I have witnessed this metamorphesis in at least a dozen people, who came from the aforementioned 'free means worthless' mindset to adament advocates of free software, and in each case their first, rudimentary understanding came via the open source rhetoric, and in each case their understanding did not stop there. RMSes fears that open source would blind people to free software are IMHO largely misguided, as is the entire conflict between the two movements.
Your argument needs examples of licenses that underwent this transition to illustrate how the Open Source movement eases the transition from proprietary software licenses to Free Software licenses. Easing the transition to Free Software is one of the things the Open Source movement does not do because that would require at some point talking about software freedom which the Open Source movement was designed never to talk about.
Businesses (the primary target of the Open Source movement's message) like the Open Source movement because that movement allows businesses to gain the social cachet of the "Open Source" moniker with non-free software licenses. This essay explains the difference between the two movements quite well, in particular explaining why businesses like the Open Source movement.
Apple's Public Source License (APSL) is a fine example of how the Open Source movement can injure Free Software pressure. Apple has revised the APSL under pressure from the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement would like Apple to further pursue a truly free software license even though Apple does not want to contribute to a commons of software they don't control. The Open Source Initiative thinks Apple's lack of reciprocity is acceptable and lists the APSL as an accepted license. So long as Apple is willing to settle for acceptance by the Open Source Initiative and so long as the moniker of "Open Source" is favorable, Apple has less incentive to continue towards making the APSL a Free Software license.
That is not one of the freedoms the Free Software movement champions because that is a practical consequence of the freedoms they do champion. The freedom of choice is well served by maintaining a commons--the commons of Free Software. If you got further (as the FSF does) and protect that commons (say, by copylefting Free Software), you ensure the commons will grow and serve choice even further. Lawrence Lessig will be arguing a related point in the upcoming Supreme Court copyright case Eldred v. Ashcroft, but he'll take it from the other side: when one stifles the commons of the Public Domain by extending copyright's term, one is not promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts" (a quote from the US Constitution).
All Linus is asking for is for people to be able to make their own choices.
If that were truly all he were asking for it would be rather silly--there is no danger of multiple choices going away. What's interesting about Torvald's request is what's not being raised: Torvalds is not asking you to consider forces at work outside your own concerns. To adopt your language, all the FSF is asking for is for people to consider the ethical implications of choice they may not have been aware of before.
You can get the latest Linux Kernel source code by ftp, rsync, etc...
I never argued one couldn't do that, so I don't see how that is apropos at all. Alternatives for getting the kernal is not the point.
Linus is right. If it works, use it. If it doesn't work, don't.
That doesn't illustrate why you think Torvalds is right.
I'm in favor of open-source stuff, I admire RMS and the GNU project for everything they've contributed to the computing world...
Please show your support by citing the correct movement when you talk about RMS and GNU. What you just said suggests an unfamiliarity with both software movements significant enough to be confusing to readers. RMS and GNU have nothing to do with the Open Source movement. RMS does Free Software and the GNU project & the GNU GPL were set up to make a complete Free Software operating system a reality. Listen to the 2001 NYU speech or read the transcript of this speech where RMS corrects the error you just made. The Free Software movement predates the Open Source movement by over a decade. Please read the FSF's essay on the difference between the two movements so you won't make this mistake again and confuse other readers.
What part of this says you can develop what you want by acquiring a commercial license?
Nothing, but that doesn't make your point. To determine if the claim is true you need to compare both licenses for both versions. The license on the $0 version might differ from the other version.
Of course none of this matters if you recognize that Linus Torvalds is arguing a rather selfish point--one should use the programs that get the job done, proprietary or Free Software (or anything in between). No regard is given for the ethical and larger social ramifications of our choices; we are being asked by Torvalds to consider only our own desires. I encourage you all to consider your software freedom and recognize that the practical benefits of better programs and a better society where we can share freely come (in part) from the freedoms and attention paid to ethics found in the Free Software movement.
I [am] convinced that the only way to do that is by insisting on civil-disobedience of copyright laws whenever possible. It is only then, when we drain them of their revenue stream and power that we will win...
However draining their revenue is one of their biggest lies, we should not believe that sharing actually causes the harm they'd like us to believe it causes. Consider what Lawrence Lessig said in a recent speech about sharing online. He had just outlined some of the tactics the large copyright holders propose using against those that share in response to the "harm" caused by sharing (taking down computers over a network was the chief example he gave which he called "digital vigilantism").
"What is that harm? What is the harm which is being done by these terrible P2P networks out there? Take their own numbers: They said last year 5 times the number of CDs sold were traded on the net for free--5 times. Then take the numbers about "the harm" caused by 5 times the number sold being traded for free: a drop in sales of 5%. Five percent. Now, there was a recession last year and they raised their prices and they changed the way they counted, all of those might actually account for the five percent. But even if they didn't the total harm caused by 5 times being traded for free was 5%."
I'm going to use his point to serve a different need in this conversation: it would appear that sharing a lot doesn't actually hurt their sales much. When virtually unrestricted sharing was going on the revenue from sales did not drop much.
Another problem with this approach is the harm it creates for a good cause. By purposefully going against the law you are helping the large copyright holders win by making their argument for them. Violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US and prison is unpleasant. Lawrence Lessig addressed this point directly on/. not too long ago. Heed his words in the speech and in his books: we have right on our side but it alone is insufficient to win. We have the better arguments. But we need to get the people whipped up about it. Don't wait for Lessig to win in the upcoming Supreme Court case.
How many of you contribute by dispelling myths about sharing via your local community radio and TV stations? I'm working at my local community radio station to do just that. There is already a fellow there working on a show with similar aims so I am joining him by interviewing interesting people and contributing to his show. I also do guest spots on other people's shows to tell people about the Free Software movement, the pernicious US patent system, and the struggle for what Siva Vaidhyanathan (in his excellent book "Copyrights and Copywrongs") calls "thin" copyright. I encourage all of you to get off your computer chairs and do the same thing--please note I am not talking about setting up yet another webcast. The people we need to speak to listen to AM and FM radio and watch TV. For this purpose, webcasting is a good augmentation of, not a replacement for, traditional media.
...otherwise we will just be feeding and strengthening the beast intent on killing us.
When it comes to "feeding and strengthening the beast", keep that in mind when the next Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek movie comes out. Keep that in mind when you're pricing a laptop computer or fancy display and you are dazzled by Sony's high-resolution LCD laptop screens. Keep that in mind and buy used major-label CDs or borrow them from the local library instead of buying them new. Your purchases have ethical consequences.
There are better things to do with that money. As Lessig asks later in the aforementioned speech, "How many [of you] have given to EFF more money than you give to your local telecom to give you shitty DSL service?". These movies, computers, CDs, and fancy Internet connections are distributed or managed by the corporations which work very hard to take away your freedom to use extant technology to share information freely. They want to own our culture and rent it to us on very restrictive terms. And so far too many of the people who know most about the problem have done too little to stop our loss of freedom.
So please donate to the EFF. Writing fancy software isn't going to help you when corporations that hate you control the routers your software must communicate through. This is a political problem that requires immediate political action. Supporting EFF is an easy way to help.
Well I was kinda dividing the world between commercial and non-commercial software. I was thinking more "Photoshop vs. GIMP" than "Windows XP vs. Red Hat Linux".
It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).
Well, lots of people write free utilites and then give them away but keep the source.
That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.
The only problem I see in calling it "GNU/Linux" in conversation is that it sounds like "New Linux"...perhaps we should say "guh-new"
(GNU is a recursive acronym for ``GNU's Not Unix''; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".)
GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.
In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.
...but for every Linus Torvalds who sits down and makes his own OS (and yes I have read the GNU/Linux FAQ)...
It's unfortunate Torvalds encourages that lie by not correcting the idea that he somehow "makes his own OS" (a quote from your article, not the BBC interview). I think the GNU project is asking nicely for something they rightly deserve credit for making. Software freedom is another big contribution for which I am grateful to have the FSF and the GNU project. I appreciate the contribution of Torvalds and all the other contributors to the Linux kernal, but the kernal alone is not an operating system.
...this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet.
It seems to me Apple fully understands the Open Source movement's message and did just what the Open Source movement asks of them. After all, the APSL is a license that movement finds agreeable. The FSF had it quite right when they said:
Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.
and the example the FSF gives in "Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''" is apropos. In this essay the FSF is talking about a software executive's discussion at a trade show in 1998 where the executive said they would consider making their program "internal Open Source" meaning the users are dependant on the support staff who can modify the source code. This example is apropos because it highlights what people don't seem to get about the Open Source movement. It concludes:
He [the executive] did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.
So the salient question about the APSL for those not already subject to its terms is: is the APSL good enough for the users? Looking at the size of participation in APSL-covered programs to date, I think the community's answer remains "no".
Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code.
I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it. I also think Apple has had quite some time to consider it by now and if they choose to further pursue making the APSL a Free Software license they will do so because the community wants the freedoms of Free Software. Persistant pressure for freedom is the reason why Apple has come this far.
Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned.
These are the terms APSL software are being released under as we speak. These are the terms Apple will be defend in court to those that Apple sees as violators. The "experiment" going on is Apple figuring how much they can get from the community without having to participate as equals in a commons. Fortunately for the community so far most developers largely reject their experiment.
Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft...
There is no language in the APSL to restrict action to employees of Microsoft, therefore there is no good reason to believe Apple will not sue you over prolonged violation. I think it's incredibly unwise to think Apple is acting in your best interests when they have made their terms so clear.
The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.
Apple never said it was Free Software, they said it was Open Source.
I totally understand and appreciate the difference between the two movements. In fact much of what I've posted to Slashdot concerns this difference. I see this in a larger context though: what are the points of differences being referred to and how does this fit in with a broader view of society.
Being an "Open Source" license doesn't take away any of the sting of the points the FSF raised; the FSF's concerns are reasonable for an individual or business to consider. At the end of the day, one has to look at what is being asked of them in this license and decide if it is worth getting involved.
I think it's pretty clear by now that most developers are not getting involved with APSL-covered works so I wonder why this is. I think there's a good chance the FSF's reasons are why. I also think this is yet another case where paying attention to one's freedom and paying attention to ethics (Free Software) are better criteria for judging the worth of a license than paying attention to a development methodology aimed at pleasing businesses (Open Source).
Further, Apple only deviates from what the FSF wants in areas where it is prudent business practice.
I disagree. IBM licenses some of their original software under the GNU GPL and so do other smaller businesses. The GPL does not feature these ridiculous clauses.
All I'm asking is that if you make posts about how the ASPL deviates in a few ways from the GPL, that you remember in balance that it is still a perfectly equitable Open Source license and that those developers who would rather develop Open software than Free software will still get great utility out of it.
I spent my previous post in this thread describing how Apple retains and overextends their power as copyright holder in the APSL, so I'd hardly describe the APSL on balance as being "perfectly equitable" with licensees. The license is "Open Source", no doubt, but the unpopularity of the APSL compared to the GNU GPL tells me something else is afoot. It's hard to get "great utility" out of an APSL-covered work if Apple infringes on your patent and you want to leverage your rights in society to stop that infringement from continuing. Not everyone is interested in putting Apple's desires ahead of their own and not everyone considers Apple's overextension of copyright power equitable.
This is why it is sad that this thread became a giant GPL v. other licences debate when it could have talked about some interesting potential applications of this technology for Open Source developers.
I don't find the struggle between corporate power and the enrichment and sustainance of a commons to be sad at all. I think we need more discussion of and action against corporate overrepresentation. Furthermore, the GNU GPL is a widely used software license that is also listed by the Open Source Initiative as an accepted license. Thus it is eminently practical to discuss compatibility issues surrounding these two licenses even if you are interested in the Open Source movement.
Perhaps the GnuPG developers are not after mere popularity. Perhaps they are after preserving software freedom and therefore they use the license that defends that interest best: the GNU GPL. In any event, since it is clear you don't like the licensing, you shoudl consider writing your own program and using the power of copyright to license it as you wish. Right now it seems you are more interested in namecalling and raising hackneyed incorrect statements about the GNU GPL's copyleft ("[GPG is] threatening to infect everything it touches"). Being an executable, as it is, GnuPG doesn't affect the licensing of other programs the way your LGPL'd library would.
It [GnuPG] desperately needs a LGPL lib to relieve this burden [of running a CLI program and parsing output].
Have you read the FAQ on this point? Apparently many people have been able to get valuable work done with GnuPG as a CLI app, so saying it "desperately" needs to be an LGPL-covered library doesn't follow.
The only lib so far is gpgme which is GPL making it pretty useless for this task.
This makes it seem like your objection has to do with the license chosen, not whether the program is an executable or a library. And yet I see no argument supporting your desire to switch the license to the Lesser GNU GPL.
You complain about the ASPL, but the only facts you point out about it are in the FSF link, and Apple has already made every change the FSF requested, except requiring you to publish deployed changes.
No, they haven't. The FSF rightly points out other problems with the license that have yet to be addressed. These include section 13.6 of the APSL which makes APSL-covered works unattractive for many users outside the Northern District of California. Non-US hackers are not penalized under the GNU GPL by placing them under the thumb of the insane USPTO and corporate-financed US laws.
MS never said they were doing anything like open source [...]
Perhaps not, but they could say they were selling and supporting Free Software. Because they are. This isn't a new situation either. So much for the GNU GPL being a "cancer" to business.
[...] the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement.
You say that as if it is somehow minor or reasonable. The FSF points out the inequity in one's relationship with Apple under the APSL and this is still a significant problem in the most current revision (version 1.2). Trading away these rights in society for the benefit of Apple is unacceptable.
Also the FSF's warning about extending copyright power in a dangerous way still applies. Apple still believes they can set terms on merely running the covered software (see section 13.5(b)).
There are probably other still valid parts of the FSF's assessment but suffice it to say the APSL is still a non-free software license. For those of us that care about our freedom, improving society, and the ethical ramifications of what we do, this is a very potent statement.
One thing that sems to be missing in all of this is that Apple is a public, for profit company, releasing code in to the public domain.
No, they are retaining copyright on their programs and releasing them under a non-free software license. Retaining copyright is what gives them the ability to leverage copyright power in the form of a license.
While im sure the GPL et al. are great, what apple does is give themselves some protection, and try to make it so that their code doesnt get forked and messy with no way "keep up" with it.
Code is not harmed by being copied or modified, therefore "protection" is an odd choice of word to use to describe what Apple is doing. Preventing forks is also not the point as the APSL does not prevent one from forking APSL-covered code.
What you describe in your hypothetical scenario is typically called "embrace and extend". In short, someone or some organization develops a purposefully-incompatible derivative of some non-copylefted Free Software. The programmers of the Free Software are now competing with what is largely their own work, playing catch-up for as long as the incompatible derivative is maintained. This cannot happen with APSL-covered code because APSL-covered code is non-free and Apple retains the ability to rescind your ability to legally modify or distribute APSL-covered works or derivatives of these works.
So you see, the protection built in stops companyA form "embrace, extend, break" and gives OTHERS using the standard sort of a guarentee that they wont be left out in the cold.
No, only copylefted Free Software gives the closest thing to that guarantee. Your rights under the APSL end if you dare to take action against Apple on patent infringement grounds (and note this is not just limited to software patents). Trading your software rights for leveraging your rights in society is unacceptable. This is one of the problems with the APSL that makes the APSL-covered programs non-free.
Copylefted Free Software makes sure the freedoms to share and modify the program don't leave the program. This is far better than any bugfix scenario can address. Copylefted Free Software grants us all the freedom to make the program suit our needs and lets us decide whether to keep our improvements private or share them. The freedoms of Free Software lead to the practical benefits often discussed. So when you focus on your freedom you are focusing on the root of the matter.
If i find a bug, i can be sure that my addition will work with the standard that everyone has.
Not necessarily. If you find a bug and tell Apple about it, they might not fix it. In which case the bug persists and everyone who uses that software has software with known bugs. Combine this with Apple's ability to pull the rug out from under you and you end up with software that doesn't even meet the freedom-ignoring practical benefit standard.
Should the FSF and RMS continue to demand people use the GNU/ designation before Linux, and start to impose restrictions - license or otherwise - people will stop using it.
They're not demanding anything, they're politely asking for you to call the operating system GNU/Linux which gives them a share of the credit they are due. Nobody is threatening imposing restrictions on those that choose not to grant the GNU project this credit.
Like most copyright holders, they already impose restrictions in the licensing of their software. Their work is not in the public domain. I think it's clear the restrictions they've imposed on their programs have been received quite well.
It doesn't matter if it's payment through money or recognition, people hate to be forced to do anything, so there'll be resistance.
Nobody is forcing you to call the system GNU/Linux, so clearly you have misinterpreted what is being asked of you.
Want me to pay for your software I can get elsewhere? Yeah, right. Want me to put the name of your software into my software, when I can just switch to something that doesn't have that restriction? Yeah, right.
It's funny you would cite this in this as a rebuttal in this context: the ability to get a costless copy of Free Software somewhere else is a side effect of the freedoms of Free Software--the very thing being championed by the GNU Project and the FSF.
Just let them violate the GPL on such things.. everyone wins.
No, the community certainly does not win. The GNU project and Free Software were based on spreading the freedoms to share and modify software because these freedoms help make our world a better place. It sounds like you aren't familiar with why the GNU project was started.
Linux people get to stop bitching about lack of drivers for the product [...] Sure, it may be some what unstable since the community can't review it, but at least it'll be in existance.
Free Software advocates are not after mere popularity. Stability is one of the practical benefits one gains as a result of having the freedoms of Free Software.
Personally, if there was something I would make but didn't wanna give the source out to, I'd make it and release it binary only. If I got bitched at for not providing source, just remove it completely, hurting all the people who're using it.
So long as your program is not a derivative of copylefted Free Software, you might be able to legally do that (one would need more information about your program to be sure). You would be unwise to forgo all the trust you might have gained in the community, but that's your choice. Your dismissal of software freedom is remarkably short-sighted: this would hurt you too because someone who receives a copy of Free Software might help you develop the program, improving it in ways you never imagined. Distributing proprietary software cuts off the possibility of building a community of equals and encourages people to think poorly of you. After releasing GPL-covered software I'm pleasantly surprised at how inventive the community is and how much I benefit from their collective wisdom.
Theft involves posession of an item changing hands.
So true, and so often misunderstood. The property parties and the corporations who fund them are interested in making everything ownable. Together they have done a considerable job training people to think exclusively in terms of property. This is one of the biggest problems talking about copyright power--almost invariably someone brings up "intellectual property" and the boundaries of allowable discourse are half laid out before you get into the discussion. Consider the FSF's input on it and Thomas Jefferson's quote about how ideas are not property:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his tapir at mine, receives light without darkening mine. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Actually, I think this is yet another shortcoming of the Open Source movement--people don't seem to understand that merely releasing source code does not qualify as "Open Source". Take a look at the license for Jagulator (the emulator referred to in the parent post). It is brief, so I'll quote it in its entirety here:
The only conditions I lay down on the use of this source code are as follows:
(a) If any part of Jagulator is used in any other Jaguar Emulator then do the decent thing and include a greet, thanks or other information that mentions the fact.
(b) Don't just recompile the code and release it as something else, thats just plain LAME !.
(c) Have Fun:):):)
Nowhere are you explicitly granted the ability to modify the source code, distribute the source code, or distribute derivative works (although the license suggests you do by placing terms on what you must do if you choose to distribute a derivative work). Jagulator would be far more valuable if the author would use an extant copylefted Free Software license. I suggest the GNU GPL would be appropriate because it would allow the author ("RealityMan") to share in the improvements others make to the emulator and keep the emulator from becoming proprietary software.
The German government has ordered a full-blown open-source groupware solution for KDE...
Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.
Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".
The German government has ordered a full-blown open-source groupware solution for KDE...
Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.
Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".
Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.
By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.
However, as far as
software goes...the words free software and open source do refer to the same thing.
No, they don't. If they did "refer to the same thing" one might wonder what the differences in the two movements are. There are some non-free software licenses (and licensed under them non-free software) that are acceptable to the Open Source Initiative. Some of this software is licensed under the original Artistic License and the Apple Public Source License. This is basic set theory--the set of licenses that qualify for being listed as Free Software are simply not the same set of licenses that are approved by the Open Source Initiative.
There's two movements with very different views and goals, one of them calls it free software and the other calls it open source -- when they speak about the same thing.
Your description is self-contradictory. If the two movements really spoke of the same thing one would have a hard time understanding how you could conclude they have "very different views and goals". The Open Source movement's goals simply do not include talking about software freedom, therefore they never engage in such discussion. Conversely the Free Software movement's goals include teaching people about software freedom, thus this movement takes the time to point out that the pragmatic advantages we all cherish come from particular freedoms in the licenses. This is a fundamental difference between the two groups. This difference informs the criteria by which the two groups judge software licenses.
The essay you claim awareness of tells us in the very first sentence:
While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words
convey different ideas.
Given all I just said, I'll take one of your remarks out of conversational order to illustrate my point in regard to a specific license--the GNU GPL:
GNU Emacs? That's open source even though it's maker likes to call it free software.
I disagree that it is at all appropriate to refer to GNU Emacs as "open source". It's virtually impossible to read the GNU GPL and come away with a significant understanding of the Open Source movement. The GPL was written with the four fundamental freedoms of Free Software in mind and the GPL's preamble alone makes it clear that the focus of the GPL is defending these freedoms for all computer users. The Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the Emacs license (from which the GPL came). This is because the Open Source movement did not exist until roughly a decade after these documents were written. Therefore it is historically and ideologically incorrect to identify GNU Emacs as being "open source".
I believe OSX on i386 will cause a major movement toward more open source software development.
And that should be why they dismiss your submission: their goal is to move people to freedom, hence the name of the "Free Software" movement, not to move people to dismiss software freedom or back licenses which deny computer users software freedom. It makes no sense to give a Free Software advancement award those who make non-free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument needs examples of licenses that underwent this transition to illustrate how the Open Source movement eases the transition from proprietary software licenses to Free Software licenses. Easing the transition to Free Software is one of the things the Open Source movement does not do because that would require at some point talking about software freedom which the Open Source movement was designed never to talk about.
Businesses (the primary target of the Open Source movement's message) like the Open Source movement because that movement allows businesses to gain the social cachet of the "Open Source" moniker with non-free software licenses. This essay explains the difference between the two movements quite well, in particular explaining why businesses like the Open Source movement.
Apple's Public Source License (APSL) is a fine example of how the Open Source movement can injure Free Software pressure. Apple has revised the APSL under pressure from the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement would like Apple to further pursue a truly free software license even though Apple does not want to contribute to a commons of software they don't control. The Open Source Initiative thinks Apple's lack of reciprocity is acceptable and lists the APSL as an accepted license. So long as Apple is willing to settle for acceptance by the Open Source Initiative and so long as the moniker of "Open Source" is favorable, Apple has less incentive to continue towards making the APSL a Free Software license.
That is not one of the freedoms the Free Software movement champions because that is a practical consequence of the freedoms they do champion. The freedom of choice is well served by maintaining a commons--the commons of Free Software. If you got further (as the FSF does) and protect that commons (say, by copylefting Free Software), you ensure the commons will grow and serve choice even further. Lawrence Lessig will be arguing a related point in the upcoming Supreme Court copyright case Eldred v. Ashcroft, but he'll take it from the other side: when one stifles the commons of the Public Domain by extending copyright's term, one is not promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts" (a quote from the US Constitution).
If that were truly all he were asking for it would be rather silly--there is no danger of multiple choices going away. What's interesting about Torvald's request is what's not being raised: Torvalds is not asking you to consider forces at work outside your own concerns. To adopt your language, all the FSF is asking for is for people to consider the ethical implications of choice they may not have been aware of before.
I never argued one couldn't do that, so I don't see how that is apropos at all. Alternatives for getting the kernal is not the point.
That doesn't illustrate why you think Torvalds is right.
Please show your support by citing the correct movement when you talk about RMS and GNU. What you just said suggests an unfamiliarity with both software movements significant enough to be confusing to readers. RMS and GNU have nothing to do with the Open Source movement. RMS does Free Software and the GNU project & the GNU GPL were set up to make a complete Free Software operating system a reality. Listen to the 2001 NYU speech or read the transcript of this speech where RMS corrects the error you just made. The Free Software movement predates the Open Source movement by over a decade. Please read the FSF's essay on the difference between the two movements so you won't make this mistake again and confuse other readers.
Nothing, but that doesn't make your point. To determine if the claim is true you need to compare both licenses for both versions. The license on the $0 version might differ from the other version.
Of course none of this matters if you recognize that Linus Torvalds is arguing a rather selfish point--one should use the programs that get the job done, proprietary or Free Software (or anything in between). No regard is given for the ethical and larger social ramifications of our choices; we are being asked by Torvalds to consider only our own desires. I encourage you all to consider your software freedom and recognize that the practical benefits of better programs and a better society where we can share freely come (in part) from the freedoms and attention paid to ethics found in the Free Software movement.
However draining their revenue is one of their biggest lies, we should not believe that sharing actually causes the harm they'd like us to believe it causes. Consider what Lawrence Lessig said in a recent speech about sharing online. He had just outlined some of the tactics the large copyright holders propose using against those that share in response to the "harm" caused by sharing (taking down computers over a network was the chief example he gave which he called "digital vigilantism").
I'm going to use his point to serve a different need in this conversation: it would appear that sharing a lot doesn't actually hurt their sales much. When virtually unrestricted sharing was going on the revenue from sales did not drop much.
Another problem with this approach is the harm it creates for a good cause. By purposefully going against the law you are helping the large copyright holders win by making their argument for them. Violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US and prison is unpleasant. Lawrence Lessig addressed this point directly on /. not too long ago. Heed his words in the speech and in his books: we have right on our side but it alone is insufficient to win. We have the better arguments. But we need to get the people whipped up about it. Don't wait for Lessig to win in the upcoming Supreme Court case.
How many of you contribute by dispelling myths about sharing via your local community radio and TV stations? I'm working at my local community radio station to do just that. There is already a fellow there working on a show with similar aims so I am joining him by interviewing interesting people and contributing to his show. I also do guest spots on other people's shows to tell people about the Free Software movement, the pernicious US patent system, and the struggle for what Siva Vaidhyanathan (in his excellent book "Copyrights and Copywrongs") calls "thin" copyright. I encourage all of you to get off your computer chairs and do the same thing--please note I am not talking about setting up yet another webcast. The people we need to speak to listen to AM and FM radio and watch TV. For this purpose, webcasting is a good augmentation of, not a replacement for, traditional media.
When it comes to "feeding and strengthening the beast", keep that in mind when the next Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek movie comes out. Keep that in mind when you're pricing a laptop computer or fancy display and you are dazzled by Sony's high-resolution LCD laptop screens. Keep that in mind and buy used major-label CDs or borrow them from the local library instead of buying them new. Your purchases have ethical consequences.
There are better things to do with that money. As Lessig asks later in the aforementioned speech, "How many [of you] have given to EFF more money than you give to your local telecom to give you shitty DSL service?". These movies, computers, CDs, and fancy Internet connections are distributed or managed by the corporations which work very hard to take away your freedom to use extant technology to share information freely. They want to own our culture and rent it to us on very restrictive terms. And so far too many of the people who know most about the problem have done too little to stop our loss of freedom.
So please donate to the EFF. Writing fancy software isn't going to help you when corporations that hate you control the routers your software must communicate through. This is a political problem that requires immediate political action. Supporting EFF is an easy way to help.
It might be helpful to consider free software versus proprietary software. I'm talking about two different ends of the spectrum here, but these are useful terms to describe what I think you're after. A couple common combinations are a completely free software operating system (this is pretty easy to do with Debian GNU/Linux, for example, even though Debian's guidelines for what it considers free software are different from what the FSF defined years before) and a proprietary operating system on which they run some free software applications (using Mozilla on Microsoft Windows, for instance).
That software would be proprietary software. When one is talking about GNU, the Linux kernal, GIMP, etc., it is easy to think about free software where one is using the term "free" to mean freedom, not price ("logiciel libre", not "logiciel gratuit" if you speak French; free as in speech, not as in beer). This particular problem doesn't occur in other languages.
That is what they say on the front page of the GNU website:
GNU project and FSF representatives also pronounce GNU as "guh-NEW" in their speeches. If you haven't already heard them give them a listen, they're interesting and worthwhile.
In any event, thanks for remembering GNU and software freedom. Happy hacking.
This question is difficult to understand because commercial software and free software are not opposites. One can sell free software.
Again, to those that know the difference between these two movements, this question doesn't parse.
It's unfortunate Torvalds encourages that lie by not correcting the idea that he somehow "makes his own OS" (a quote from your article, not the BBC interview). I think the GNU project is asking nicely for something they rightly deserve credit for making. Software freedom is another big contribution for which I am grateful to have the FSF and the GNU project. I appreciate the contribution of Torvalds and all the other contributors to the Linux kernal, but the kernal alone is not an operating system.
It seems to me Apple fully understands the Open Source movement's message and did just what the Open Source movement asks of them. After all, the APSL is a license that movement finds agreeable. The FSF had it quite right when they said:
and the example the FSF gives in "Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''" is apropos. In this essay the FSF is talking about a software executive's discussion at a trade show in 1998 where the executive said they would consider making their program "internal Open Source" meaning the users are dependant on the support staff who can modify the source code. This example is apropos because it highlights what people don't seem to get about the Open Source movement. It concludes:
So the salient question about the APSL for those not already subject to its terms is: is the APSL good enough for the users? Looking at the size of participation in APSL-covered programs to date, I think the community's answer remains "no".
I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it. I also think Apple has had quite some time to consider it by now and if they choose to further pursue making the APSL a Free Software license they will do so because the community wants the freedoms of Free Software. Persistant pressure for freedom is the reason why Apple has come this far.
These are the terms APSL software are being released under as we speak. These are the terms Apple will be defend in court to those that Apple sees as violators. The "experiment" going on is Apple figuring how much they can get from the community without having to participate as equals in a commons. Fortunately for the community so far most developers largely reject their experiment.
There is no language in the APSL to restrict action to employees of Microsoft, therefore there is no good reason to believe Apple will not sue you over prolonged violation. I think it's incredibly unwise to think Apple is acting in your best interests when they have made their terms so clear.
The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.
I totally understand and appreciate the difference between the two movements. In fact much of what I've posted to Slashdot concerns this difference. I see this in a larger context though: what are the points of differences being referred to and how does this fit in with a broader view of society.
Being an "Open Source" license doesn't take away any of the sting of the points the FSF raised; the FSF's concerns are reasonable for an individual or business to consider. At the end of the day, one has to look at what is being asked of them in this license and decide if it is worth getting involved.
I think it's pretty clear by now that most developers are not getting involved with APSL-covered works so I wonder why this is. I think there's a good chance the FSF's reasons are why. I also think this is yet another case where paying attention to one's freedom and paying attention to ethics (Free Software) are better criteria for judging the worth of a license than paying attention to a development methodology aimed at pleasing businesses (Open Source).
I disagree. IBM licenses some of their original software under the GNU GPL and so do other smaller businesses. The GPL does not feature these ridiculous clauses.
I spent my previous post in this thread describing how Apple retains and overextends their power as copyright holder in the APSL, so I'd hardly describe the APSL on balance as being "perfectly equitable" with licensees. The license is "Open Source", no doubt, but the unpopularity of the APSL compared to the GNU GPL tells me something else is afoot. It's hard to get "great utility" out of an APSL-covered work if Apple infringes on your patent and you want to leverage your rights in society to stop that infringement from continuing. Not everyone is interested in putting Apple's desires ahead of their own and not everyone considers Apple's overextension of copyright power equitable.
I don't find the struggle between corporate power and the enrichment and sustainance of a commons to be sad at all. I think we need more discussion of and action against corporate overrepresentation. Furthermore, the GNU GPL is a widely used software license that is also listed by the Open Source Initiative as an accepted license. Thus it is eminently practical to discuss compatibility issues surrounding these two licenses even if you are interested in the Open Source movement.
Perhaps the GnuPG developers are not after mere popularity. Perhaps they are after preserving software freedom and therefore they use the license that defends that interest best: the GNU GPL. In any event, since it is clear you don't like the licensing, you shoudl consider writing your own program and using the power of copyright to license it as you wish. Right now it seems you are more interested in namecalling and raising hackneyed incorrect statements about the GNU GPL's copyleft ("[GPG is] threatening to infect everything it touches"). Being an executable, as it is, GnuPG doesn't affect the licensing of other programs the way your LGPL'd library would.
Have you read the FAQ on this point? Apparently many people have been able to get valuable work done with GnuPG as a CLI app, so saying it "desperately" needs to be an LGPL-covered library doesn't follow.
This makes it seem like your objection has to do with the license chosen, not whether the program is an executable or a library. And yet I see no argument supporting your desire to switch the license to the Lesser GNU GPL.
GNU GPL-covered software and "commercial" software are not opposites. It can be okay to distribute GPL-covered software commercially.
No, they haven't. The FSF rightly points out other problems with the license that have yet to be addressed. These include section 13.6 of the APSL which makes APSL-covered works unattractive for many users outside the Northern District of California. Non-US hackers are not penalized under the GNU GPL by placing them under the thumb of the insane USPTO and corporate-financed US laws.
Perhaps not, but they could say they were selling and supporting Free Software. Because they are. This isn't a new situation either. So much for the GNU GPL being a "cancer" to business.
You say that as if it is somehow minor or reasonable. The FSF points out the inequity in one's relationship with Apple under the APSL and this is still a significant problem in the most current revision (version 1.2). Trading away these rights in society for the benefit of Apple is unacceptable.
Also the FSF's warning about extending copyright power in a dangerous way still applies. Apple still believes they can set terms on merely running the covered software (see section 13.5(b)).
There are probably other still valid parts of the FSF's assessment but suffice it to say the APSL is still a non-free software license. For those of us that care about our freedom, improving society, and the ethical ramifications of what we do, this is a very potent statement.
All quoted spelling in context.
No, they are retaining copyright on their programs and releasing them under a non-free software license. Retaining copyright is what gives them the ability to leverage copyright power in the form of a license.
Code is not harmed by being copied or modified, therefore "protection" is an odd choice of word to use to describe what Apple is doing. Preventing forks is also not the point as the APSL does not prevent one from forking APSL-covered code.
What you describe in your hypothetical scenario is typically called "embrace and extend". In short, someone or some organization develops a purposefully-incompatible derivative of some non-copylefted Free Software. The programmers of the Free Software are now competing with what is largely their own work, playing catch-up for as long as the incompatible derivative is maintained. This cannot happen with APSL-covered code because APSL-covered code is non-free and Apple retains the ability to rescind your ability to legally modify or distribute APSL-covered works or derivatives of these works.
No, only copylefted Free Software gives the closest thing to that guarantee. Your rights under the APSL end if you dare to take action against Apple on patent infringement grounds (and note this is not just limited to software patents). Trading your software rights for leveraging your rights in society is unacceptable. This is one of the problems with the APSL that makes the APSL-covered programs non-free.
Copylefted Free Software makes sure the freedoms to share and modify the program don't leave the program. This is far better than any bugfix scenario can address. Copylefted Free Software grants us all the freedom to make the program suit our needs and lets us decide whether to keep our improvements private or share them. The freedoms of Free Software lead to the practical benefits often discussed. So when you focus on your freedom you are focusing on the root of the matter.
Not necessarily. If you find a bug and tell Apple about it, they might not fix it. In which case the bug persists and everyone who uses that software has software with known bugs. Combine this with Apple's ability to pull the rug out from under you and you end up with software that doesn't even meet the freedom-ignoring practical benefit standard.
They're not demanding anything, they're politely asking for you to call the operating system GNU/Linux which gives them a share of the credit they are due. Nobody is threatening imposing restrictions on those that choose not to grant the GNU project this credit.
Like most copyright holders, they already impose restrictions in the licensing of their software. Their work is not in the public domain. I think it's clear the restrictions they've imposed on their programs have been received quite well.
Nobody is forcing you to call the system GNU/Linux, so clearly you have misinterpreted what is being asked of you.
It's funny you would cite this in this as a rebuttal in this context: the ability to get a costless copy of Free Software somewhere else is a side effect of the freedoms of Free Software--the very thing being championed by the GNU Project and the FSF.
No, the community certainly does not win. The GNU project and Free Software were based on spreading the freedoms to share and modify software because these freedoms help make our world a better place. It sounds like you aren't familiar with why the GNU project was started.
Free Software advocates are not after mere popularity. Stability is one of the practical benefits one gains as a result of having the freedoms of Free Software.
So long as your program is not a derivative of copylefted Free Software, you might be able to legally do that (one would need more information about your program to be sure). You would be unwise to forgo all the trust you might have gained in the community, but that's your choice. Your dismissal of software freedom is remarkably short-sighted: this would hurt you too because someone who receives a copy of Free Software might help you develop the program, improving it in ways you never imagined. Distributing proprietary software cuts off the possibility of building a community of equals and encourages people to think poorly of you. After releasing GPL-covered software I'm pleasantly surprised at how inventive the community is and how much I benefit from their collective wisdom.
So true, and so often misunderstood. The property parties and the corporations who fund them are interested in making everything ownable. Together they have done a considerable job training people to think exclusively in terms of property. This is one of the biggest problems talking about copyright power--almost invariably someone brings up "intellectual property" and the boundaries of allowable discourse are half laid out before you get into the discussion. Consider the FSF's input on it and Thomas Jefferson's quote about how ideas are not property:
Free Software and commercial software are not opposites. Free Software and proprietary software are opposites. It can be okay to sell Free Software.
Actually, I think this is yet another shortcoming of the Open Source movement--people don't seem to understand that merely releasing source code does not qualify as "Open Source". Take a look at the license for Jagulator (the emulator referred to in the parent post). It is brief, so I'll quote it in its entirety here:
Nowhere are you explicitly granted the ability to modify the source code, distribute the source code, or distribute derivative works (although the license suggests you do by placing terms on what you must do if you choose to distribute a derivative work). Jagulator would be far more valuable if the author would use an extant copylefted Free Software license. I suggest the GNU GPL would be appropriate because it would allow the author ("RealityMan") to share in the improvements others make to the emulator and keep the emulator from becoming proprietary software.
Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.
Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".
Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.
Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".
Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.
By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.
No, they don't. If they did "refer to the same thing" one might wonder what the differences in the two movements are. There are some non-free software licenses (and licensed under them non-free software) that are acceptable to the Open Source Initiative. Some of this software is licensed under the original Artistic License and the Apple Public Source License. This is basic set theory--the set of licenses that qualify for being listed as Free Software are simply not the same set of licenses that are approved by the Open Source Initiative.
Your description is self-contradictory. If the two movements really spoke of the same thing one would have a hard time understanding how you could conclude they have "very different views and goals". The Open Source movement's goals simply do not include talking about software freedom, therefore they never engage in such discussion. Conversely the Free Software movement's goals include teaching people about software freedom, thus this movement takes the time to point out that the pragmatic advantages we all cherish come from particular freedoms in the licenses. This is a fundamental difference between the two groups. This difference informs the criteria by which the two groups judge software licenses.
The essay you claim awareness of tells us in the very first sentence:
Given all I just said, I'll take one of your remarks out of conversational order to illustrate my point in regard to a specific license--the GNU GPL:
I disagree that it is at all appropriate to refer to GNU Emacs as "open source". It's virtually impossible to read the GNU GPL and come away with a significant understanding of the Open Source movement. The GPL was written with the four fundamental freedoms of Free Software in mind and the GPL's preamble alone makes it clear that the focus of the GPL is defending these freedoms for all computer users. The Open Source movement had nothing to do with writing the GNU GPL or the Emacs license (from which the GPL came). This is because the Open Source movement did not exist until roughly a decade after these documents were written. Therefore it is historically and ideologically incorrect to identify GNU Emacs as being "open source".
Then it would be inappropriate to grant him an award "for the advancement of Free Software". Perhaps you weren't aware of the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movements.
And that should be why they dismiss your submission: their goal is to move people to freedom, hence the name of the "Free Software" movement, not to move people to dismiss software freedom or back licenses which deny computer users software freedom. It makes no sense to give a Free Software advancement award those who make non-free software.