Not everything I write is a 4, and the posting form should have an option if I'd like to self-moderate it to a 1, 2, or 3, rather than wait for a moderator to come along and do it for me.
The way it's set up now, I feel as if I should never post unless it's golden prose:-)
Thanks, Jim, that makes sense. I wish the original message had been clearer. Some people got their dander up because they thought some GPL-ed library would be closed.
Of course the usual GCC libm would co-reside on the same machine.
Let's remember that the pointy-haired boss in this case might be the head of Linux International, who rather than being pointy-haired, bears a strong resemblance to a department-store santa, or Jerry Garcia on a bad day. Or at least he knows the people involved.
Microsoft's system was like a forest that hadn't had a controlled burn in decades, just waiting for one person with a match to turn it into a disaster.
Melissa was Microsoft's fault. They left their system wide open to this sort of abuse, they knew it could happen and did nothing. The fact that word macros could be abused was public knowledge for at least a year before Melissa came along. Rather than fix their system and protect a few hundred thousand users, they waited for someone to come along and set off their bomb. Someone so naive that he left incriminating evidence in the virus. The fact is, MS users are unprotected from rank amateurs.
The libs won't be open-source is a pretty broad statement. Which ones? The C library? Possible, but doubtful, they'd have to use their own, breaking compatibility rather badly. Some run-time library that provides ALPHA low-level facilities for the compiler? Sure.
So, make EGCS better. We've known for a long time that GCC couldn't stand up to DEC's compiler on the ALPHA.
What incentive does anyone have to work on code when they can't get any benefit from that code without paying for it? They're going to get big bucks for their collaboration? When the for-profit corporation you'd have to form to manage this pays its taxes, and then pays your taxes, how much do you expect will be left for you? How will you prove the value of your own work so that you are compensated fairly, and what will you do when someone happens to rewrite things, removing all of your code, and suddenly you're not being paid any longer.
OK, guys, write one big project using a direct revenue capture scheme. Make it work. Show us that nobody got hurt in the process. Explain why it's never happened up until now. Then I might believe a little more.
The author is trying to work his way around a false dichotomy, becuase he's assuming that closed-source software (which contains a very good paradigm for making money) and open-source software (which is free by definition) should not co-exist - he would have open-source replace closed-source.
Open-source and closed-source software can and should continue to co-exist. I have supported my work on open-source software for the past 5 years by writing closed-source. I will continue to write closed-source to support my GPL and LGPL work. I don't want or need a job working on open-source software, I have a better job now.
Lots of companies have tried to protect their sales model by not manufacturing products that would break that model. Inevitably, their competitors manufactured those products and the sales model became broken anyway.
DEC comes to mind - handicapping their low-end systems so that they would not outperform the high-end ones.
It's not just you. O'Reilly's market (Unix books) has been taken over by free software. Free software absolutely must work for business, or O'Reilly's business will fail. Free software developers welcome business, but refuse to discard their principles in order to accomodate business. O'Reilly would much rather we accept business on its own terms rather than ours.
Too bad Jamie had to leave. It was the right decision for him.
Various commenters pointed out that Open Source doesn't work so well if you release non-working code with a real steep learning curve. They are right. So, here's proof that we can't pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Don't forget that the X and BSD licenses were developed for government-sponsored code (although X also had some consortium funding). You'd already paid for the code with your taxes (if you lived in the U.S.) and thus it made sense to give you the right to take the code private or anything else you wanted to do.
This just doesn't apply to code that we write, unless we're working for someplace like CNRI. It makes more sense for me to use the GPL and LGPL on my own work, so that the code I wanted to give to the public won't be taken private by someone who does not share my goals.
Email to me is down due to a broken DSL. Please call 510-526-1165 (my office phone) if you want to chat.
My DSL is broken since Tuesday morning, email won't work, all I have left is this really slow radio modem. Call me at my office phone 510-526-1165 if you want to talk.
O'Reilly's interested in what I guess we should call Corporate Source. Semi-proprietary applications that individuals can contribute to if they want, without a fair quid-pro-quo for secondary contributors. In this case the Chamelion license does not meet the OSD and should not be referred to as Open Source all. I guess ORA figures that Corporate Source will sell more books. For me as an individual developer, it does not offer a fair quid-pro-quo and I will continue to work on GPL and LGPL projects.
I was really glad to get the GTK+ book (Developing Linux Applications) from New Riders this week. It's nice that the world's largest publishing group is giving O'Reilly a run for their money. Laurie Petricki, their managing editor and a really nice person, is doing a good job of helping free software while O'Reilly deprecates it. Go New Riders!
My DSL line has been down since 9AM Tuesday. This has made it difficult for me to participate in online discussion. All I have linking me to the net is a Metricom Ricochet RF modem, which is rather slow where I live. I don't really want to sit here for an entire minute while the slashdot reply form comes up, so I'm working on other stuff.
I have read Eric Raymond's piece, and the O'Reilly piece, and slashdot over the past two days. O'Reilly isn't really working on the same Open Source as you and me. We are seeing the emergence of one Open Source for corporations, and one for individual programmers, with widely divergent goals. The corporations have embraced our existing code base, but they are balking at the freeness, no surprise.
Sure, the GPL is coercive. If I write free software, I want it to stay free, not be taken private by someone who doesn't share my goals. I'll continue to use the GPL on my own work, and the LGPL where appropriate.
Open Source and free software are still the same thing. I created the original draft of the Open Source Definition and refined it with the help of the Debian developers. The result was called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The only difference between this and the Open Source Definition is that Debian references have been removed.
It's "Jikes", not "Jinks":-) And it isn't Open Source in the opinion of OSI or myself - we appear to be agreed on that.
Thanks
Bruce
Eric's job is over. He doesn't need a replacement.
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 1
Oops. That's "present role", not "presnet".
Bruce
Eric's job is over. He doesn't need a replacement.
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 1
Linux and free software could use a large collection of speakers rather than just one. I'm willing to handle 1/10 of Eric's load, and I can find 9 other people to do that, or maybe 8 new people plus Eric. We'll all have lives. It works better that way.
If Eric continues his presnet role, he'll be like Steve Jobs in the "down phase" of Apple. Remember when the media loved Steve, and then there were a few years when everybody hated him? It's happening.
Apple is still sincerely listening to discussion. I think they need some time to continue doing that. I expect they will do some re-wording of the APSL, but I don't know how much.
Eric Raymond is at the moment still SPI's designated manager of the Open Source trademark. I am not party to SPI's future plans regarding that, but I'd bet on some sort of change eventually. Note that the OSI board made the right decision to not designate the Bitmover license as "Open Source", which was good to see. I wish they'd handled the APSL as carefully.
It's a mistake to embed bad law in your license, because the bad law still applies even if it is not in your license.
This one is difficult to understand, though, because there doesn't seem to be encryption involved, and it would be silly to consider the operating system a "munition" of itself.
I'm an individual like Theo, and I have a.COM related to my name. I use it for a business I run all by myself. If Theo decided to reserve a domain for future business activities, he has as much right as an individual as would a business with 2 people, or 1000 people.
"Perens", by the way, is latin for "Traveling". It's a pretty generic word. Yet, in my chutzpah I grabbed it all for myself, along with the.net and.org . Somehow, I can still sleep nights knowing that:-)
If a whole bunch of people each individually mail or phone one polite and sincere protest, that is their right. Yes, the volume alone may be enough to make someone's life difficult, but that is the risk they run. Protests are supposed to be in your face. Indirect methods are not effective.
However, if I said or meant "everybody write them an email to bring down their server", that would be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
(laughing out loud) It won't be a problem. I've sure done my best to keep them in your face up until now, haven't I?
Not everything I write is a 4, and the posting form should have an option if I'd like to self-moderate it to a 1, 2, or 3, rather than wait for a moderator to come along and do it for me.
The way it's set up now, I feel as if I should never post unless it's golden prose :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks, Jim, that makes sense. I wish the original message had been clearer. Some people got their dander up because they thought some GPL-ed library would be closed.
Of course the usual GCC libm would co-reside on the same machine.
Compiler hackers will take this as a challenge.
Bruce
Bruce
Melissa was Microsoft's fault. They left their system wide open to this sort of abuse, they knew it could happen and did nothing. The fact that word macros could be abused was public knowledge for at least a year before Melissa came along. Rather than fix their system and protect a few hundred thousand users, they waited for someone to come along and set off their bomb. Someone so naive that he left incriminating evidence in the virus. The fact is, MS users are unprotected from rank amateurs.
Bruce Perens
So, make EGCS better. We've known for a long time that GCC couldn't stand up to DEC's compiler on the ALPHA.
Bruce
OK, guys, write one big project using a direct revenue capture scheme. Make it work. Show us that nobody got hurt in the process. Explain why it's never happened up until now. Then I might believe a little more.
Bruce
Open-source and closed-source software can and should continue to co-exist. I have supported my work on open-source software for the past 5 years by writing closed-source. I will continue to write closed-source to support my GPL and LGPL work. I don't want or need a job working on open-source software, I have a better job now.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
DEC comes to mind - handicapping their low-end systems so that they would not outperform the high-end ones.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Various commenters pointed out that Open Source doesn't work so well if you release non-working code with a real steep learning curve. They are right. So, here's proof that we can't pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Thanks
Bruce
This just doesn't apply to code that we write, unless we're working for someplace like CNRI. It makes more sense for me to use the GPL and LGPL on my own work, so that the code I wanted to give to the public won't be taken private by someone who does not share my goals.
Email to me is down due to a broken DSL. Please call 510-526-1165 (my office phone) if you want to chat.
Thanks
Bruce
My DSL is broken since Tuesday morning, email won't work, all I have left is this really slow radio modem. Call me at my office phone 510-526-1165 if you want to talk.
O'Reilly's interested in what I guess we should call Corporate Source. Semi-proprietary applications that individuals can contribute to if they want, without a fair quid-pro-quo for secondary contributors. In this case the Chamelion license does not meet the OSD and should not be referred to as Open Source all. I guess ORA figures that Corporate Source will sell more books. For me as an individual developer, it does not offer a fair quid-pro-quo and I will continue to work on GPL and LGPL projects.
I was really glad to get the GTK+ book (Developing Linux Applications) from New Riders this week. It's nice that the world's largest publishing group is giving O'Reilly a run for their money. Laurie Petricki, their managing editor and a really nice person, is doing a good job of helping free software while O'Reilly deprecates it. Go New Riders!
Thanks
Bruce Perens
I have read Eric Raymond's piece, and the O'Reilly piece, and slashdot over the past two days. O'Reilly isn't really working on the same Open Source as you and me. We are seeing the emergence of one Open Source for corporations, and one for individual programmers, with widely divergent goals. The corporations have embraced our existing code base, but they are balking at the freeness, no surprise.
Sure, the GPL is coercive. If I write free software, I want it to stay free, not be taken private by someone who doesn't share my goals. I'll continue to use the GPL on my own work, and the LGPL where appropriate.
Bruce Perens
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
If Eric continues his presnet role, he'll be like Steve Jobs in the "down phase" of Apple. Remember when the media loved Steve, and then there were a few years when everybody hated him? It's happening.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Eric Raymond is at the moment still SPI's designated manager of the Open Source trademark. I am not party to SPI's future plans regarding that, but I'd bet on some sort of change eventually. Note that the OSI board made the right decision to not designate the Bitmover license as "Open Source", which was good to see. I wish they'd handled the APSL as carefully.
Thanks
Bruce
This one is difficult to understand, though, because there doesn't seem to be encryption involved, and it would be silly to consider the operating system a "munition" of itself.
Probably just an excess of CYA.
Bruce
"Perens", by the way, is latin for "Traveling". It's a pretty generic word. Yet, in my chutzpah I grabbed it all for myself, along with the .net and .org . Somehow, I can still sleep nights knowing that :-)
Bruce
However, if I said or meant "everybody write them an email to bring down their server", that would be wrong.
Thanks
Bruce
I have to make my feelings clear for next time. If my influence may keep someone from being hurt in the future, I must use it.
Thanks
Bruce