We were never on the topic of "OSS/FS awards". The award is being given "for the Advancement of Free Software". There is no mention of the other movement and for good reason. The event is being organized by the FSF and the GNU project which have no affiliation with the Open Source movement. Please take the time to read the press release and learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused and confuse others.
Really he's trying to do what he think is best for his country, which he believes involves using Open Source software.
No, he believes doing what's best for his country involves using Free Software, not "Open Source". He takes the Microsoft rep to task for referring to what he's doing as "Open Source". The bill he backs specifically mentions "Free Software". He is aware the two are not the same thing and he chooses to back the Free Software movement. This has been discussed before.
...[W]e have a huge number of people who use the two terms interchangeably because they do refer to the same thing. It is (mostly) the same software, the same licenses.
Those people who use the terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" interchangeably do not understand the history and purpose of the two movements (perhaps they understand neither movement). The two movements do not refer to the same licenses in the same way nor do they stand for the same interests. That is why I pointed you and all the other readers to this essay which lays out these differences far more clearly than the glib retort found in the Open Source Initiative's FAQ entry on the matter.
As the linked to essay clearly points out, supporters of both movements do get along and work together on specific projects; their differing philosophies have some common consequences. That doesn't mean everything these two groups seek to advance is the same nor does it mean they work on projects for the same reasons.
I guess the point is, when large corporations like Disney switch away from a particular product, regardless of the political stance, (and it doesnt really matter which product - in this case Microsoft), the rest of the world will soon follow.
I don't see how this connects to your previous point regarding the apparent international move to "Open Source".
Taken on its own merit, I'm not sure I agree about Disney as introducer because Disney's choice to use Apache came after Apache had been adopted by many other organizations (probably as a result of the very liberal terms under which it is released). Given the amount of time that has passed since Apache's release to Disney's adoption, Disney strikes me more like a follower here than a leader.
Disney's poor choice of supporting things like the SSSCA doesn't matter. They are huge and have many sub-contractors supporting their industry.
Of course it matters. Any large support for legislation that takes away our freedoms matters. Disney's well-funded support for repressive bills is a fine example of how the US is run by and for corporations with apparently little being done by the two dominant US political parties to stop it (probably because these corporations give so many millions of dollars to these two political parties). Corporate overrepresentation in politics is a nexus of many other issues and, as such, probably the single most important issue facing the USA. Support for bills like this is a huge issue that technically astute people (who are uniquely poised to understand what's wrong with the bill) really need to start working on by means other than writing code (to paraphrase one of Lawrence Lessig's points raised at an FSF fundraising dinner, in a keynote speech he recently gave, the link to the MP3 of which I can no longer find, and in a Slashdot interview). At the risk of being repetitive, I hope anyone reading this will contribute to the EFF.
When the customer switches to a particular product, you can bet that the contractors will carry the exact same product in their own offices to ensure seamless compatibility with the customer - thus, a domino effect.
Influence exists, definately, but I think we must be careful of the direction of the influence--are we placing more power into fewer unaccountable hands or are we placing greater societal software rights for all computer users? Seamless integration is another technical end which can be attained through software freedom, but focusing on integration can distract one from deeper causative concerns. When the freedoms to share and modify are inseparable from the software everyone gets the benefit of the technical advantages the Open Source movement talks about. The Apache license is a non-copylefted one--the freedoms to share and modify do not have to be replicated in derivative works. Disney may someday (perhaps they are already, I haven't seen the license to their software) choose to release something based on Free Software that is non-free. This would be an unfortunate trend to see being copied by all these contractors you refer to, and one way in which Disney can build on what was supplied to it as a gift and turn it into more power.
Shouldn't open source in general be both philosophical AND practical?
"[P]hilosophy" is not the opposite of "practical[ity]"--the philosophy of the Open Source movement centers on practical advantage; a development methodology chiefly aimed at businesses. This philosophy places that movement in sharp contrast to the philosophy of the older Free Software movement which focuses on ensuring that all computer users have the freedom to share and modify software.
No, Congressman Villanueva was clearly talking about Free Software, not Open Source (perhaps you aren't familiar with the difference between the two movements). He made explicit reference to this early in his response to the Microsoft rep who made the same error you did casting the bill in terms of the wrong movement. I explained this when it came up on Slashdot before. Given the language being used in the Venezuelan case, I have strong suspicions the same error is being made here.
Disney is a rather poor choice to cite in the context of "hav[ing]" something worthwhile. Disney is a major sponsor of the CBDTPA (née the SSSCA), a bill that seeks to further harm our ability to share. The Disney corporation speaks out in favor of infinite copyright power, part of the topic in the pending US Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft (née Eldred v. Reno). Disney is a vocal advocate of the ill-concieved concept of "piracy" and the claimed ills sharing brings to the movie and music industries. Gaining a small bit of camaderie with some Disney site admins who use Apache at the cost of losing our freedom to share is a very bad exchange.
The Norway example is typical of the misidentification of intention and statement some Open Source supporters often cite when talking about the GNU GPL. They say the GPL is an "Open Source" license, yet don't acknowledge it is only one because the Open Source Initiative chose to define its terms widely enough to include the GNU GPL in a list of approved licenses. If one takes the time to read the GPL and read what the Open Source Initiative says about the Free Software movement in its FAQ, it is clear the GPL does not say what the Open Source movement was created to accomplish. While I appreciate what Open Source movement supporters contribute by choosing to distribute their programs under the GNU GPL, I think it's unfair that the Free Software Foundation doesn't get credit for their work and the Free Software movement misses out on an opportunity to teach people about freedom and community. Please don't confuse people like Wired magazine does and cite the GPL as an "Open Source license".
Finally, your Mexico City example appears to be for Free Software when one reads the opinions expressed in the article you pointed to: "We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia, aide to the city's technical coordinator, José Barberán. Just because Wired magazine misunderstands the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements does not mean you should.
Venezuela has adopted a policy for the use of Open Source software in government wherever possible...
I doubt the veracity of that translation and the reference to "Open Source" in the Slashdot headline. The multiple references to "la filosofía del código libre" sure doesn't sound like a reference to "Open Source". It sounds like the speaker is talking about "the philosophy of Free Software"; an older movement with a different philosophy than the Open Source movement. In order to fully understand what is being said I need to understand the context in which these cognates appear.
Given the letter to Microsoft by Congressman Villanueva which skillfully described Free Software to a Microsoft representative, and the number of Slashdot participants who misinterpreted that letter as endorsing "Open Source", I'm not eager to take Slashdot's critique at face value. Also I know how some Open Source movement supporters like to refer to the GNU GPL in the context of the Open Source movement even though that reference misstates the authorship and intent of the license (the GNU GPL was written over a decade before that movement existed and does not express the motivations behind the Open Source movement). Therefore I am curious to read a translation of the interview written by a human being who is familiar with the issues involved.
Your subject header ("Free softare is compatible with business") and the proposition on which your argument is based (" I'm intrigued that people are all about OSS not being opposed to business or profit...") are talking about two different movements with different goals and different criteria for judging software licenses. Whichever movement you wish to talk about, please state that clearly and consistently so as to not confuse readers who understand the difference between the two movements.
If you meant to talk about the Free Software movement, you should know this movement has nothing against commercialism. It is proprietary software which is the enemy of Free Software, not commercial software. Software patents are patents which cover ideas you might use in developing any software, thus impeding the development of all software. Software patents thus serve to limit the freedom the Free Software movement champions to let every computer user share and modify software.
My understanding of X is that you were not allowed to do anything unless you paid the $100. I think this violates the rules of the FSF for a true Free software (because it limits the ability to redistribute the source code)...
Not necessarily--requiring a fee doesn't say anything about the redistribution of the source code. I've paid for Free Software before. My payment in no way hindered my ability to redistribute the software (or distribute a modified version of the software) at whatever cost I wished. I have successfully made money distributing verbatim and modified versions of Free Software.
The Free Software movement is against proprietary software, not commercial software. Perhaps there was something else in the license that made the software non-free. Do you have a copy of the license you're referring to?
(note it was not free-as-in-beer, but "open", RMS would disagree about open because there were limits on what you could do with the code, but most people would call it "open".)
No, RMS would disagree with being cited in the context of the wrong movement. RMS is a member of the Free Software movement which stands for very different ideas. The Free Software movement has no problem with commercial software, a lot of Free Software is commercial. The Free Software movement has a problem with proprietary software. You have not given enough detail about the terms under which NeWS was available to determine whether it would be considered Free Software or not.
It is great that Open Source proponents write much Free Software, but it is wrong to credit the Open Source movement with the GNU GPL. The GPL is the work of the Free Software movement. The Open Source movement defines their terms so as to allow listing the GPL as an approved license. This is not authorship and it is unfair to mention that movement in this context.
Your claim associates the achievements and values of the Free Software movement with another philosophy which began over a decade after the GPL was written. The Free Software movement centers on greater societal software rights and the GPL grew from that freedom-minded perspective. Please give credit to the proper movement when talking about the GNU GPL.
Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government.
No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.
For those not in the know, CDex is a very nice, very easy-to-use GPL (as in Open Source) Audio CD Ripper
No, the GNU GPL was written by and for the Free Software movement over a decade before the other movement existed. The GNU GPL is the chief license of the Free Software movement and it is quite misleading to attribute the GNU GPL to the Open Source movement. I am not objecting to anyone's use of the GNU GPL. It's great that supporters of the other movement appreciate the license and write free software licensed to everyone under the GPL's terms. I ask you to please give credit where credit is due and cite the correct movement when discussing the GNU GPL.
All spelling in context, all emphasis is quasi steller's:
I love the free software (open source, whatever you want to call it) movement and I believe that this vulnerability could show the strength of the open source movement,
if it is delt with correctly.
If you love the free software movement as you claim, please take the time to learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused anymore and think that they refer to the same thing with different names.
Microsoft is going to be in huge trouble (sooner than one may think) if they don't stem the Open Source tide.
No, they won't be in trouble and they have no desire to stop the Open Source movement. Software proprietors love the Open Source movement and Microsoft has never complained about that movement's goals (giving gifts of code to business) or its means (advocating use of non-copylefted Free Software licenses like the X11 and new BSD licenses instead of licenses that preserve software freedom). Microsoft and AdTI complain most about one movement and its chief license: the Free Software movement and the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL is properly recognized as a Free Software license, not an Open Source license.
Also Microsoft has decided to join 'em rather than beat 'em. The most recent AdTI revision is remarkably poorly timed. It would have had some weight if it had been published before Microsoft decided to become a turncoat.
Since Darwin is now "open source", maybe there's a chance that the major holes in this legacy security system will finally get patched.
I didn't mention "open source", I mentioned Free Software and there is a big difference between the two movements. But since you mentioned the Open Source movement, it's worth noting some flaws in Apple's license, flaws that should scare away supporters of either movement. With this offer it's doubtful Apple will ever gain the kind of development momentum they desire, certainly not that which can compete with the development of Free Software. The last two paragraphs of that GNU essay on the APSL are particularly astute considering the parent's comment.
In fact, even if you somehow lock down the/etc/passwd file, any user can get a clean passwd database by running "nidump passwd."
Old NeXT hands know this because that same weakness existed (and was complained about yet never adequately addressed) back when NeXT existed and NeXTSTEP was actively being developed. NetInfo didn't scale up very well and it never had shadow passwords, two qualities that made it not seem so attractive for local administrators I knew back then. But I'd say this is really just another example of why you should care about your software freedom. After a while NeXT stopped caring about the underlying Unix layer (in NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP this was 4.3 BSD) and the tools they shipped (an antiquated sendmail that had plenty of holes, for instance) and cared more about things like WebObjects and various high-level "kits" (some of which died before being developed very far).
It was this experience that helped lead me to caring about Free Software operating systems and running only Free Software on top of those systems. Because there I know if there's a hole I can choose to wait for someone to fix it for me, or learn to fix it myself, or hire someone to fix it for me. How much delay I impose on myself has more to do with my willingness to learn about and/or pay for.
Viega and Fleck's rebuttal is the best of the three rebuttals linked to in the blurb, but it has some problems too. The other two rebuttals (of which Miller's is the least valuable for reasons already mentioned in other threads under this story) don't take the time to understand the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movements and they use the term "Open Source" and "commercial" incorrectly.
There are some points in Viega and Fleck's rebuttal I'd like to address. Early on Viega and Fleck make reference to "open software, particularly that licensed under the GPL.". I don't know what "open software" is but given their apparent familiarity with the Free Software movement, I have to wonder why they would talk about the GNU GPL as something other than a Free Software license.
There are indeed cases where the GPL acts like a virus.
I find there are situations where the person distributing the software
didn't give due diligence to the licenses involved and, upon learning the ramifications of distributing GPL-covered software, is eager to resolve the issue. There are situations where the people don't understand what freedoms Free Software refers to, and there are situations where people don't understand why copyleft is necessary and wise. Describing the GNU GPL as a "virus" is typical for people who criticize without understanding its terms or the Free Software movement's philosophy. Therefore it puzzles me why Viega and Fleck would choose to repeat such language.
Yes, it is true that the GPL may prevent companies from using code that is freely available to others. For example, in the past, Microsoft has used code issued under other free software licenses in its operating system, but it has never used software licensed under the GPL within one of its products. The reason, of course, is that the terms of the license are unacceptable to the company.
This is not true at all. Viega and Fleck are apparently unaware that Microsoft ignored their own advice and decided to distribute GNU GPL-covered software. This act alone takes virtually all the wind out of Microsoft and AdTI's anti-GPL arguments. Also being unacceptable to a company is quite different from being unable to distribute due to a clause in the GPL. The GPL has nothing that prevents Microsoft from sharing the software. It was their choice not to distribute GPL'd software until recently.
Ultimately, it makes little sense to us for anyone to complain about licensing restrictions imposed by the GPL. First, the vast majority of people who consume software are users, not developers. The GPL does not impact end-users whatsoever, only people who may wish to modify the code, or incorporate the code into their own works. For the wealth of organizations out there that simply wish to run software released under the GPL, there are no risks whatsoever. Such people are as likely to want to change a line in the Linux kernel as a line in Microsoft Windows XP. That is, they would prefer someone else do it.
I agree that it makes little sense for anyone to complain about the few restrictions imposed by the GNU GPL but I don't agree with the first reason
Viega and Fleck give above. The impact to any user is there if that user distributes GPL'd works too. It is very easy for almost any computer user to copy software and distribute a copy to someone. This means the GPL (which largely has to do with distributing software) is relevant even for those that don't write software. It is important to understand the terminology of the GPL. The GPL's terms do not talk about "end-users" and "developers" but instead talks about those that "distribute" GPL-covered programs.
Microsoft complaining about the problems that keep them from embracing software released under the GPL is as silly as a free software author complaining about the fact that he or she cannot incorporate the source from Microsoft Word because it would violate both Microsoft's copyright and the license under which it distributes its product.
Actually the situations are not as comparable as this makes it appear. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations regarding their software. There should be a punishment for violating antitrust law (even though in the Microsoft case it looks like there will be no real punishment). It would be fair and reasonable for Microsoft to lose access to their lock on the market so others can compete. Such a punishment need not force them to make their software Free Software as I outlined in my Tunney Act letter.
Regarding the copyright section (toward the end of the explication of Myth #5), Viega and Fleck say:
First, any creative work is automatically copyrighted. There is no need to register the copyright, though registration can make a copyright easier to defend.
In Berne signatory countries, yes (and this covers a lot of people), but not all countries are Berne signatory countries.
Myth #6: The GPL would not stand up in court (or, it is unclear whether it would).
During the MySQL vs. Progress Software case, the FSF reported "Judge Saris made [it] clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license". But like Viega and Fleck reported, Eben Moglen said most GPL infringment situations don't go to trial, they are resolved with a few e-mails.
Other organizations such as IBM simply use free software for internal reasons in the course of doing business, where there would be no monetary harm in distributing their changes. In such cases, the free software is not directly related to the bottom line of their business, but releasing that software can create goodwill, and could potentially enable enhancements or other works that do add value in an indirect manner.
Actually they sell machines with operating systems based on Linux (and advertised these machines on mainstream US television). I don't know if they are GNU systems with Linux but in any case IBM is clearly distributing GPL-covered Free Software. Also they have distributed enhancements to Linux to add support for another file system. By now they may be doing more of which I am unaware.
Finally, Viega and Fleck offer a bit of undefended rhetoric in the end:
In the end, organizations should be making informed decisions on what off-the-shelf software may work for them based on the facts, not on fear, uncertainty and doubt spread by lobbyists from either camp.
The rebuttal doesn't cite precisely what FUD is coming from those in the Free Software movement (which I'm presuming is one of the "camp"s referred to here).
Contrary to the Free Software community press on these articles, Microsoft loves the Open Source movement. They love it because it speaks to their interest: proprietorship. Microsoft wants people to follow the advice of that movement and release software under the licenses most heavily advocated by that movement—the X11 and new BSD licenses. Microsoft rails against the GNU GPL and the Free Software movement because they don't want users to have software freedom. They want everyone to use software they're not free to inspect, share, or modify. Microsoft is capitulating by distributing GPL'd works (not what you'd expect of the company that called the GNU GPL a "cancer") but few bother to expose how Microsoft isn't following its own advice. Microsoft doesn't have a good answer to the multiple ways the GPL enforces software freedom so we get another round of anti-GPL FUD and rebuttals that don't understand the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements.
This is the level of service we have come to expect from MS.
I totally agree, but Microsoft is not the only example of this disservice out there. Speaking to a larger point: This is the level of service you can expect from all monopolies. Proprietary software is a monopoly and software monopolies don't care about your software the way competitors do. Without competition they have little compelling them to want to stay secure (or stay compatible, or whatever the issue at hand is). Microsoft is one of thousands of software proprietors that ship non-free software preventing you from sharing and modifying your software (or have someone modify it for you).
Since I don't read Chinese I'm hesitant to attempt to interpret the stated intention of the news report. Is there an official English translation anywhere?
The Chinese translation of "Free Software" listed by the GNU project does not appear to be marked up correctly so user agents will render it with the correct font (I see it as "zi4you2 ruan3jian4" in the markup with no suggestion to use an a different language from that of the rest of the document).
Does anyone think after hearing this parody, Disney will have some epic crisis of conscience and immediately reverse its support of anti-freedom legislation?
Don't belittle them with sarcastic strawman arguments. It's reasonable to expect they wanted to publish something that would stand a chance of grabbing the average person's attention thus increasing awareness of our loss of freedom to corporate masters.
Seems like the time and effort behind this would be better spent mailing/e-mailing/snail-mailing/phoning legislators to voice your opposition.
There is no need to sequence the events so we do this first, then that. We can do all that and more in any order we wish and benefit from having people do all these things simultaneously.
But no where in my mind do open source/free software contributions have lesser value than code written by someone under a consulting contract...
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I did not say anything like this at all in my post. But since you bring it up, I don't think of software written under contract as the opposite of Free Software. I am a consultant that writes Free Software under contract for pay.
I think we're all in agreement that copyright and patents are definately making it hard to maximize the efforts of open development communities.
I'm not sure about all that that encompasses. I think copyright power is overly long, but it is not beyond repair—Eldred v. Ashcroft is an important first step in getting the term of copyright reduced to a reasonable length of time. The small benefit copylefted Free Software licenses (chiefly the GNU GPL) get from long copyright terms doesn't begin to make up for the damage copyright extensions like the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act do to society as a whole.
[T]he Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org] are Debian's definition of Free Software. And incidently, they were the blueprint for the Open Source Definition. Not really surprising if you consider that Bruce Perens was heavily involved in both of them.
I'm fully aware of that, but ultimately that is only an ad hominem tie. You're suggesting that because the same person (Bruce Perens) was involved in both the creation of the DFSG and the Open Source definition those two organizations must stand for the same thing. They do not. Debian's members talk at length about software freedom (ala DFSG-free) and Debian does not exist primarily to cater to businesses. By contrast, the Open Source movement was set up to never talk about software freedom because that movement's founders believes it gets in the way of talking to businesses.
"
...[T]hey've got one person [CEO Gavriel State] trying to convince Debian that we shouldn't distribute something in a manner explicitly permitted by their license on the ground that it's contrary to their financial bottom line."
Why can't a company change the license to its own code?
That was never the issue for Debian (and the code in question is not copyrighted entirely to Transgaming). Transgaming's unwillingness to state their terms in their license is the issue for Debian. People abide by licenses, not letters from CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
We were never on the topic of "OSS/FS awards". The award is being given "for the Advancement of Free Software". There is no mention of the other movement and for good reason. The event is being organized by the FSF and the GNU project which have no affiliation with the Open Source movement. Please take the time to read the press release and learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused and confuse others.
No, he believes doing what's best for his country involves using Free Software, not "Open Source". He takes the Microsoft rep to task for referring to what he's doing as "Open Source". The bill he backs specifically mentions "Free Software". He is aware the two are not the same thing and he chooses to back the Free Software movement. This has been discussed before.
Those people who use the terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" interchangeably do not understand the history and purpose of the two movements (perhaps they understand neither movement). The two movements do not refer to the same licenses in the same way nor do they stand for the same interests. That is why I pointed you and all the other readers to this essay which lays out these differences far more clearly than the glib retort found in the Open Source Initiative's FAQ entry on the matter.
As the linked to essay clearly points out, supporters of both movements do get along and work together on specific projects; their differing philosophies have some common consequences. That doesn't mean everything these two groups seek to advance is the same nor does it mean they work on projects for the same reasons.
I don't see how this connects to your previous point regarding the apparent international move to "Open Source".
Taken on its own merit, I'm not sure I agree about Disney as introducer because Disney's choice to use Apache came after Apache had been adopted by many other organizations (probably as a result of the very liberal terms under which it is released). Given the amount of time that has passed since Apache's release to Disney's adoption, Disney strikes me more like a follower here than a leader.
Of course it matters. Any large support for legislation that takes away our freedoms matters. Disney's well-funded support for repressive bills is a fine example of how the US is run by and for corporations with apparently little being done by the two dominant US political parties to stop it (probably because these corporations give so many millions of dollars to these two political parties). Corporate overrepresentation in politics is a nexus of many other issues and, as such, probably the single most important issue facing the USA. Support for bills like this is a huge issue that technically astute people (who are uniquely poised to understand what's wrong with the bill) really need to start working on by means other than writing code (to paraphrase one of Lawrence Lessig's points raised at an FSF fundraising dinner, in a keynote speech he recently gave, the link to the MP3 of which I can no longer find, and in a Slashdot interview). At the risk of being repetitive, I hope anyone reading this will contribute to the EFF.
Influence exists, definately, but I think we must be careful of the direction of the influence--are we placing more power into fewer unaccountable hands or are we placing greater societal software rights for all computer users? Seamless integration is another technical end which can be attained through software freedom, but focusing on integration can distract one from deeper causative concerns. When the freedoms to share and modify are inseparable from the software everyone gets the benefit of the technical advantages the Open Source movement talks about. The Apache license is a non-copylefted one--the freedoms to share and modify do not have to be replicated in derivative works. Disney may someday (perhaps they are already, I haven't seen the license to their software) choose to release something based on Free Software that is non-free. This would be an unfortunate trend to see being copied by all these contractors you refer to, and one way in which Disney can build on what was supplied to it as a gift and turn it into more power.
"[P]hilosophy" is not the opposite of "practical[ity]"--the philosophy of the Open Source movement centers on practical advantage; a development methodology chiefly aimed at businesses. This philosophy places that movement in sharp contrast to the philosophy of the older Free Software movement which focuses on ensuring that all computer users have the freedom to share and modify software.
No, Congressman Villanueva was clearly talking about Free Software, not Open Source (perhaps you aren't familiar with the difference between the two movements). He made explicit reference to this early in his response to the Microsoft rep who made the same error you did casting the bill in terms of the wrong movement. I explained this when it came up on Slashdot before. Given the language being used in the Venezuelan case, I have strong suspicions the same error is being made here.
Disney is a rather poor choice to cite in the context of "hav[ing]" something worthwhile. Disney is a major sponsor of the CBDTPA (née the SSSCA), a bill that seeks to further harm our ability to share. The Disney corporation speaks out in favor of infinite copyright power, part of the topic in the pending US Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft (née Eldred v. Reno). Disney is a vocal advocate of the ill-concieved concept of "piracy" and the claimed ills sharing brings to the movie and music industries. Gaining a small bit of camaderie with some Disney site admins who use Apache at the cost of losing our freedom to share is a very bad exchange.
The Norway example is typical of the misidentification of intention and statement some Open Source supporters often cite when talking about the GNU GPL. They say the GPL is an "Open Source" license, yet don't acknowledge it is only one because the Open Source Initiative chose to define its terms widely enough to include the GNU GPL in a list of approved licenses. If one takes the time to read the GPL and read what the Open Source Initiative says about the Free Software movement in its FAQ, it is clear the GPL does not say what the Open Source movement was created to accomplish. While I appreciate what Open Source movement supporters contribute by choosing to distribute their programs under the GNU GPL, I think it's unfair that the Free Software Foundation doesn't get credit for their work and the Free Software movement misses out on an opportunity to teach people about freedom and community. Please don't confuse people like Wired magazine does and cite the GPL as an "Open Source license".
Finally, your Mexico City example appears to be for Free Software when one reads the opinions expressed in the article you pointed to: "We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia, aide to the city's technical coordinator, José Barberán. Just because Wired magazine misunderstands the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements does not mean you should.
I doubt the veracity of that translation and the reference to "Open Source" in the Slashdot headline. The multiple references to "la filosofía del código libre" sure doesn't sound like a reference to "Open Source". It sounds like the speaker is talking about "the philosophy of Free Software"; an older movement with a different philosophy than the Open Source movement. In order to fully understand what is being said I need to understand the context in which these cognates appear.
Given the letter to Microsoft by Congressman Villanueva which skillfully described Free Software to a Microsoft representative, and the number of Slashdot participants who misinterpreted that letter as endorsing "Open Source", I'm not eager to take Slashdot's critique at face value. Also I know how some Open Source movement supporters like to refer to the GNU GPL in the context of the Open Source movement even though that reference misstates the authorship and intent of the license (the GNU GPL was written over a decade before that movement existed and does not express the motivations behind the Open Source movement). Therefore I am curious to read a translation of the interview written by a human being who is familiar with the issues involved.
Your subject header ("Free softare is compatible with business") and the proposition on which your argument is based (" I'm intrigued that people are all about OSS not being opposed to business or profit...") are talking about two different movements with different goals and different criteria for judging software licenses. Whichever movement you wish to talk about, please state that clearly and consistently so as to not confuse readers who understand the difference between the two movements.
If you meant to talk about the Free Software movement, you should know this movement has nothing against commercialism. It is proprietary software which is the enemy of Free Software, not commercial software. Software patents are patents which cover ideas you might use in developing any software, thus impeding the development of all software. Software patents thus serve to limit the freedom the Free Software movement champions to let every computer user share and modify software.
Not necessarily--requiring a fee doesn't say anything about the redistribution of the source code. I've paid for Free Software before. My payment in no way hindered my ability to redistribute the software (or distribute a modified version of the software) at whatever cost I wished. I have successfully made money distributing verbatim and modified versions of Free Software.
The Free Software movement is against proprietary software, not commercial software. Perhaps there was something else in the license that made the software non-free. Do you have a copy of the license you're referring to?
No, RMS would disagree with being cited in the context of the wrong movement. RMS is a member of the Free Software movement which stands for very different ideas. The Free Software movement has no problem with commercial software, a lot of Free Software is commercial. The Free Software movement has a problem with proprietary software. You have not given enough detail about the terms under which NeWS was available to determine whether it would be considered Free Software or not.
It is great that Open Source proponents write much Free Software, but it is wrong to credit the Open Source movement with the GNU GPL. The GPL is the work of the Free Software movement. The Open Source movement defines their terms so as to allow listing the GPL as an approved license. This is not authorship and it is unfair to mention that movement in this context.
Your claim associates the achievements and values of the Free Software movement with another philosophy which began over a decade after the GPL was written. The Free Software movement centers on greater societal software rights and the GPL grew from that freedom-minded perspective. Please give credit to the proper movement when talking about the GNU GPL.
No, not like Peru at all. Had you read the Peruvian congressman's letter you would not have made this mistake. The Peruvian bill clearly calls for free software ("software libre"), not open source. The freedom-minded perspective (what the other movement dismisses so glibly) is of the utmost importance for a proper understanding of the significance of the bill. Congressman Villanueva, the author of the letter to Microsoft and a major backer of bill #1609, understands the difference between the two movements and which is more appropriate for government to back (our government included). Congressman Villanueva takes the time to correct the Microsoft representative when Microsoft tries to slip one by him by referring to "open source". I suggest you read the letter to Microsoft and learn about the difference between the two movements. You might also want to read the Slashdot entry where these issues were discussed at length.
No, the GNU GPL was written by and for the Free Software movement over a decade before the other movement existed. The GNU GPL is the chief license of the Free Software movement and it is quite misleading to attribute the GNU GPL to the Open Source movement. I am not objecting to anyone's use of the GNU GPL. It's great that supporters of the other movement appreciate the license and write free software licensed to everyone under the GPL's terms. I ask you to please give credit where credit is due and cite the correct movement when discussing the GNU GPL.
All spelling in context, all emphasis is quasi steller's:
If you love the free software movement as you claim, please take the time to learn the difference between the two movements so you won't be confused anymore and think that they refer to the same thing with different names.
No, they won't be in trouble and they have no desire to stop the Open Source movement. Software proprietors love the Open Source movement and Microsoft has never complained about that movement's goals (giving gifts of code to business) or its means (advocating use of non-copylefted Free Software licenses like the X11 and new BSD licenses instead of licenses that preserve software freedom). Microsoft and AdTI complain most about one movement and its chief license: the Free Software movement and the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL is properly recognized as a Free Software license, not an Open Source license.
Also Microsoft has decided to join 'em rather than beat 'em. The most recent AdTI revision is remarkably poorly timed. It would have had some weight if it had been published before Microsoft decided to become a turncoat.
I didn't mention "open source", I mentioned Free Software and there is a big difference between the two movements. But since you mentioned the Open Source movement, it's worth noting some flaws in Apple's license, flaws that should scare away supporters of either movement. With this offer it's doubtful Apple will ever gain the kind of development momentum they desire, certainly not that which can compete with the development of Free Software. The last two paragraphs of that GNU essay on the APSL are particularly astute considering the parent's comment.
Old NeXT hands know this because that same weakness existed (and was complained about yet never adequately addressed) back when NeXT existed and NeXTSTEP was actively being developed. NetInfo didn't scale up very well and it never had shadow passwords, two qualities that made it not seem so attractive for local administrators I knew back then. But I'd say this is really just another example of why you should care about your software freedom. After a while NeXT stopped caring about the underlying Unix layer (in NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP this was 4.3 BSD) and the tools they shipped (an antiquated sendmail that had plenty of holes, for instance) and cared more about things like WebObjects and various high-level "kits" (some of which died before being developed very far).
It was this experience that helped lead me to caring about Free Software operating systems and running only Free Software on top of those systems. Because there I know if there's a hole I can choose to wait for someone to fix it for me, or learn to fix it myself, or hire someone to fix it for me. How much delay I impose on myself has more to do with my willingness to learn about and/or pay for.
Viega and Fleck's rebuttal is the best of the three rebuttals linked to in the blurb, but it has some problems too. The other two rebuttals (of which Miller's is the least valuable for reasons already mentioned in other threads under this story) don't take the time to understand the difference between the Free Software and Open Source movements and they use the term "Open Source" and "commercial" incorrectly.
There are some points in Viega and Fleck's rebuttal I'd like to address. Early on Viega and Fleck make reference to "open software, particularly that licensed under the GPL.". I don't know what "open software" is but given their apparent familiarity with the Free Software movement, I have to wonder why they would talk about the GNU GPL as something other than a Free Software license.
I find there are situations where the person distributing the software didn't give due diligence to the licenses involved and, upon learning the ramifications of distributing GPL-covered software, is eager to resolve the issue. There are situations where the people don't understand what freedoms Free Software refers to, and there are situations where people don't understand why copyleft is necessary and wise. Describing the GNU GPL as a "virus" is typical for people who criticize without understanding its terms or the Free Software movement's philosophy. Therefore it puzzles me why Viega and Fleck would choose to repeat such language.
This is not true at all. Viega and Fleck are apparently unaware that Microsoft ignored their own advice and decided to distribute GNU GPL-covered software. This act alone takes virtually all the wind out of Microsoft and AdTI's anti-GPL arguments. Also being unacceptable to a company is quite different from being unable to distribute due to a clause in the GPL. The GPL has nothing that prevents Microsoft from sharing the software. It was their choice not to distribute GPL'd software until recently.
I agree that it makes little sense for anyone to complain about the few restrictions imposed by the GNU GPL but I don't agree with the first reason Viega and Fleck give above. The impact to any user is there if that user distributes GPL'd works too. It is very easy for almost any computer user to copy software and distribute a copy to someone. This means the GPL (which largely has to do with distributing software) is relevant even for those that don't write software. It is important to understand the terminology of the GPL. The GPL's terms do not talk about "end-users" and "developers" but instead talks about those that "distribute" GPL-covered programs.
Actually the situations are not as comparable as this makes it appear. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations regarding their software. There should be a punishment for violating antitrust law (even though in the Microsoft case it looks like there will be no real punishment). It would be fair and reasonable for Microsoft to lose access to their lock on the market so others can compete. Such a punishment need not force them to make their software Free Software as I outlined in my Tunney Act letter.
Regarding the copyright section (toward the end of the explication of Myth #5), Viega and Fleck say:
In Berne signatory countries, yes (and this covers a lot of people), but not all countries are Berne signatory countries.
During the MySQL vs. Progress Software case, the FSF reported "Judge Saris made [it] clear that she sees the GNU GPL to be an enforceable and binding license". But like Viega and Fleck reported, Eben Moglen said most GPL infringment situations don't go to trial, they are resolved with a few e-mails.
Actually they sell machines with operating systems based on Linux (and advertised these machines on mainstream US television). I don't know if they are GNU systems with Linux but in any case IBM is clearly distributing GPL-covered Free Software. Also they have distributed enhancements to Linux to add support for another file system. By now they may be doing more of which I am unaware.
Finally, Viega and Fleck offer a bit of undefended rhetoric in the end:
The rebuttal doesn't cite precisely what FUD is coming from those in the Free Software movement (which I'm presuming is one of the "camp"s referred to here).
Contrary to the Free Software community press on these articles, Microsoft loves the Open Source movement. They love it because it speaks to their interest: proprietorship. Microsoft wants people to follow the advice of that movement and release software under the licenses most heavily advocated by that movement—the X11 and new BSD licenses. Microsoft rails against the GNU GPL and the Free Software movement because they don't want users to have software freedom. They want everyone to use software they're not free to inspect, share, or modify. Microsoft is capitulating by distributing GPL'd works (not what you'd expect of the company that called the GNU GPL a "cancer") but few bother to expose how Microsoft isn't following its own advice. Microsoft doesn't have a good answer to the multiple ways the GPL enforces software freedom so we get another round of anti-GPL FUD and rebuttals that don't understand the difference between the Open Source and Free Software movements.
I totally agree, but Microsoft is not the only example of this disservice out there. Speaking to a larger point: This is the level of service you can expect from all monopolies. Proprietary software is a monopoly and software monopolies don't care about your software the way competitors do. Without competition they have little compelling them to want to stay secure (or stay compatible, or whatever the issue at hand is). Microsoft is one of thousands of software proprietors that ship non-free software preventing you from sharing and modifying your software (or have someone modify it for you).
There doesn't need to be. The GNU GPL is not the only Free Software license available.
Since I don't read Chinese I'm hesitant to attempt to interpret the stated intention of the news report. Is there an official English translation anywhere?
The Chinese translation of "Free Software" listed by the GNU project does not appear to be marked up correctly so user agents will render it with the correct font (I see it as "zi4you2 ruan3jian4" in the markup with no suggestion to use an a different language from that of the rest of the document).
Don't belittle them with sarcastic strawman arguments. It's reasonable to expect they wanted to publish something that would stand a chance of grabbing the average person's attention thus increasing awareness of our loss of freedom to corporate masters.
There is no need to sequence the events so we do this first, then that. We can do all that and more in any order we wish and benefit from having people do all these things simultaneously.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I did not say anything like this at all in my post. But since you bring it up, I don't think of software written under contract as the opposite of Free Software. I am a consultant that writes Free Software under contract for pay.
I'm not sure about all that that encompasses. I think copyright power is overly long, but it is not beyond repair—Eldred v. Ashcroft is an important first step in getting the term of copyright reduced to a reasonable length of time. The small benefit copylefted Free Software licenses (chiefly the GNU GPL) get from long copyright terms doesn't begin to make up for the damage copyright extensions like the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act do to society as a whole.
I'm fully aware of that, but ultimately that is only an ad hominem tie. You're suggesting that because the same person (Bruce Perens) was involved in both the creation of the DFSG and the Open Source definition those two organizations must stand for the same thing. They do not. Debian's members talk at length about software freedom (ala DFSG-free) and Debian does not exist primarily to cater to businesses. By contrast, the Open Source movement was set up to never talk about software freedom because that movement's founders believes it gets in the way of talking to businesses.
This is a dirty move because, in the words of Thomas Bushnell, BSG:
That was never the issue for Debian (and the code in question is not copyrighted entirely to Transgaming). Transgaming's unwillingness to state their terms in their license is the issue for Debian. People abide by licenses, not letters from CEOs.