I guess a left-handed compliment is better than none.
I was trying to get Eric to lay off of Stallman for quite a long time, but he acted as if he wasn't really conscious that he was doing it. I tried to get Stallman on to the OSI board, the others opposed that.
I would never have started to work on Open Source if I'd understood Eric's intentions. Much of his agenda was not stated when he recruited me.
I agree with you that ethics are very important. But are they really illogical? Perhaps only if you evaluate them from the standpoint that the inividual is more important than the community?
You're not serious. A reasonable person says everyone was crazy, excluding himself alone? I'd think a reasonable person might believe the opposite in that case.
Doesn't anyone remember Personics? They had a "your own cassette" thing a few years back. The company's out of business, but I thinK I saw the machine still standing, disused, in a corner of Border's the other day.
When I write free software, it's because I want there to be more free software. Using a license that would allow someone to take that software private by not releasing their modifications would be counter to that purpose.
So, I wrote two more GPL-ed programs last week. You'll find them in the "contrib" directory of the next releases of Mailman and Webalizer. How many programs did Tim O'Reilly write last week?
The BSD license was originaly used because the software was paid for by the U.S. Government, out of our taxes. It made sense for everyone to be able to take that software private. It doesn't make nearly as much sense for my own work.
The press likes fluff, they think their readers understand it. Miguel in person is pretty funny, because he's so hyperactive. Like David Miller, but better groomed.
Bit of a typo there. I meant to say "defining it better seems to be no big deal for them", as in they don't mind defining it better.
You did indeed, thanks!
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
You did indeed admit your mistake and publish my letter, thanks! The rest of the press wasn't as good - they did consider it an attack, publishing headlines like "Apple defends its Open Source decisions". Even Slashdot (or especially Slashdot) has cast the tone of the debate as much more confrontational than my intent.
Thanks
Bruce
Writing bad law into your license
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
It's a bad idea to write bad law into your license.
You don't have to write the bad law into your license, because people are still restrained from breaking the law even if it is not written into your license.
It puts you in the position of supporting the bad law.
Your license may survive after the bad law expires! For example, an old U.C. Berkeley license for the SPICE circuit-analysis program restrained us from distributing that program to the police of South Africa long after apartheid was over.
Netscape didn't see a need to do this. I'd think their lawyers must be as good as Apple's and IBM's, they all have more than enough money to pay lawyers.
Thanks
Bruce
This has nothing to do with the APSL, though.
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 2
There are advantages to a coherent vision, especially when it's a vision that not everyone is compelled to follow, which seems to be the case this time.
However, this has little to do with the fact that there are a few easily-addressed problems with the license. Getting Apple to fix that will certainly not diminish their vision!
Thanks
Bruce
Open Source means free software
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 3
As the primary author of the Open Source Definition, I can state with complete surety that it was meant to be a definition of free software. Its original name was the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In addition, the Open Source Initiative was intended to be a marketing program for free software, and never should have been taking an advesary position against RMS! While we might not think Richard's rhetoric is always the best, Open Source was meant to promote free software, not deprecate one of its main visionaries.
Thanks
Bruce
Apple seems willing to address these objections
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Notification is a problem when 100 or 1000 licenses contain it. The current paradigm of "hack on a linux distribution and give it away with the source" is then broken, because you have to find 1000 people and notify them.
Bruce
Who is really tearing this license open?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Non-copyright-based licenses probably do not have much chance of success, due to the way we distribute software. The person who buys a CD is not necessarily accepting the license, but he has a copy and may well be running it.
He treated it as a personal attack rather than a technical objection to the licenses. Apple is not treating it that way.
Bruce
Thats not as big an overstatement as you think
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Notification is a hassle when 100 licenses, or 1000 have it, and people who want to hack on a linux distribution and give it out to people have to find 1000 people to notify. Apple would get farther by making this a voluntary request. We discussed that, let's see what happens.
Revocation will be a problem until we have a definition of Affected Original Code, Right now it could mean all code, and if they ever say it means that do you want to fight it in court? Better to get the words right at the start. Even then, it is going to be a problem in the case of a specious claim that Apple decides not to fight.
There is no "President of free software". What we have are people who get you to look at issues and think about them and discuss them among yourselves. This is more democratic than a representative government would be.
You're ashamed of the democratic process. Apple has decided to join a community, the same community that provided them with the base versions of Mach and the BSD utilities that they have improved and are now distributing. That community discusses things in the open and tries to come to a consensus. This is not well-understood by the press, either. Most of them took our letter to Apple as an attack or a "lambaste". Fortunately, the folks at Apple seem to understand it better.
Obviously, all software is not given away for free, and I don't see that happening soon.
What we are objecting to is that the license purports to be Open Source, but slightly misses the mark in its current 1.0 version. If we continue to accept licenses that miss that mark slightly, this slippery slope will carry us to the point where "Open Source" is really just a new name for shareware with source.
Notice that RMS says something like "would that the APSL did not have the problems of the NPL", and he accepts that the NPL is a free software license even if he does not like it. He is not totally deprecating it.
Hey, I'm glad that someone noticed that I support Troll Tech now that they have changed their license. This is absolutely necessary if we are going to succeed in getting anyone to make the changes we request.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I buy your points, but I'm willing to drop the argument.
Bruce
I was trying to get Eric to lay off of Stallman for quite a long time, but he acted as if he wasn't really conscious that he was doing it. I tried to get Stallman on to the OSI board, the others opposed that.
I would never have started to work on Open Source if I'd understood Eric's intentions. Much of his agenda was not stated when he recruited me.
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
It's as if he's saying that ethics are in some way illogical, or that Adam Smith's invisible hand is somehow superior to ethics.
It just doesn't seem like a very mature viewpoint.
Bruce>
Except you, eh? Everyone except you was crazy.
Everyone except you, huh?
Bruce
So, I wrote two more GPL-ed programs last week. You'll find them in the "contrib" directory of the next releases of Mailman and Webalizer. How many programs did Tim O'Reilly write last week?
The BSD license was originaly used because the software was paid for by the U.S. Government, out of our taxes. It made sense for everyone to be able to take that software private. It doesn't make nearly as much sense for my own work.
Bruce Perens
Bruce
Bruce
Bit of a typo there. I meant to say "defining it better seems to be no big deal for them", as in they don't mind defining it better.
Thanks
Bruce
- You don't have to write the bad law into your license, because people are still restrained from breaking the law even if it is not written into your license.
- It puts you in the position of supporting the bad law.
- Your license may survive after the bad law expires! For example, an old U.C. Berkeley license for the SPICE circuit-analysis program restrained us from distributing that program to the police of South Africa long after apartheid was over.
Netscape didn't see a need to do this. I'd think their lawyers must be as good as Apple's and IBM's, they all have more than enough money to pay lawyers.Thanks
Bruce
However, this has little to do with the fact that there are a few easily-addressed problems with the license. Getting Apple to fix that will certainly not diminish their vision!
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Revocation will be a problem until we have a definition of Affected Original Code, Right now it could mean all code, and if they ever say it means that do you want to fight it in court? Better to get the words right at the start. Even then, it is going to be a problem in the case of a specious claim that Apple decides not to fight.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
What we are objecting to is that the license purports to be Open Source, but slightly misses the mark in its current 1.0 version. If we continue to accept licenses that miss that mark slightly, this slippery slope will carry us to the point where "Open Source" is really just a new name for shareware with source.
Notice that RMS says something like "would that the APSL did not have the problems of the NPL", and he accepts that the NPL is a free software license even if he does not like it. He is not totally deprecating it.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce