In other words, the use of the Linux kernel allows free software users can pressure these would-be proprietors into helping them maintain our software freedom for derivative works so long as one leverages their laziness. That is, as long as one doesn't distribute proprietary kernel modifications.
Given FreeBSD's willingness to include proprietary software (see discussions between FreeBSD and OpenBSD developers and advocates surrounding technical specifications for cards -- FreeBSD is happy to include whatever the proprietor delivers, OpenBSD wants specs so they can write and maintain their own drivers), this "improved" hardware support may end up being nothing more than a means to deliver more proprietary software to users.
I expect hardware vendors to tell me how the device works so I can write and maintain my own free software drivers or hire someone to write them for me. I'm not against hiring the hardware manufacturer to do the job, but I don't want to be pushed into a monopoly for support. I think the OpenBSD hackers are of the same mindset, given their requests to Adaptec and other vendors for technical specifications, not code. Having others write proprietary software for you just puts you in the position of begging the proprietor for updates and leaves you vulnerable to being left behind (precisely what you spelled out).
Software freedom is not an argument for more "choice", although if one has free software one certainly has choices on how to improve a program. Choice is actually a poor surrogate for software freedom because it's so easy to railroad someone out of their freedom and supply choices at the same time. Consider web browsers; at one time, the most popular web browsers were Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Opera. There are three choices right there (one more than one needs to have a choice), and yet all are proprietary. Thus, with these browsers, software freedom is unavailable and one is relegated to choosing their master.
A corporate-funded legislator might back voting up on a bill which would discontinue issuing any new software patents and preclude any term extensions on extant software patents. In other words, the aim of the bill would be to let the current software patents expire. The mega-corporations investments in these patents would not be adversely affected and then we could get on with the job of competing without this particular problem. This approach would not pay off for 20 years, but that's considerably better than the current situation where computer users in many countries have to live with this threat for the forseeable future.
I'm sure the patent holders looking to preclude competition (as opposed to those looking to defend themselves and remain competitive) would cry foul based on their "inability to justify innovation" (or somesuch language), but this theoretical bill might help expose such claims.
I think you have inaccurately described a position in this article as "ideological purity". Lobbying legislators is a reasonable course of action to achieve political ends. FFII didn't get as far as they did without lobbying. Although the Register article doesn't get into all of the details of what Perens said, the OSDL patent pool is quite compatible with lobbying.
Under what license is the source code distributed? The site you pointed to appears to require registration in order to download the source code. Also, that site will not accept accounts registered to anything at dodgeit.com (a throwaway read-only email provider).
"DMCA only applies to copyrighted works, and they [FedEx] were basically making trademark-related claims, so it was completely outrageous," said Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Stanford center.
A good time to remind us of why RMS insists on having different opinions about the public policy questions raised by disparate laws (including trademark, copyright, and patent law) with different histories and purposes; the alternative he rejects is lumping these laws together into "intellectual property".
Lots of people who are interested in this event weren't able to go to the dinner either because they aren't FSF associates or because they can't fly to the dinner location (Boston, or thereabouts if I recall correctly). So, for a lot of people this isn't old news. Also, discussions on the GPL gives people a chance to clear up long-held misconceptions about how the GPL works (which invariably come up during these threads). Given the social importance of the GPL and the popularity of the GPL, these are healthy discussions to have.
Please do point us to a recording of this event where RMS argued with Lessig publicly. I would prefer to hear this for myself rather than depend on a recollection so vague we can't even tell what the jist of the argument was about.
Overall, I'm glad to see more people encouraging the use of the GNU General Public License (GPL). No matter what their philosophical leaning, it helps me as a GPL licensor to have more source code to share and modify. There are two issues I'd like to comment on, one a correction and the other a general comment on one theme in the article. From the article:
"He asked IBM to deprecate its open-source license and instead put it under the General Public License, the most popular license for free software that gives users the freedom run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to modify and improve it and distribute copies. In contrast, an open-source license, like IBM's, is copyrighted."
The GNU General Public License (GPL) is also copyrighted. The copyright for the GPL is held by its author, the Free Software Foundation, and this is clearly announced in the text of the GPL. So, the second sentence of theirs makes no sense because there is no contrast to speak of.
Generally, the proliferation of licenses is a burden in and of itself. Some of the reason for this has to do with the weaker standards of the Open Source Initiative, which allow more licenses to become OSI-approved. But I think the desire of businesses to get free labor is another factor which can't be ignored. Businesses distribute their code under a license which allows the business more flexibility to do things with contributed code than what contributors can do with the code copyrighted to the business. This inequity was a problem with the early releases of the Apple Public Source License. By contrast, the equity between copyright holders and contributors under the GPL is part of the reason why the GPL became so popular.
Plenty of people have posted links to places where you can get zero-cost music. If you're interested in some political talk, give News from Neptune a try. Recordings are available as Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, or Speex files. The Speex compressor is amazingly high-quality considering how small the files are relative to the Ogg Vorbis files. All of the recordings are licensed to share.
But neither your thread-starting post nor your followup actually substantiate your claim that Markoff exploited Mitnick. It's fair to expect that a post moderated "informative" would actually contain a summary and links to information which backs up one's claim.
You keep making these claims, but you present no evidence to support them.
I see no absurdity or insult behind the corporations who seek to gain the imprimateur of the Open Source Initiative. Finally, free and freedom aren't being redefined. They're being used properly. It's vague to talk about freedom without specifying what freedoms one is talking about, and that's what the FSF does.
Saying "the source code is open" was meaningless before the open source movement began. Today it is meaningful only because of the open source movement, started by the Open Source Initiative which defined the term "open source". They coined and defined the term precisely to avoid the ambiguity you're defending. There never was an issue of ownership of words (whatever that actually means), just widespread understanding that phrases in certain contexts have histories and meaning which allow us to communicate. Ironically, it is the FSF essay I pointed to which illustrates why the term needs to be defined and how even after definition people still don't seem to understand what that term actually refers to in this context.
It's a shame that your namecalling has received positive moderation. One would think that such language should be discouraged, and instead mod points should be given to considerate disagreement.
Software freedom exposes the myth of "choice".
on
The Future of Firefox
·
· Score: 1
If you didn't care what browser you used, you wouldn't bother to consider which browser is "better" (for any definition of better). You would simply use whatever someone put in front of you. Clearly you do care about what browser you are using, you are merely making your decision based on criteria which differs from how the debate is being framed. I'll do something similar below.
Firefox is being pitched in terms that will lose them the market share they desire.
Firefox has tabbed browsing, Javascript pop-up blocking, RSS feed reading capability, and other technical advances. Microsoft's Internet Explorer will get some of them too, and perhaps offer technical advances which Firefox does not have. MSIE will continue to come with the Microsoft Windows operating system whereas Firefox will continue to be a download away. So if users ares being taught to value Firefox for technical reasons, Firefox users on Microsoft Windows will be left with fewer reasons to download Firefox in the future. MSIE will be more convenient than Firefox and MSIE will offer the technical advantages users have been taught to value.
The Mozilla Foundation offers no better argument here; they pitch the argument of "choice" which is neither true nor convincing. A choice of web browsers was available long before Firefox existed: one could run MSIE, Netscape, or Opera (among other browsers). Choice only requires two alternatives, but at one time these three were quite popular.
An argument that would have been more convincing, but would have required different allegiances than the Mozilla Foundation has, would be to talk about software freedom. Even if one runs a proprietary OS, one could run a web browser that gives users software freedom as Firefox does for its users. Even if one is not a programmer (as most users aren't), one can benefit from the large library of Firefox extensions available and the daily activity on Firefox code which tends toward getting bugs fixed quickly; all practical consequences of software freedom. Talking about software freedom also exposes another weakness in the "choice" argument -- none of those choices offer software freedom because they are all proprietary programs -- so you can see how "choice" can railroad you into losing your freedom.
Stop giving the open source movement undue credit.
on
Dvorak on Creative Commons
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is he [Dvorak] just dissing on CC or all open source licenses [...]
I certainly hope this is not the start of trying to give the open source movement more credit for work it did not do. Creative Commons licenses are not licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative and for good reason. CC licenses are not to be used for computer software. The Creative Commons organization lists the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL as licenses to consider for software. People on/. routinely cite the GPL as an "open source" license despite that:
the Open Source Initiative merely lists the GNU GPL as an approved license. This is nothing compared to writing the license,
the GNU GPL was written many years before the open source movement began and is therefore clearly independent of the open source movement,
and the GNU GPL was written by the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Initiative. Richard Stallman, the GPL's chief author, takes every opportunity to clarify that he is not now nor has he ever been a member of the open source movement. He wishes people would stop lumping the FSF's work in with that of the open source movement.
When exactly was this "before the marketing blitz" time? I don't remember a time when Apple distributed the iPod that it wasn't being advertised. I maintain it is a product of profound advertising, not inherently well-played functionality.
As for the rest of your post, you're just defining what people want in terms of what the iPod can do. You ignore what people have been doing with audio players (even portable ones) for years before the iPod came out. By your argument, the iPod need never add any new features (like video or wireless communication) because the iPod can't do it now.
Running applications is what people do with their iPods -- they mostly run the same program which is the software that gives them the user interface to select what audio to play. Sure, this isn't running user-installed programs of the user's choice (it's all about Apple's choice), but the software iPods run isn't burned into a ROM chip either.
I maintain that the iPod is yet another counterexample of "picking the best tool for the job" because the iPod lacks so many cool features other similarly-priced portable digital audio players have (playing through one's car stereo requires additional equipment) or the iPod lacks innovative features I have yet to see in any portable digital audio player (Apple makes it really hard to legally share tips about what tracks other people like by hearing a fair-use sample of iTunes tracks on other neighboring iPods and then bookmark the track info on one's device for purchase later).
I find it funny that there is so much focus on the Apple iPod (including people willing to pepper their language with advertisements for it--"podcasting") because it is a relatively crappy portable digital audio player.
The Apple iPod is underdocumented, so you can't run software on it that you might want to, it doesn't support all of the formats other portable digital audio players do (most notably Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Speex, which would let you keep your freedom and even other popular non-free formats), it can't record without additional equipment (at least not if you accept Apple's restrictions), it has no radio nor any features that work with the radio (such as radio song identification), and the software the iPod runs is proprietary so even if you know someone who is skilled in programming you can't get them to work for you to easily add new features. Cory Doctorow has documented how iPod-related software has declined in features if one keeps up with official Apple software updates installed through the normal MacOS X software update functionality.
The Apple iPod strikes me as a triumph of advertising over interesting and useful features which ordinary people could use. If any well-funded competitor can't compete against the iPod, I'd wonder if the real issue at hand is an unwillingness to fund the media campaign which Apple is apparently willing to fund in order to prop up this disappointing device.
No they won't. Not even the/. readers go out of their way to avoid proprietary implementations of things that don't need to be there. Lots of them use proprietary software (Microsoft Windows and MacOS X, most notably) and patent-encumbered formats (such as MP3, as you mentioned) instead of technically superior Ogg Vorbis which is not encumbered and is available to everyone freely. Most DVD viewers I know have no idea what region coding is, much less how to disable or alter region coding on their DVD players.
It's a matter of convincing users that some nifty feature comes with the system and taking on these restrictions (if they're mentioned at all) are the only way to get those features.
This is the path by which users are being lured away from pursuing their software freedom and if it works on the most technically-adept/. readers, there's no reason to believe it won't work on less adept mass audiences.
There's nothing reasonable about any software patent. Also, the terms they list on their licensing page are the terms for now; there's nothing that compels the patent holder to license any particular person or organization for any particular use of the patented ideas. The patent holder can deny you a patent license just because they want to.
Anyone who cares about sound quality ("Use the best tool for the job!", the unending cry of/.ers in other threads) would look to other formats, lossless formats if their storage space was large enough, better lossy encoders otherwise. For years now, far more capable portable digital audio players play Ogg Vorbis and FLAC files. If I were compressing human speech and I wanted to save a lot of space, I'd still use Speex over MP3.
I understand that some of you may only have heard of the open source movement. I'm grateful that you would consider using the GPL for your projects. However, the GNU General Public License (or GPL) predates the open source movement by many years by the founder of a movement with different goals than the open source movement. Therefore it is not fair or accurate to credit the GPL as an "open source license" merely because the Open Source Initiative (which started the open source movement) placed it on a list of approved licenses.
The GPL was written by Richard Stallman, most notably. Version 1 of the GPL was released in January 1989, and version 2 (the current version) in 1991. So, two major releases of what has come to be the most important and popular free software license were released well before the Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998. The OSI has yet to write a license that compares with the popularity or strength of the GPL.
The GPL speaks repeatedly about software freedom, not "open" anything, and for very good reasons. First, the term "open source" didn't exist when the two revisions of the GPL were written. But even if the OSI existed, the open source movement doesn't want to frame any issue in terms of software freedom because it gets in the way of addressing businesses, their chief audience. Talking about software freedom means talking about something beneficial to users, not addressing more efficient means of connecting cheap programming labor with businesses. Philosophically and historically, the FSF and OSI are not the same, nor are the free software and open source movements. Stallman and Eben Moglen, chief counsel for the FSF, confirm this in every speech they give and virtually every essay they write. The Free Software Foundation has published an essay describing the differences between the two movements and why they see the free software movement as better. To this list of differences I'd add that free software guarantees private derivatives, unlike the open source definition.
The upcoming GPL (version 3) in this regard because it will be the first version of the GPL where anyone from the OSI may have editorial say in. The final word (and framing of the issues surrounding the GPLv3) still comes down to Stallman and Eben Moglen.
Thus, with all of this history, I think it is fair to call the GPL a free software license, not an open source license. The GPL existed well before and independantly of anything to do with the open source movement and does not embody the values of the open source movement. I encourage you all to stop misleading people into giving the OSI and the open source movement an undeserved primacy.
With regard to the popularity of certain software, you're positing a circular argument. You're talking about the status quo as if it has always existed and should ever be thus. Nobody need challenge the proprietor's popularity because they have arrived. I see things differently; the more we use free software the more popular we help make it. When we don't cave in to pressure to give a proprietor more control. But we should not do this for mere popularity. We should do this to build a better community.
It is important to teach people why we are choosing free software. It's not progress to treat, say, OpenOffice.org as a viable alternative to Microsoft Office merely because OO.o isn't written or distributed by Microsoft, because then every non-free Microsoft Office alternative becomes equally interesting. OpenOffice.org is compelling because it respects our freedom to share and modify which will help teach kids how to build and maintain a community of sharing. Software freedom also gives us more control over our computers and doesn't push us into a monopoly for support. Thus, this is not about cost: even if free software costs more money for the taxpayers, it's a better bargain overall. If the goal is to save taxpayers money, any proprietor interested in popularity will give away licensed copies of their software. Cost is a very narrow issue and we should work to frame better debates that don't give proprietors ground.
The license for Gizmo Project software is quite clear, the software doesn't even qualify for the weaker standard of "open source" (weaker than "free software" which requires that the user have permission to make private derivatives):
License Restrictions
You may not reproduce or distribute the Software for any purpose whatsoever. Without limiting the foregoing, you may not copy the Software to any server or location for reproduction or distribution. You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software. The restrictions contained herein apply equally to any updates that may be provided to you by SIPphone.
The company offers what they call "Opensource support", which appears to be little more than name-dropping. But I expect people around here to know better than to take on faith whatever a proprietor says.
At the very least, even if there is no intention to bamboozle users into adopting the software, this is yet another use of the term "Opensource" which shows how people don't understand what that term means. Reminiscent of examples of same from the FSF essay on the differences between the free software and open source movements (examples include Neal Stephenson's writing, the State of Kansas' definition, and a particularly interesting example from a trade show in late 1998).
As a result of a little digging into Project Gizmo, I still see no real competition for GNOMEMeeting. I see one more proprietor asking me to install a mysterious program on my computer so that the proprietor can do something on my computer that I am prohibited from inspecting, sharing, or modifying.
The GPL is a copyright license and is typically used such that everyone who can get a copy is given permission to share and modify the code with few restrictions (the restrictions therein are to preserve the freedom to share and modify). Few patented ideas are licensed similarly. The vast majority of patented ideas will require considerable sums of money or access to other patents in order to acquire a patent license. There is no reasonable way to conclude that "the GPL is no better than a software patent".
Where, exactly, can I hear Stallman "shrieking that the word [pirate] only has a single proper meaning"? Certainly not in the list of words you might want to avoid. Without any references to primary sources, your post is highly overmoderated and is properly identified as namecalling, thus making the post either flamebait or a troll worthy of a lower score.
Much of what ESR says includes namecalling and an ahistorical view of how the free software community developed. In his most recent interview (covered elsewhere on/.), he begins by dismissing the need for the GNU GPL without acknowledging that the license was in widespread use well before his movement began, that this license was not written to benefit businesses (unlike his open source movement), and that persistant framing of the GPL as being "open" code tries to link his movement to the intention of the GPL (despite the fact that the GPL was written by the FSF many years before ESR's movement began, thereby clearly showing that the GPL was defending software freedom without ESR or the open source movement).
He is not alone in framing issues in this deceptive way. Mark Webbink's essay on "open source" licensing (which fails to use the concept of copyleft because that is tied to the free software movement and the open source movement struggles to get away from any discussion of software freedom), and other notable open source proponents speak or write similarly.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, the use of the Linux kernel allows free software users can pressure these would-be proprietors into helping them maintain our software freedom for derivative works so long as one leverages their laziness. That is, as long as one doesn't distribute proprietary kernel modifications.
Given FreeBSD's willingness to include proprietary software (see discussions between FreeBSD and OpenBSD developers and advocates surrounding technical specifications for cards -- FreeBSD is happy to include whatever the proprietor delivers, OpenBSD wants specs so they can write and maintain their own drivers), this "improved" hardware support may end up being nothing more than a means to deliver more proprietary software to users.
I expect hardware vendors to tell me how the device works so I can write and maintain my own free software drivers or hire someone to write them for me. I'm not against hiring the hardware manufacturer to do the job, but I don't want to be pushed into a monopoly for support. I think the OpenBSD hackers are of the same mindset, given their requests to Adaptec and other vendors for technical specifications, not code. Having others write proprietary software for you just puts you in the position of begging the proprietor for updates and leaves you vulnerable to being left behind (precisely what you spelled out).
Software freedom is not an argument for more "choice", although if one has free software one certainly has choices on how to improve a program. Choice is actually a poor surrogate for software freedom because it's so easy to railroad someone out of their freedom and supply choices at the same time. Consider web browsers; at one time, the most popular web browsers were Netscape Navigator, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Opera. There are three choices right there (one more than one needs to have a choice), and yet all are proprietary. Thus, with these browsers, software freedom is unavailable and one is relegated to choosing their master.
A corporate-funded legislator might back voting up on a bill which would discontinue issuing any new software patents and preclude any term extensions on extant software patents. In other words, the aim of the bill would be to let the current software patents expire. The mega-corporations investments in these patents would not be adversely affected and then we could get on with the job of competing without this particular problem. This approach would not pay off for 20 years, but that's considerably better than the current situation where computer users in many countries have to live with this threat for the forseeable future.
I'm sure the patent holders looking to preclude competition (as opposed to those looking to defend themselves and remain competitive) would cry foul based on their "inability to justify innovation" (or somesuch language), but this theoretical bill might help expose such claims.
I think you have inaccurately described a position in this article as "ideological purity". Lobbying legislators is a reasonable course of action to achieve political ends. FFII didn't get as far as they did without lobbying. Although the Register article doesn't get into all of the details of what Perens said, the OSDL patent pool is quite compatible with lobbying.
Under what license is the source code distributed? The site you pointed to appears to require registration in order to download the source code. Also, that site will not accept accounts registered to anything at dodgeit.com (a throwaway read-only email provider).
From the article:
A good time to remind us of why RMS insists on having different opinions about the public policy questions raised by disparate laws (including trademark, copyright, and patent law) with different histories and purposes; the alternative he rejects is lumping these laws together into "intellectual property".
Lots of people who are interested in this event weren't able to go to the dinner either because they aren't FSF associates or because they can't fly to the dinner location (Boston, or thereabouts if I recall correctly). So, for a lot of people this isn't old news. Also, discussions on the GPL gives people a chance to clear up long-held misconceptions about how the GPL works (which invariably come up during these threads). Given the social importance of the GPL and the popularity of the GPL, these are healthy discussions to have.
I hope you realize that your namecalling and lack of substantive support for your underlying argument says more about you than it does about RMS.
Please do point us to a recording of this event where RMS argued with Lessig publicly. I would prefer to hear this for myself rather than depend on a recollection so vague we can't even tell what the jist of the argument was about.
It would seem an odd choice to let Lessig sit on the board of directors of the FSF, distribute gratis copies of Lessig's book "Free Culture" to FSF members, and then extend the book offer if Stallman has serious philosophical disagreements with Lessig.
Overall, I'm glad to see more people encouraging the use of the GNU General Public License (GPL). No matter what their philosophical leaning, it helps me as a GPL licensor to have more source code to share and modify. There are two issues I'd like to comment on, one a correction and the other a general comment on one theme in the article. From the article:
The GNU General Public License (GPL) is also copyrighted. The copyright for the GPL is held by its author, the Free Software Foundation, and this is clearly announced in the text of the GPL. So, the second sentence of theirs makes no sense because there is no contrast to speak of.
Generally, the proliferation of licenses is a burden in and of itself. Some of the reason for this has to do with the weaker standards of the Open Source Initiative, which allow more licenses to become OSI-approved. But I think the desire of businesses to get free labor is another factor which can't be ignored. Businesses distribute their code under a license which allows the business more flexibility to do things with contributed code than what contributors can do with the code copyrighted to the business. This inequity was a problem with the early releases of the Apple Public Source License. By contrast, the equity between copyright holders and contributors under the GPL is part of the reason why the GPL became so popular.
Plenty of people have posted links to places where you can get zero-cost music. If you're interested in some political talk, give News from Neptune a try. Recordings are available as Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, or Speex files. The Speex compressor is amazingly high-quality considering how small the files are relative to the Ogg Vorbis files. All of the recordings are licensed to share.
But neither your thread-starting post nor your followup actually substantiate your claim that Markoff exploited Mitnick. It's fair to expect that a post moderated "informative" would actually contain a summary and links to information which backs up one's claim.
You keep making these claims, but you present no evidence to support them.
I see no absurdity or insult behind the corporations who seek to gain the imprimateur of the Open Source Initiative. Finally, free and freedom aren't being redefined. They're being used properly. It's vague to talk about freedom without specifying what freedoms one is talking about, and that's what the FSF does.
Saying "the source code is open" was meaningless before the open source movement began. Today it is meaningful only because of the open source movement, started by the Open Source Initiative which defined the term "open source". They coined and defined the term precisely to avoid the ambiguity you're defending. There never was an issue of ownership of words (whatever that actually means), just widespread understanding that phrases in certain contexts have histories and meaning which allow us to communicate. Ironically, it is the FSF essay I pointed to which illustrates why the term needs to be defined and how even after definition people still don't seem to understand what that term actually refers to in this context.
It's a shame that your namecalling has received positive moderation. One would think that such language should be discouraged, and instead mod points should be given to considerate disagreement.
If you didn't care what browser you used, you wouldn't bother to consider which browser is "better" (for any definition of better). You would simply use whatever someone put in front of you. Clearly you do care about what browser you are using, you are merely making your decision based on criteria which differs from how the debate is being framed. I'll do something similar below.
Firefox is being pitched in terms that will lose them the market share they desire.
Firefox has tabbed browsing, Javascript pop-up blocking, RSS feed reading capability, and other technical advances. Microsoft's Internet Explorer will get some of them too, and perhaps offer technical advances which Firefox does not have. MSIE will continue to come with the Microsoft Windows operating system whereas Firefox will continue to be a download away. So if users ares being taught to value Firefox for technical reasons, Firefox users on Microsoft Windows will be left with fewer reasons to download Firefox in the future. MSIE will be more convenient than Firefox and MSIE will offer the technical advantages users have been taught to value.
The Mozilla Foundation offers no better argument here; they pitch the argument of "choice" which is neither true nor convincing. A choice of web browsers was available long before Firefox existed: one could run MSIE, Netscape, or Opera (among other browsers). Choice only requires two alternatives, but at one time these three were quite popular.
An argument that would have been more convincing, but would have required different allegiances than the Mozilla Foundation has, would be to talk about software freedom. Even if one runs a proprietary OS, one could run a web browser that gives users software freedom as Firefox does for its users. Even if one is not a programmer (as most users aren't), one can benefit from the large library of Firefox extensions available and the daily activity on Firefox code which tends toward getting bugs fixed quickly; all practical consequences of software freedom. Talking about software freedom also exposes another weakness in the "choice" argument -- none of those choices offer software freedom because they are all proprietary programs -- so you can see how "choice" can railroad you into losing your freedom.
I certainly hope this is not the start of trying to give the open source movement more credit for work it did not do. Creative Commons licenses are not licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative and for good reason. CC licenses are not to be used for computer software. The Creative Commons organization lists the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL as licenses to consider for software. People on /. routinely cite the GPL as an "open source" license despite that:
When exactly was this "before the marketing blitz" time? I don't remember a time when Apple distributed the iPod that it wasn't being advertised. I maintain it is a product of profound advertising, not inherently well-played functionality.
As for the rest of your post, you're just defining what people want in terms of what the iPod can do. You ignore what people have been doing with audio players (even portable ones) for years before the iPod came out. By your argument, the iPod need never add any new features (like video or wireless communication) because the iPod can't do it now.
Running applications is what people do with their iPods -- they mostly run the same program which is the software that gives them the user interface to select what audio to play. Sure, this isn't running user-installed programs of the user's choice (it's all about Apple's choice), but the software iPods run isn't burned into a ROM chip either.
I maintain that the iPod is yet another counterexample of "picking the best tool for the job" because the iPod lacks so many cool features other similarly-priced portable digital audio players have (playing through one's car stereo requires additional equipment) or the iPod lacks innovative features I have yet to see in any portable digital audio player (Apple makes it really hard to legally share tips about what tracks other people like by hearing a fair-use sample of iTunes tracks on other neighboring iPods and then bookmark the track info on one's device for purchase later).
I find it funny that there is so much focus on the Apple iPod (including people willing to pepper their language with advertisements for it--"podcasting") because it is a relatively crappy portable digital audio player.
The Apple iPod is underdocumented, so you can't run software on it that you might want to, it doesn't support all of the formats other portable digital audio players do (most notably Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, Speex, which would let you keep your freedom and even other popular non-free formats), it can't record without additional equipment (at least not if you accept Apple's restrictions), it has no radio nor any features that work with the radio (such as radio song identification), and the software the iPod runs is proprietary so even if you know someone who is skilled in programming you can't get them to work for you to easily add new features. Cory Doctorow has documented how iPod-related software has declined in features if one keeps up with official Apple software updates installed through the normal MacOS X software update functionality.
The Apple iPod strikes me as a triumph of advertising over interesting and useful features which ordinary people could use. If any well-funded competitor can't compete against the iPod, I'd wonder if the real issue at hand is an unwillingness to fund the media campaign which Apple is apparently willing to fund in order to prop up this disappointing device.
No they won't. Not even the /. readers go out of their way to avoid proprietary implementations of things that don't need to be there. Lots of them use proprietary software (Microsoft Windows and MacOS X, most notably) and patent-encumbered formats (such as MP3, as you mentioned) instead of technically superior Ogg Vorbis which is not encumbered and is available to everyone freely. Most DVD viewers I know have no idea what region coding is, much less how to disable or alter region coding on their DVD players.
/. readers, there's no reason to believe it won't work on less adept mass audiences.
It's a matter of convincing users that some nifty feature comes with the system and taking on these restrictions (if they're mentioned at all) are the only way to get those features.
This is the path by which users are being lured away from pursuing their software freedom and if it works on the most technically-adept
There's nothing reasonable about any software patent. Also, the terms they list on their licensing page are the terms for now; there's nothing that compels the patent holder to license any particular person or organization for any particular use of the patented ideas. The patent holder can deny you a patent license just because they want to.
/.ers in other threads) would look to other formats, lossless formats if their storage space was large enough, better lossy encoders otherwise. For years now, far more capable portable digital audio players play Ogg Vorbis and FLAC files. If I were compressing human speech and I wanted to save a lot of space, I'd still use Speex over MP3.
Anyone who cares about sound quality ("Use the best tool for the job!", the unending cry of
I understand that some of you may only have heard of the open source movement. I'm grateful that you would consider using the GPL for your projects. However, the GNU General Public License (or GPL) predates the open source movement by many years by the founder of a movement with different goals than the open source movement. Therefore it is not fair or accurate to credit the GPL as an "open source license" merely because the Open Source Initiative (which started the open source movement) placed it on a list of approved licenses.
The GPL was written by Richard Stallman, most notably. Version 1 of the GPL was released in January 1989, and version 2 (the current version) in 1991. So, two major releases of what has come to be the most important and popular free software license were released well before the Open Source Initiative was founded in February 1998. The OSI has yet to write a license that compares with the popularity or strength of the GPL.
The GPL speaks repeatedly about software freedom, not "open" anything, and for very good reasons. First, the term "open source" didn't exist when the two revisions of the GPL were written. But even if the OSI existed, the open source movement doesn't want to frame any issue in terms of software freedom because it gets in the way of addressing businesses, their chief audience. Talking about software freedom means talking about something beneficial to users, not addressing more efficient means of connecting cheap programming labor with businesses. Philosophically and historically, the FSF and OSI are not the same, nor are the free software and open source movements. Stallman and Eben Moglen, chief counsel for the FSF, confirm this in every speech they give and virtually every essay they write. The Free Software Foundation has published an essay describing the differences between the two movements and why they see the free software movement as better. To this list of differences I'd add that free software guarantees private derivatives, unlike the open source definition.
The upcoming GPL (version 3) in this regard because it will be the first version of the GPL where anyone from the OSI may have editorial say in. The final word (and framing of the issues surrounding the GPLv3) still comes down to Stallman and Eben Moglen.
Thus, with all of this history, I think it is fair to call the GPL a free software license, not an open source license. The GPL existed well before and independantly of anything to do with the open source movement and does not embody the values of the open source movement. I encourage you all to stop misleading people into giving the OSI and the open source movement an undeserved primacy.
With regard to the popularity of certain software, you're positing a circular argument. You're talking about the status quo as if it has always existed and should ever be thus. Nobody need challenge the proprietor's popularity because they have arrived. I see things differently; the more we use free software the more popular we help make it. When we don't cave in to pressure to give a proprietor more control. But we should not do this for mere popularity. We should do this to build a better community.
It is important to teach people why we are choosing free software. It's not progress to treat, say, OpenOffice.org as a viable alternative to Microsoft Office merely because OO.o isn't written or distributed by Microsoft, because then every non-free Microsoft Office alternative becomes equally interesting. OpenOffice.org is compelling because it respects our freedom to share and modify which will help teach kids how to build and maintain a community of sharing. Software freedom also gives us more control over our computers and doesn't push us into a monopoly for support. Thus, this is not about cost: even if free software costs more money for the taxpayers, it's a better bargain overall. If the goal is to save taxpayers money, any proprietor interested in popularity will give away licensed copies of their software. Cost is a very narrow issue and we should work to frame better debates that don't give proprietors ground.
The license for Gizmo Project software is quite clear, the software doesn't even qualify for the weaker standard of "open source" (weaker than "free software" which requires that the user have permission to make private derivatives):
The company offers what they call "Opensource support", which appears to be little more than name-dropping. But I expect people around here to know better than to take on faith whatever a proprietor says.
At the very least, even if there is no intention to bamboozle users into adopting the software, this is yet another use of the term "Opensource" which shows how people don't understand what that term means. Reminiscent of examples of same from the FSF essay on the differences between the free software and open source movements (examples include Neal Stephenson's writing, the State of Kansas' definition, and a particularly interesting example from a trade show in late 1998).
As a result of a little digging into Project Gizmo, I still see no real competition for GNOMEMeeting. I see one more proprietor asking me to install a mysterious program on my computer so that the proprietor can do something on my computer that I am prohibited from inspecting, sharing, or modifying.
The GPL is a copyright license and is typically used such that everyone who can get a copy is given permission to share and modify the code with few restrictions (the restrictions therein are to preserve the freedom to share and modify). Few patented ideas are licensed similarly. The vast majority of patented ideas will require considerable sums of money or access to other patents in order to acquire a patent license. There is no reasonable way to conclude that "the GPL is no better than a software patent".
Where, exactly, can I hear Stallman "shrieking that the word [pirate] only has a single proper meaning"? Certainly not in the list of words you might want to avoid. Without any references to primary sources, your post is highly overmoderated and is properly identified as namecalling, thus making the post either flamebait or a troll worthy of a lower score.
Much of what ESR says includes namecalling and an ahistorical view of how the free software community developed. In his most recent interview (covered elsewhere on /.), he begins by dismissing the need for the GNU GPL without acknowledging that the license was in widespread use well before his movement began, that this license was not written to benefit businesses (unlike his open source movement), and that persistant framing of the GPL as being "open" code tries to link his movement to the intention of the GPL (despite the fact that the GPL was written by the FSF many years before ESR's movement began, thereby clearly showing that the GPL was defending software freedom without ESR or the open source movement).
He is not alone in framing issues in this deceptive way. Mark Webbink's essay on "open source" licensing (which fails to use the concept of copyleft because that is tied to the free software movement and the open source movement struggles to get away from any discussion of software freedom), and other notable open source proponents speak or write similarly.