Actually, you don't necessarily need to bug RMS with it. At the GNU
project, we have a specific address concerning license violations
<license-violation@gnu.org>. Please encourage people to contact that
address.
Also, it might be worth noting that only the copyright holder can enforce
the GPL. So, we try to help when we can (and that address is the best way
to request help), but our hands are tied if the copyright holder doesn't
want to take action.
Why have you chosen to refer to the documentation as "Open Source Documentation" instead of "Free Documentation"? Do you feel that the Open Source Movement is better or more important than the Free Sofwtare Movement?
Have you considered integrating with the GNU project documentation efforts? The GNU project has long had documentation as a top priority. Why not integrate with their efforts?
Why have you chosen not to change the name of your product from "Corel Linux" to "Corel GNU/Linux" for reasons outlined at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html ?
I am particularly curious how you justify basing your product on Debian GNU/Linux, yet calling it "Corel Linux".
In the USA, girls tend to be turned away from Math and Science at a very early age, so it is often too late when we start looking at job interviews and the technology field in general. There has been a lot of work done on this issue. It's worth looking at.
A good starting point are the following books:
_SchoolGirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap_ by Peggy Orenstein.
_Teaching the Majority : Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering_ by Sue Vilhauer Rosser
Here is a letter I wrote to encourage the GPL/LGPL of InterBase:
To: kberkland@inprise.com, customer-service@inprise.com Subject: Please release InterBase as free software under the GPL or LGPL
To Whom It May Concern at Inprise/Borland:
I read with excitement your announcement yesterday which indicated you would be "releasing InterBase 6 under an open-source license" (http://www.borland.com/about/press/2000/ib.html ). I think it is wonderful when existing proprietary software companies move in this direction. However, as this issue develops, I would like to encourage you to consider a few points.
First of all, I noticed you are vague about which license you will use. I would encourage you to use the GNU General Public License (often just called the GPL). The GPL has many advantages for a business like yours. The greatest advantage is that if your competitors use your software, make changes, and sell that software, the source code must be made available. This means that you will benefit from your competitors improvements of your code if they ship versions of InterBase to their customers. Many other so-called "open source" licenses do not have this important feature. Note, too, that the GPL is both an "open source" and a "free software" license. (I write more about this issue later in the letter.) You can read the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
If you find that the GPL does not work for you, I would then encourage you to use the GNU Lesser General Public License (often called the LGPL). This license is very similar to the GPL, but is different in that you, and all your customers using InterBase, would be permitted to link InterBase with proprietary software of their your choosing. This distinction is helpful if you want to encourage adoption of InterBase by other proprietary software vendors. Like the GPL, the LGPL is both an "open-source" and "free software" license. You can read the LGPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html.
If you find that neither the GPL nor the LGPL fits your needs, I would encourage you to avoid writing a new license that is different from licenses already in use in the free software community. Many companies have done this, and it causes a great deal of confusion for users and programmers. New licenses need to be analyzed over and over from a legal standpoint so the community can determine if they are truly free software licenses, and if they are compatible with other free software licenses. This takes up valuable resources from the community that could be spent improving various free software programs, including InterBase (once it is free software)!
However, whatever license you choose, it would help the community most if you choose a license that is compatible with the GPL (meaning that one can legally link the InterBase code with some code under the GPL). This is of the utmost importance, because a lot of great free software is under the GPL, and InterBase can be improved most rapidly if programmers can add existing useful GPL code with it. Often, if the license isn't GPL compatible, programmers in the community avoid the software.
As a general resource on this licensing issue, you should definitely look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. This outlines the various licenses in use, and explains why they are good or bad choices. If you need help choosing or developing a license that is compatible with the GPL, please contact gnu@gnu.org as that page suggests.
Finally, you may have noted that I have preferred the term "free software" over "open source" in this message. It is worth noting that these two terms denote different (although overlapping) communities. (In the realm of licenses, all free software licenses are open-source licenses, but not all open-source licenses are free software licenses.) We would gladly welcome you as members to the free software community if you choose a free software license for InterBase. If you do choose such a license, we would further encourage you to mention the term "free software" in reference to InterBase, as well as the term "open source". To read more about the differences in these terms, please take a look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for- freedom.html.
Thank you for you time, and I hope that InterBase is made free software so that we can welcome your company into this exciting community.
[Here is a letter to the editor I wrote to respond to the original article.]
Dear Mr. Learmonth and Editor of the Standard:
I read your article concerning the law suit that RealNetworks has filed against Streambox (http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,11 51,8448,00.html) . I do believe that Streambox has every right to reverse engineer the format, and I think that RealNetworks is ethical wrong in their law-suit.
However, your article seems to imply that Streambox is somehow an "underdog" in this scenario, and is attempting to "open up" the RealAudio formats. However, in reality, having access to the RealAudio formats through Streambox does not make the RealAudio format any more free, because Streambox's software is not free software. Since all software to make such conversions is proprietary software, there is little freedom for users. Of course, once the audio file is converted to a free format (perhaps as.WAV files), once can play that audio file with free software. However, the RealAudio format will never truly be open until there is free software to decode it.
Note, too, that if free software could decode the RealAudio format, the public would know the internal workings of the format. This would give to the community ownership of the format, and the format would be open. Since Streambox is not actually opening the format for the community, they cannot make any argument that they are helping the community of users. The legal issues would be much more interesting and much more helpful to the community if Streambox released were a free software product to decode RealAudio. In this manner, we might be able to legally call into question the practice of making proprietary formats. I would encourage you at The Standard to push forward the idea of making proprietary formats free, perhaps by encouraging Streambox to release their software as free software.
Finally, in your article, you refer to MP3 as an "open-source" format. This is, in fact, not the case. Due to patents held on the MP3 format, it is in fact *not* free, since you need an explicit license to encode into MP3 format, and it is not even 100% clear that you can decode the format freely. I would appreciate it if you would print a retraction of calling MP3 an "open-source" format.
If you are at all confused by what I mean by free software, you can read the definition at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Slashdot Mirror
Also, it might be worth noting that only the copyright holder can enforce the GPL. So, we try to help when we can (and that address is the best way to request help), but our hands are tied if the copyright holder doesn't want to take action.
Why have you chosen to refer to the documentation
as "Open Source Documentation" instead of "Free Documentation"? Do you feel that the Open Source Movement is better or more important than the Free Sofwtare Movement?
Have you considered integrating with the GNU project documentation efforts? The GNU project has long had documentation as a top priority. Why not integrate with their efforts?
Mr. Cowpland,
Why have you chosen not to change the name of
your product from "Corel Linux" to "Corel
GNU/Linux" for reasons outlined at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
?
I am particularly curious how you justify basing
your product on Debian GNU/Linux, yet calling
it "Corel Linux".
In the USA, girls tend to be turned away from Math and Science at a very early age, so it is often too late when we start looking at job interviews and the technology field in general. There has been a lot of work done on this issue. It's worth looking at.
A good starting point are the following books:
_SchoolGirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap_ by Peggy Orenstein.
_Teaching the Majority : Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering_
by Sue Vilhauer Rosser
Here is a letter I wrote to encourage the GPL/LGPL of InterBase:
l ). I think it is wonderful
- freedom.html.
To: kberkland@inprise.com, customer-service@inprise.com
Subject: Please release InterBase as free software under the GPL or LGPL
To Whom It May Concern at Inprise/Borland:
I read with excitement your announcement yesterday which indicated you would
be "releasing InterBase 6 under an open-source license"
(http://www.borland.com/about/press/2000/ib.htm
when existing proprietary software companies move in this direction.
However, as this issue develops, I would like to encourage you to consider a
few points.
First of all, I noticed you are vague about which license you will use. I
would encourage you to use the GNU General Public License (often just called
the GPL). The GPL has many advantages for a business like yours. The
greatest advantage is that if your competitors use your software, make
changes, and sell that software, the source code must be made available.
This means that you will benefit from your competitors improvements of your
code if they ship versions of InterBase to their customers. Many other
so-called "open source" licenses do not have this important feature. Note,
too, that the GPL is both an "open source" and a "free software" license.
(I write more about this issue later in the letter.) You can read the GPL
at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
If you find that the GPL does not work for you, I would then encourage you
to use the GNU Lesser General Public License (often called the LGPL). This
license is very similar to the GPL, but is different in that you, and all
your customers using InterBase, would be permitted to link InterBase with
proprietary software of their your choosing. This distinction is helpful if
you want to encourage adoption of InterBase by other proprietary software
vendors. Like the GPL, the LGPL is both an "open-source" and "free
software" license. You can read the LGPL at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html.
If you find that neither the GPL nor the LGPL fits your needs, I would
encourage you to avoid writing a new license that is different from licenses
already in use in the free software community. Many companies have done
this, and it causes a great deal of confusion for users and programmers.
New licenses need to be analyzed over and over from a legal standpoint so
the community can determine if they are truly free software licenses, and
if they are compatible with other free software licenses. This takes up
valuable resources from the community that could be spent improving various
free software programs, including InterBase (once it is free software)!
However, whatever license you choose, it would help the community most if
you choose a license that is compatible with the GPL (meaning that one can
legally link the InterBase code with some code under the GPL). This is of
the utmost importance, because a lot of great free software is under the
GPL, and InterBase can be improved most rapidly if programmers can add
existing useful GPL code with it. Often, if the license isn't GPL
compatible, programmers in the community avoid the software.
As a general resource on this licensing issue, you should definitely look
at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. This outlines the
various licenses in use, and explains why they are good or bad choices. If
you need help choosing or developing a license that is compatible with the
GPL, please contact gnu@gnu.org as that page suggests.
Finally, you may have noted that I have preferred the term "free software"
over "open source" in this message. It is worth noting that these two terms
denote different (although overlapping) communities. (In the realm of
licenses, all free software licenses are open-source licenses, but not all
open-source licenses are free software licenses.) We would gladly welcome
you as members to the free software community if you choose a free software
license for InterBase. If you do choose such a license, we would further
encourage you to mention the term "free software" in reference to InterBase,
as well as the term "open source". To read more about the differences in
these terms, please take a look at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for
Thank you for you time, and I hope that InterBase is made free software so
that we can welcome your company into this exciting community.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
[Here is a letter to the editor I wrote to respond to the original article.]
1 51,8448,00.html) . I do
.WAV
Dear Mr. Learmonth and Editor of the Standard:
I read your article concerning the law suit that RealNetworks has filed
against Streambox
(http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1
believe that Streambox has every right to reverse engineer the format, and I
think that RealNetworks is ethical wrong in their law-suit.
However, your article seems to imply that Streambox is somehow an "underdog"
in this scenario, and is attempting to "open up" the RealAudio formats.
However, in reality, having access to the RealAudio formats through
Streambox does not make the RealAudio format any more free, because
Streambox's software is not free software. Since all software to make such
conversions is proprietary software, there is little freedom for users. Of
course, once the audio file is converted to a free format (perhaps as
files), once can play that audio file with free software. However, the
RealAudio format will never truly be open until there is free software to
decode it.
Note, too, that if free software could decode the RealAudio format, the
public would know the internal workings of the format. This would give to
the community ownership of the format, and the format would be open. Since
Streambox is not actually opening the format for the community, they cannot
make any argument that they are helping the community of users. The legal
issues would be much more interesting and much more helpful to the community
if Streambox released were a free software product to decode RealAudio. In
this manner, we might be able to legally call into question the practice of
making proprietary formats. I would encourage you at The Standard to push
forward the idea of making proprietary formats free, perhaps by encouraging
Streambox to release their software as free software.
Finally, in your article, you refer to MP3 as an "open-source" format. This
is, in fact, not the case. Due to patents held on the MP3 format, it is in
fact *not* free, since you need an explicit license to encode into MP3
format, and it is not even 100% clear that you can decode the format
freely. I would appreciate it if you would print a retraction of calling
MP3 an "open-source" format.
If you are at all confused by what I mean by free software, you can read the
definition at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn