasping at straws here? IBM has released a license for its Java compiler that is compliant with the Open Source Definition. A Java VM is available under the GPL from Transvirtual. Other Java components under bona-fide free software licenses are in process. You don't have to go to Sun for Java any longer.
The most laughable part is that they feel the SCSL is necessary for real companies, and that those companies would not participate in Open Source. Yet, IBM, Apple, and many others belie that claim.
I think Sun has learned some valuable lessons from the Linux development. They just haven't been able to accept them yet. When they do, the SCSL will go away.
If I want to include [someone else's] GPLed code in my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL.
I can't help but see that as a fair trade. If somebody wants to use my GPL-ed code, they have to GPL what they are using it with. I wrote it to add to the existing pool of free software, not to help anyone with free consulting services for their proprietary stuff.
As the copyright holder (generally the author), you get to set the initial license. If you say in that license "all derivative works must use this same license", as in the GPL, that's the way it will be. If you use the X/BSD/Apache license, you are leaving the door open for others to layer different license provisions on top of yours.
This viral stuff is backwards. I think the BSD license is actually more viral than the GPL. Here's why:
If I decide to write a program and contribute it to free software, the GPL assures me that it will stay free software forever. I'd be bothered if somebody made it non-free, effectively stealing my work for their own remuneration. The GPL is effectively a vaccine against that.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license, someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all. Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software with the non-free license virus.
So, which license is more viral? It sounds to me as if the GPL is getting a bum rap here.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work. I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
I used to write "affect", as in "to have an effect upon", but too many people objected to that usage because of its secondary meaning, which has to do with emotion. "effect" when used in its verb form has the same meaning, anyway, look it up.
Whatever form I use, "effect" or "affect", someone always comes along and tells me it's wrong and I should use the other form.
Actually, this was solved long ago. Bison includes a parser in its output. That parser contains this comment:
/* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 1.24 of Bison. */
You may do something similar for any GPL-ed program for which you are the copyright holder.
Just preface the GPL with this explicit exception: "The output of this program is not a derivative work of this program. You may use this program to process your own programs and data without it effecting your copyright rights on those programs and data."
I know how long QNX has been around, and I know it's a stable embedded-systems kernel. No argument there.
I don't think that free software precludes a tighly focused group of engineers, though. There is lots of evidence for the contrary, especially where the Linux kernel team is concerned.
I agree that X is moribund, but of course there are free software efforts like Berlin to replace it on Linux. I don't care much that the Amiga won't run X, as long as you can port GDK and CORBA you can run the GNOME tools.
You young whipper-snappers have no regard for history:-)
There was a time when the entire kernel source in.tar.gz form fit on one floppy and Linux didn't network. Then there was a time when it didn't network well. Then it networked well, but slowly. Then it was the fastest monoprocessor TCP/IP implementation. Then it networked well on multiprocessors, but slowly...
The Amiga folks switched operating systems not because of any present technical superiority, but because of the future. If there's something we don't like about Linux, it gets fixed. If you don't like how QNX works, you're stuck. Even if we get the QNX source code, who will want to put lots of free work into this proprietary product? That's why they chose Linux - because it's evolving so much faster than proprietary systems.
I found the criticism of Linux' TCP/IP rather laughable, because I remember not very long ago one of the primary criticisms of Linux was that it didn't have TCP/IP. Whatever you don't like about Linux' TCP/IP implementation will be fixed soon enough. Meanwhile, it runs fast enough to saturate my 768/768 DSL while the Pentium 120 CPU is loafing along. I can wait a year for it to be fast enough to saturate a DS3. The criticism regarding other OS having work-arounds to interoperate with Linux applies to Linux 1.x (or other old versions), and of course those problems are long gone (along with the FIN_WAIT problem he mentioned). The criticism about lack of IPV6, etc., is bogus, he's not been keeping up with Linux' development.
Someday, Linux development will taper off and we'll switch to another system - maybe even a message-passing system like QNX. But the system we switch to will be free software, because of its fast evolution, not proprietary like QNX.
Are you missing the point that they could simply open the driver source? Yes, without good docs we might have a hard time reading it, but at least we could port it. And reading it would not be any more difficult than reverse-engineering is now.
Eric's arguments are valid, but he's missing the primary motivator for hardware vendors. If you don't open the source for your device drivers, we will not buy your hardware. We are a market force now, and don't have to rely on threats of reverse-engineering any longer.
Chip vendors don't like this because they don't want their competitors to use their own documentation to produce drop-in replacements for their components. They use trade-secret because it's the cheapest form of protection. However, if they have to open their interfaces to get their chips designed into Linux systems, they will publish their documents and use patents and copyright as protection against their hardware competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
And absolutely nobody misses them. Of course they didn't develop X, they just took it over when the X consortium disbanded. Much of X development was paid for with public funds.
There's not much point in doing more X development, the product is nearing the end of its life-cycle. Look at the good work being done by the Berlin Consortium and other groups. That's the future.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
By the way, I don't run the license-discuss mailing list. I just dominate it :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Please post to debian-legal@lists.debian.org and ask them to look at it.
Thanks
Bruce
I'll try to get them interested in an OSD-compliant license. However, there are perfectly up-to-date versions of rdist that are real free software, and there are several good replacements for rdist, too.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Red Hat made a mistake in this case. It was their policy to not put this kind of software in their distribution, and one package slipped by. We all had some fun razzing them, but this was never a controversy - we knew they'd revert to another version of the package.
We also had fun exploring the alternatives to the problem package, there were at least two of them, at least one of which was much more powerful and both had no questions about their licenses.
In other words, this is no big deal. It's nice to note that Red Hat did the right thing, though.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Now, another Sun staffer claims Open-Source-like attributes when the SCSL is clearly not Open Source. More distortion.
Does it seem that Sun is grasping at straws here? IBM has released a license for its Java compiler that is compliant with the Open Source Definition. A Java VM is available under the GPL from Transvirtual. Other Java components under bona-fide free software licenses are in process. You don't have to go to Sun for Java any longer.
The most laughable part is that they feel the SCSL is necessary for real companies, and that those companies would not participate in Open Source. Yet, IBM, Apple, and many others belie that claim.
I think Sun has learned some valuable lessons from the Linux development. They just haven't been able to accept them yet. When they do, the SCSL will go away.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
I can't help but see that as a fair trade. If somebody wants to use my GPL-ed code, they have to GPL what they are using it with. I wrote it to add to the existing pool of free software, not to help anyone with free consulting services for their proprietary stuff.
Bruce
I'd say it matters to the end user whether I write the code or not. I'd not write it if the BSD license was my only protection.
Your metaphor is invalid. People who sell add-on parts don't make copies of my car and sell them.
I hope that answers the question.
Thanks
Bruce
This beats arguments about the GPL any day.
If I decide to write a program and contribute it to free software, the GPL assures me that it will stay free software forever. I'd be bothered if somebody made it non-free, effectively stealing my work for their own remuneration. The GPL is effectively a vaccine against that.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license, someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all. Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software with the non-free license virus.
So, which license is more viral? It sounds to me as if the GPL is getting a bum rap here.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work. I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
Thanks
Bruce
I used to write "affect", as in "to have an effect upon", but too many people objected to that usage because of its secondary meaning, which has to do with emotion. "effect" when used in its verb form has the same meaning, anyway, look it up.
Whatever form I use, "effect" or "affect", someone always comes along and tells me it's wrong and I should use the other form.
Bruce
Bruce
You may do something similar for any GPL-ed program for which you are the copyright holder.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I don't think that free software precludes a tighly focused group of engineers, though. There is lots of evidence for the contrary, especially where the Linux kernel team is concerned.
I agree that X is moribund, but of course there are free software efforts like Berlin to replace it on Linux. I don't care much that the Amiga won't run X, as long as you can port GDK and CORBA you can run the GNOME tools.
Thanks
Bruce
There was a time when the entire kernel source in .tar.gz form fit on one floppy and Linux didn't network. Then there was a time when it didn't network well. Then it networked well, but slowly. Then it was the fastest monoprocessor TCP/IP implementation. Then it networked well on multiprocessors, but slowly...
Get the point?
Thanks
Bruce
I found the criticism of Linux' TCP/IP rather laughable, because I remember not very long ago one of the primary criticisms of Linux was that it didn't have TCP/IP. Whatever you don't like about Linux' TCP/IP implementation will be fixed soon enough. Meanwhile, it runs fast enough to saturate my 768/768 DSL while the Pentium 120 CPU is loafing along. I can wait a year for it to be fast enough to saturate a DS3. The criticism regarding other OS having work-arounds to interoperate with Linux applies to Linux 1.x (or other old versions), and of course those problems are long gone (along with the FIN_WAIT problem he mentioned). The criticism about lack of IPV6, etc., is bogus, he's not been keeping up with Linux' development.
Someday, Linux development will taper off and we'll switch to another system - maybe even a message-passing system like QNX. But the system we switch to will be free software, because of its fast evolution, not proprietary like QNX.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Chip vendors don't like this because they don't want their competitors to use their own documentation to produce drop-in replacements for their components. They use trade-secret because it's the cheapest form of protection. However, if they have to open their interfaces to get their chips designed into Linux systems, they will publish their documents and use patents and copyright as protection against their hardware competitors.
Thanks
Bruce