Not only is the kernal important, the whole GNU/Linux system is important too, since we're talking about naming in this thread (and since the letter we're referring to correctly refers to the name for the system).
True. Nader & Love's Tunney Act letter was well-written too. I appreciate both the Villanueva letter and the Nader/Love letter in different ways. It is one more reason I would feel compelled to vote for Ralph Nader if he runs again.
Re:YouLittleDevil JustGPLTheCode Penguin :)
on
OpenBSD 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Overall, I think you'll find we agree more than we disagree. There was never an issue of forcing someone to use a particular license for a work to which they hold the copyright. I have no issue with using any Free Software license because I want more Free Software to be written. To that end I want to help point out the consequences of picking one Free Software license over another. The issue of software patenting is a handy framework for explaining some of these consequences; copyleft offers another useful framework. But there is one example you give that doesn't quite illustrate the issue at hand.
[software patents have] nothing to do with BSDL'd code. A company could take, say, GPL code, write a replacement, add to it and patent the additional features, and you're in the same place.
It is quite apropos, but your example is set up to dodge the issue because you're not necessarily talking about making a derivative of a GPL'd work. Generally when someone writes a replacement for a program the program they wrote is a copyrighted work under their control. So obviously they can add to their program (and unfortunately patent their program) and gain all the power copyright and patent law offers them for that work. If it could be shown that this company wrote their replacement with the benefit of having seen GPL'd code, one might be able to argue that their replacement is actually a GPL derivative (ala George Harrison's infringement of "My Sweet Lord" to make "He's So Fine"; this is the subject of Lawrence Rosen's article on the last page of the December 2001 "Linux Journal" magazine, although the article centers on Microsoft's Shared Source, not GPL'd source code).
More to the point, the GNU GPL claims that patents on GPL'd code must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. The BSD licenses (there is more than one) contain no language on patents at all.
Re:YouLittleDevil JustGPLTheCode Penguin :)
on
OpenBSD 3.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Code cannot be yanked from the code-base. You can't "un-license" code like that. I can take the code and add to it and sell it without revealing my source, but it will still exist in the *BSD code bases for all to see/use/whatever.
True—nobody can remove the code from the codebase, but a software patent creates a chilling effect for distributing and improving that code. It's also unfortunate that the people who helped you develop that improved code won't necessarily get to share equally in all of the distributed improvements to that code. Software patents and purposefully incompatible derivatives (better known as "Embrace & Extend") can make the code a lot less valuable. Not everyone wants to treat software proprietors like charities.
I could have sworn that it [the GNU LGPL] did [prevent proprietary derivatives].
No, the GNU LGPL does not prevent proprietary derivatives. One may link LGPL-covered software to proprietary software and distribute the linked union without distributing source code to the proprietary part. Therefore any software proprietor can extend the utility of their software by linking in LGPL'd code. This is why GNU changed the acronym "GNU LGPL" from "GNU's Not Unix Library General Public License" to "GNU's Not Unix Lesser GNU Public License"—the LGPL does less to protect software freedom than the GNU GPL.
Everyone claims that it does [prevent proprietary derivatives]... What's the story?
On the contrary, despite the fact that the letter uses the term "Free software", it describes software that you would call "Open source software".
No, I'm quite familiar with how I would describe things, and the Congressman's letter describes software I too would describe as Free Software. In fact the only time the congressman uses the term "Open source" is when he is quoting the Microsoft representative. You only need to read as far as the third paragraph to see Congressman Villanueva take the effort to change the terminology the Microsoft representative used to match that of his own speech and that of the bill. Villanueva's use of the term "Free Software" in his letter suggests familiarity with and intent to use that term because his letter does not shy away from using freedom to describe what he's after. This is quite unlike the Open Source movement which makes it a point to never discuss software freedom because they believe it interferes with getting their message across to businesses.
Reading more of his words on the subject, I came across this translated article in which he is quoted as using the term "free software" and spelling out some of the same arguments the Free Software movement has advocated for many years; all arguments concerned with preserving the freedom of software. This is not at all synonymous with the Open Source movement which advocates Free Software licenses that allow proprietary derivatives (non-copylefted Free Software licenses). Considering the aforementioned correction of the Microsoft representative in his letter and that his rationale jibes so strongly with the Free Software movement, I think any reasonable person would infer that when Congressman Villanueva says "Free Software" he means exactly that.
I don't think that the congressman is the slightest bit interested in the philosophy of GPL versus BSD licensing. He just wants software, data formats etc. that his country can use to control its own destiny.
I'd say he's quite interested since only copylefted Free Software licenses (such as the GNU GPL) can provide the software competition he talks about stimulating (see Villanueva's response to point #2 of the Microsoft letter). Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of competitive non-copylefted Free Software out there. That's not the problem. The problem is what happens when someone with Microsoft's publicity power has embraced and extended some non-copylefted Free Software and produced an incompatible proprietary derivative. At that time Villanueva (and every other software user interested in software freedom) can't get what they're looking for. So I'd say he's quite interested and (given the letter we're talking about) quite well educated on the issues.
[T]he only way to significantly influence the political process is to
hire experienced lobbyists...
Do you know that they're avoiding this? For all I know about their budget constraints they don't have the money to do that (they tell us "Over 80% of our annual operating budget comes from individual donations from concerned citizens like you." on their donation page), which to me implies donating more.
Which movement are you focusing on?
on
Open Source on NPR?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your title is odd, bordering on insulting. As for the content of your report, I wonder which movement you are focusing on—the older, ethics-based Free Software movement that speaks to all computer users, or the freedom-dismissing, development methodology-centered Open Source movement which speaks primarily to businesses? Were you aware of the difference between the two movements? Some people use the term "Open Source" without understanding the ramifications of that term. You simply cannot understand what's going on with the Open Source movement until you first understand what drove RMS to make the Free Software movement and what the Free Software movement advocates.
The question is: which vocal, intelligent, [San Francisco] bay area and vicinity OS insiders should be on the show?
A better question to ask is "Who can speak well on the topic we're looking to make our radio show about?" without limiting it to a particular region. There is so much valuable insight to be had from everywhere, it seems silly to limit it to just the SF bay area. A cursory analysis of the Free Software community (which is the same community you're referring to as "Open Source") shows that where people are physically located is irrelevant. RMS would be a good person to include on a discussion of Free Software since he founded the movement (which predates all work done on the Open Source movement by roughly 13 years) and (as far as I know) he lives in or near Boston. If you asked him he might be willing to talk to you.
If you haven't already, please read Congressman Villanueva's letter to Microsoft for some guidance about what you should be talking about on this program (including terminology—notice he talks only of Free Software because that is the movement that jibes with his ethical approach to making sure the government doesn't force its citizens into a single-source software provider by the data formats it chooses). The same issues affect the USA. His analysis is a brilliant denial of Microsoft's lies, so well-worded many have noted it should be required reading. Congressman Villanueva is from Peru. Again I stress: there are all sorts of people all over the world you need to talk to and learn from in order to really understand the Free Software community enough to do a good report.
Have you also considered that many people who talk about "Open Source" don't understand what that means? If you think it's all about seeing the source code, you're wrong. Some of the licenses the Open Source movement advocates support allow proprietary derivatives to be made. This is a major issue for the two movements. But members of the two movements get along too: they work on software projects together and the Open Source movement proponents create a lot of valuable software that are genuinely worthwhile Free Software contributions.
Your post doesn't indicate how much research you've done to understand what's going on, so forgive me if this seems like a repeat of what you already know. I hope you understand the community of developers and users that started in 1984 has more to say than just "don't believe everything Microsoft tells you".
I'm glad I could help. There are some uses of terminology I'm not used to seeing; I might misunderstand what you're getting at because of a miscommunication somewhere. Also this discussion is getting long, perhaps we should consider taking it to e-mail.
1: Copyleft should still compete with non-copyleft software and licenses--including proprietary software.
There is no competition to speak of between "copyleft" and "non-copyleft software and licenses". Free Software, whether copylefted or not, competes with non-free software (including proprietary software).
A bussness[sic], ideally, should choose somewhere between pure copyleft (where everything down to the company's trademark are free for the taking) and pure copyright (where they don't even use interfaces that they don't totally own.)
All computer users have very good reasons to want software that can be modified by multiple people and organizations; this was one of the major points in the Peruvian Congressman's letter. Proprietary software is a monopoly for support. Proprietary software can't provide the advantages of free market competition, only Free Software can. When you find a bug in Microsoft Word, only Microsoft can fix it. Unless you're a particularly big customer, Microsoft doesn't have much incentive to listen to you (and my experience, which I posted to/. a while ago but I can't find now, is Microsoft won't listen to you without payment in advance). When you find a bug in a Free Software word processor, you can fix it yourself or hire someone to fix it for you. You might even be able to report the bug somewhere and get it fixed for free.
I find no moral problem with Apple creating an excellent GUI and configuring it to run atop a "non-copyleft" (BSD) licensed software. Especially when the major relevant copyleft licenses (GPL) would require them to reinvent their business plan into something far less profitable.
The problem isn't with creating a GUI to run atop non-copylefted Free Software. The problem is that Apple's GUI is non-free. People need the freedoms of Free Software for all their software. You can't tell a priori where a bug will be, what will need changing, what software will violate your privacy, or a dozen other problems that crop up. Also, it's not at all clear that Apple would be less profitable selling a Free Software OS because they make their money from hardware sales and people buy their systems for a complete package of hardware and software. But, more importantly, it's not the job of anyone outside Apple to look out for Apple's profit (that is solely Apple's responsibility). Like other important social movements, the Free Software movement lays down ethically-based arguments about why it harms society to do something (in this case distribute non-free software), and then they take on the huge task of changing society to make its goals real. This means writing the Free Software needed so people don't have to lose their software freedoms by using non-free software.
Absolute freedom runs rampant over unpopular rights (How many people pay for Winzip? Since they have the "Freedom" of using it at the cost of either their conciense[sic] or their checkbook, many people simply do not pay for it.)
The Free Software movement details four specific freedoms when they talk about Free Software or software freedom. They are not advocating "absolute freedom" (which makes little sense to me because there are so many freedoms and some conflict). I don't see how Winzip's business plan enters into a discussion on software freedom except to note that Winzip is proprietary. There is no issue of software freedom involved in whether to use Winzip without paying versus using it with payment—either way, that user is selecting the same master: Winzip. Fortunately there are Free Software replacements available (I'm told).
Besides which, the FSF seems to work on moral authoirty[sic]--and moral authority has more credence when the line is "you should give these rights to everyone else" rather than "you must give these rights to everyone else."
The Free Software community does both. The Free Software community says "you should give these rights to everyone": that is one of the reasons why they write Free Software! They also have the power to demand "you must give these rights to everyone else" because copyright grants the power to control derivatives of one's copyrighted work. The genius of the GNU GPL lies in returning to users most of the power copyright takes away by default, then making sure those rights are not lost for users of derivatives by requiring anyone who shares copies to pass on those rights with the software.
If the GPL were modified to allow for all-new, non-derived components (like a GUI) to be added to GPL'd copylefted software components which could never be closed again, it would be a better license and many of the objections to the GPL would vanish, while still allowing it to retain all of its assets and moral authority.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but it sounds like what you're asking for is something the GNU GPL already allows. One can either call GPL'd software as a separate program (for example, the bash shell running the mutt MUA) or one can modify GPL'd software to do something differently. Those are the only two functional things you can do with any program. The bulk of the GPL doesn't come into play for software that calls GPL-covered software as a separate program. So, your non-GPL'd shell can run mutt (a GPL'd MUA) without the GPL having any say in the licensing of that shell. But if you were to add a GUI to mutt by modifying mutt to incorporate the GUI code, you would be making a derivative of mutt which means copyright power comes into play. The GNU GPL (mutt's license) says your mutt derivative must be GPL'd.
Congratulations on 1.0.1 and on being nice.
on
AbiWord 1.0.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not only would I like to thank the AbiWord team for their incredible contribution to Free Software, I'd also like to thank them for being so nice. Working with friendly people is socially motivating. I look forward to continuing contributing any way I can (which up to now has been primarily trying to confirm bugs people report on AbiWord's Bugzilla). It's a pleasure working with you, thanks for the comaraderie.
The definition of Free Software and copyleft are readily available if do a Google search on your own. The essays I pointed to are called "What is Free Software?" and "What is Copyleft?" on GNU's philosophy page which contains a bunch of other essays you can read in case those are not sufficiently clear. Free Software, particularly when capitalized thusly, is accepted as free-as-in-speech (logiciel libre, if you speak French), it does not refer to price.
You didn't say much about copyleft--at least, nothing in opposition to what I said.
Copyleft is one of the qualities of licenses that separate the Free Software movement from the Open Source movement. The Free Software movement mostly backs copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the GNU GPL). The Open Source movement mostly backs non-copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the X11 and new BSD licenses). Copyleft refers to a Free Software license's ability to maintain the fundamental software freedoms of Free Software for derivatives—the ability to run, copy, modify, and distribute software at any time to anyone.
So when you share copylefted Free Software with your friends, your friends get the same freedom to share and modify the software you had. You can't pass on a copy of GNU Emacs that your friends are prohibited from modifying and distributing. If you shared non-copylefted Free Software, your friend can add some of her own improvements to what you gave her and not share her new improvements with you. She can do this by changing the license to make the changes non-free or by patenting her changes, for example. Microsoft and Apple do this with portions of BSD systems (some of Microsoft Windows' network tools come from BSD, and MacOS X is based on a BSD operating system). In a particularly bad case, someone can "embrace and extend" the non-copylefted Free Software by distributing derivatives that are purposefully made to be incompatible with the software they derive code from.
The copyleft concept is useful when talking about competition (as you were) because copylefted Free Software licenses allow competition in a way non-copyleft licenses do not. Copylefted Free Software licenses prevent uncooperative people/organizations from making proprietary derivatives. The copyleft concept grew from the Free Software movement's attention to software freedom. The Open Source movement, by comparison, dismisses all talk about software freedom including evaluating licenses on whether they are copyleft or non-copyleft licenses. Thus, if you value competition as you said you do, it would be wise to back the Free Software movement because the Free Software movement values competition by paying so much attention to software freedom. Copyleft is the evidence of this attention.
No, as jcast said, the point is to use Free Software. If the difference between the movements escapes you, consider learning about the history of the two movements and what they stand for.
OSS is (alledgely [sic]) about getting the best sofware, and being able to get support long after the creator dies.
No on the second count. The Open Source movement centers on telling businesses about a development methodology that produces good software (so you miss points there in that the audience this movement talks to is primarily businesses). But the second argument about support is completely untrue (that movement doesn't speak to support if a proprietor goes away or is uncooperative) and impossible when you consider that the Open Source movement backs Free Software licenses that sometimes become proprietary software (even to the extent of embrace and extend)—commonly known as non-copyleft Free Software licenses (like the X11 and new BSD licenses). This is why Microsoft likes the Open Source movement so much and they continue to target the GNU GPL (a copylefted Free Software license).
But in the case of Apple, the APSL is a non-free license, so there is much to lose even if one has the source code and the ability to work on it.
If Apple dies tomorrow (MS buys them and shuts them down 100%), everyone who has an Apple with OSX can continue to get support and updates from the OSS community...
No, at most they can only work on some parts of the system, and only then if they're willing to do so under a non-free software license. With MacOS X, you have the choice between not being able to work on some parts of the system at all (the proprietary parts such as QuickTime and Quartz) and deciding whether to work under a non-free software license for those parts you have source code to (mostly the parts Apple copied from Free Software). Either way, it's a significantly worse situation than working on a Free Software operating system (GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and many others).
I don't think the World Trade Organization wants to tangle with open source software. It's about free speech.
No, the Open Source movement is about convincing businesses to leverage the peer review process to have better software. The Free Software movement is about allowing every computer user to share and modify software. Please learn the difference between the two movements.
MS needs to grab their ankles on this market and learn to enjoy the experience.
Microsoft has no problems with the Open Source movement, they very much like it when that movement strongly encourages developers to use the non-copylefted Free Software licenses (namely the X11 and new BSD licenses). Microsoft hates the GNU GPL (a copyleft Free Software license) because the GNU GPL preserves software freedoms for everyone. That is why Microsoft targets the GNU GPL by name.
Apparently you are under the mistaken impression the Congressman's letter or the bill spoke of "Open Source" software. It does not. The letter made it quite clear the bill talks about Free Software which is the appropriate term and philosophical ground for refusing Microsoft's request. For good reason: The Open Source movement and the Free Software movement are not the same thing and the difference is of the utmost relevance here. If you're unaware of the difference, there are plenty of good essays in the GNU project's philosophy section to help you.
Ah, competition. How I love thee.
If you genuinely enjoy competition, I suggest you back the Free Software movement which places emphasis on copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the GNU GPL) and not the Open Source movement which backs non-copyleft Free Software licenses (such as the X11 and new BSD licenses) which sometimes result in embrace and extend where competition is made much more difficult.
I understand your smiley may indicate you're joking, but this is incredibly important particularly in the context of the Congressman's letter.
If you bother to read the letter, which you apparently haven't read very closely, you'll note he does not call the operating system "Linux", he calls it GNU/Linux. I'm willing to bet the Congressman understands far better than you do that it was the GNU project that brought us the concepts of Free Software, copyleft, and the importance of defending software freedom. The Free Software movement continues to talk about software freedom and ethics and apparently moved the Peruvian government to consider this bill. All of the issues of the Free Software movement are at the heart of the bill that is the subject of the Congressman's letter.
He then goes on to describe the advantages of open sourced software.
No, he goes on to explain the advantages of Free Software, naming it by name repeatedly (and taking the time to correct the Microsoft representative who uses the wrong term). Although he doesn't explain the difference between the two movements in the letter, given his obvious mastery of the concepts involved and the ethical basis of the responsibility the state has to its citizens (resulting in using strictly unencumbered formats, for instance), I think it's very likely he knows the difference you apparently missed. Briefly, the Free Software movement is the movement concerned with ethics, software freedom, and building and maintaining a software commons for all computer users by allowing sharing and modifying software. The Open Source movement speaks primarily to businesses about a development methodology wherein the business can enjoy faster, cheaper, more advanced, or less buggy software. The Open Source movement dismisses software freedom and backs licenses that sometimes result in embrace and extend. You'll find some of the same practical benefits in both movements but only Free Software talks about the issues from the ethically-minded standpoint of maintaining freedom.
Open Source adapts incredibly rapidly to new opportunities. AMD's new 64 bit hammer runs linux...
You will note that the good Congressman's letter takes care to use appropriate terminology such as Free Software rather than "Open Source" and uses the appropriate term GNU/Linux to discuss the operating system distributions rather than "Linux" (which is at best ambiguous). These are parts of the reason why he is so clued in.
So if it was open source it would be just fine... like GIMP!
I suggest against that wording for two reasons:
The GIMP is GNU GPL'd software (the GNU GPL is a copylefted Free Software license). This difference is important particularly in this thread because
when it comes to patents, the GPL does more for you than the most heavily advocated Open Source licenses. The most heavily advocated Open Source licenses—the X11 and new BSD licenses—allow embrace and extend by patenting. The GNU GPL does not allow embrace and extend.
If there was ever a time to understand why the GNU GPL and defending software freedom is so important to the fight against software patents, it's now. The GNU GPL "[makes] it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." (in the words of the GPL's preamble).
Microsoft maintains the GPL and LGPL are "cancer"s to "intellectual property" in an attempt to dissuade you from even using (much less developing and shipping) GPL and LGPL'd software in your organization. If they took that seriously, they would never ship GPL or LGPL'd software for their customers to use. It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
The question here is not a legal one—Microsoft was always welcome to share and modify Free Software. The question is ethical—in regards to the GPL and LGPL, Microsoft has made statements it is apparently unwilling to live by.
Another question is how this plays out if Microsoft tries doing something in violation of the GNU GPL. It will be interesting to see how many copyright holders actually defend their license. I'm sure the FSF will (GCC is part of Interix). The FSF has demonstrated the will to get involved, they have the money to get involved, and they have the legal expertise to defend their license in court. Not all copyright holders are in such a position.
Either there are no bandwidth limits (which is highly unlikely and what some providers tell you just before they go under because someone took them up on their offer) or there are limits (which, if unstated, means the admins create the rules on-the-fly so you're not getting the same deal as some other customer who's signed up for the same package). If I were basing a business on hosting, I'd need to budget, so I'd want to have a firm figure how much I'll have to spend for hosting. Not everything in business can be budgeted, but bandwidth use is not one of those things.
No matter who the questioner ends up going with, I suggest getting commitments in writing and knowing what the limits of the service are as much as can be specified (this certainly includes bandwidth use). Like so many other people say: bandwidth isn't free to you or your provider. Keep that in mind if someone tries to tell you they'll sell you something that sounds like unlimited bandwidth.
...don't see his movies. His reaction to "Star Ballz", his re-re-releasing the same movie multiple times (he's working on yet another version of the original trilogy), and this all make me not want to contribute one more dime to his empire. Regardless of the quality of the plot, it looks to me like Lucas is treating the worst those consumers who care the most about his movies—Star Wars fans. I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I have no interest in helping him treat people poorly. I'm sure he won't miss my money, but if enough people refuse to go see his movies he'll miss that large sum of income.
They're shipping videotapes now.
on
Revolution OS
·
· Score: 1
Luckily, the film is planned for DVD and video release in the second half of 2002.
My father ordered a copy of this movie on VHS and received it about a week ago. I don't know when they'll ship DVDs.
Re:Not just for geeks,...it's education for everyo
on
Revolution OS
·
· Score: 1
OSS is not, by definition, "free" (as in free beer), it is only, by definition, free as in speech. A developer can release the source but still charge a license fee.
I'd say it is odd to describe the open source movement as being free as in speech as the whole movement was set up to dismiss software freedoms entirely. Also odd is the story submitter's description of open source software hinging on commercial software (as if the free software movement is opposed to selling free software). Neither properly state the hinges for understanding the differences between the two movements.
The free software movement discusses software freedoms and ethics. The four fundamental freedoms of free software are running, copying, modifying, and distributing software. For the free software movement, everyone should have these freedoms for all of their software. The free software movement's message is aimed at all computer users. The open source movement dismisses software freedoms and ethics. The open source movement centers on a development methodology. The open source movement aims their message at businesses.
The free software movement keeps the freedom of the software in mind all the time, hence you get the GNU GPL which refuses to let anyone make proprietary derivatives of GPL-covered software. "Copyleft" is the term used to describe defending the freedoms of free software. The GNU GPL has a strong copyleft. By contrast, the open source movement most heavily advocates non-copylefted licenses (most notably the X11 and new BSD licenses). As per the name "non-copylefted", these licenses do not protect software freedom for derivatives. Thus BSD and X11 licensed software are sometimes made into proprietary software.
The main open source audience—businesses—like the open source movement because the open source movement advocates leveraging a source of free laborers who are willing to donate their time and effort to building software a business can turn into a proprietary product.
For the free software movement all proprietary software is the enemy. After all, proprietary software robs you of the four fundamental freedoms. This is why it is inappropriate to focus solely on Microsoft (even though they are such a widely-recognized proprietary software developer). Microsoft does stand out, however, because they are currently waging a war against the GNU GPL. Microsoft recognizes that the non-copylefted free software licenses advocated heavily by the open source movement (such as the aforementioned BSD and X11 licenses) do them no harm. In fact, Microsoft Windows' network stack and some network utilities come from BSD. Microsoft hates the GNU GPL because the GPL does such a good job of making sure the fundamental freedoms of free software never leave the software. Microsoft's Craig Mundie has made a number of speeches denouncing the GPL as a "cancer" telling companies they had better not let any GPL'd software run on their computers because if they do they will lose their "intellectual property" (a propaganda term that is an inappropriate obfuscation for reasons that are outside the scope of this discussion). Microsoft is powerless to offensively leverage patents and incompatible proprietary derivatives ("embrace & extend") against GPL'd works.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only is the kernal important, the whole GNU/Linux system is important too, since we're talking about naming in this thread (and since the letter we're referring to correctly refers to the name for the system).
You could use HTML mode and type in the ASCII markup: Núñez (Núñez).
True. Nader & Love's Tunney Act letter was well-written too. I appreciate both the Villanueva letter and the Nader/Love letter in different ways. It is one more reason I would feel compelled to vote for Ralph Nader if he runs again.
Overall, I think you'll find we agree more than we disagree. There was never an issue of forcing someone to use a particular license for a work to which they hold the copyright. I have no issue with using any Free Software license because I want more Free Software to be written. To that end I want to help point out the consequences of picking one Free Software license over another. The issue of software patenting is a handy framework for explaining some of these consequences; copyleft offers another useful framework. But there is one example you give that doesn't quite illustrate the issue at hand.
It is quite apropos, but your example is set up to dodge the issue because you're not necessarily talking about making a derivative of a GPL'd work. Generally when someone writes a replacement for a program the program they wrote is a copyrighted work under their control. So obviously they can add to their program (and unfortunately patent their program) and gain all the power copyright and patent law offers them for that work. If it could be shown that this company wrote their replacement with the benefit of having seen GPL'd code, one might be able to argue that their replacement is actually a GPL derivative (ala George Harrison's infringement of "My Sweet Lord" to make "He's So Fine"; this is the subject of Lawrence Rosen's article on the last page of the December 2001 "Linux Journal" magazine, although the article centers on Microsoft's Shared Source, not GPL'd source code).
More to the point, the GNU GPL claims that patents on GPL'd code must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. The BSD licenses (there is more than one) contain no language on patents at all.
True—nobody can remove the code from the codebase, but a software patent creates a chilling effect for distributing and improving that code. It's also unfortunate that the people who helped you develop that improved code won't necessarily get to share equally in all of the distributed improvements to that code. Software patents and purposefully incompatible derivatives (better known as "Embrace & Extend") can make the code a lot less valuable. Not everyone wants to treat software proprietors like charities.
No, the GNU LGPL does not prevent proprietary derivatives. One may link LGPL-covered software to proprietary software and distribute the linked union without distributing source code to the proprietary part. Therefore any software proprietor can extend the utility of their software by linking in LGPL'd code. This is why GNU changed the acronym "GNU LGPL" from "GNU's Not Unix Library General Public License" to "GNU's Not Unix Lesser GNU Public License"—the LGPL does less to protect software freedom than the GNU GPL.
I know of no such claim. If you want more information about the strategic weakness of the LGPL, please read "Why you should not use the Library GPL for your next library".
No, I'm quite familiar with how I would describe things, and the Congressman's letter describes software I too would describe as Free Software. In fact the only time the congressman uses the term "Open source" is when he is quoting the Microsoft representative. You only need to read as far as the third paragraph to see Congressman Villanueva take the effort to change the terminology the Microsoft representative used to match that of his own speech and that of the bill. Villanueva's use of the term "Free Software" in his letter suggests familiarity with and intent to use that term because his letter does not shy away from using freedom to describe what he's after. This is quite unlike the Open Source movement which makes it a point to never discuss software freedom because they believe it interferes with getting their message across to businesses.
Reading more of his words on the subject, I came across this translated article in which he is quoted as using the term "free software" and spelling out some of the same arguments the Free Software movement has advocated for many years; all arguments concerned with preserving the freedom of software. This is not at all synonymous with the Open Source movement which advocates Free Software licenses that allow proprietary derivatives (non-copylefted Free Software licenses). Considering the aforementioned correction of the Microsoft representative in his letter and that his rationale jibes so strongly with the Free Software movement, I think any reasonable person would infer that when Congressman Villanueva says "Free Software" he means exactly that.
I'd say he's quite interested since only copylefted Free Software licenses (such as the GNU GPL) can provide the software competition he talks about stimulating (see Villanueva's response to point #2 of the Microsoft letter). Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of competitive non-copylefted Free Software out there. That's not the problem. The problem is what happens when someone with Microsoft's publicity power has embraced and extended some non-copylefted Free Software and produced an incompatible proprietary derivative. At that time Villanueva (and every other software user interested in software freedom) can't get what they're looking for. So I'd say he's quite interested and (given the letter we're talking about) quite well educated on the issues.
Do you know that they're avoiding this? For all I know about their budget constraints they don't have the money to do that (they tell us "Over 80% of our annual operating budget comes from individual donations from concerned citizens like you." on their donation page), which to me implies donating more.
Your title is odd, bordering on insulting. As for the content of your report, I wonder which movement you are focusing on—the older, ethics-based Free Software movement that speaks to all computer users, or the freedom-dismissing, development methodology-centered Open Source movement which speaks primarily to businesses? Were you aware of the difference between the two movements? Some people use the term "Open Source" without understanding the ramifications of that term. You simply cannot understand what's going on with the Open Source movement until you first understand what drove RMS to make the Free Software movement and what the Free Software movement advocates.
A better question to ask is "Who can speak well on the topic we're looking to make our radio show about?" without limiting it to a particular region. There is so much valuable insight to be had from everywhere, it seems silly to limit it to just the SF bay area. A cursory analysis of the Free Software community (which is the same community you're referring to as "Open Source") shows that where people are physically located is irrelevant. RMS would be a good person to include on a discussion of Free Software since he founded the movement (which predates all work done on the Open Source movement by roughly 13 years) and (as far as I know) he lives in or near Boston. If you asked him he might be willing to talk to you.
If you haven't already, please read Congressman Villanueva's letter to Microsoft for some guidance about what you should be talking about on this program (including terminology—notice he talks only of Free Software because that is the movement that jibes with his ethical approach to making sure the government doesn't force its citizens into a single-source software provider by the data formats it chooses). The same issues affect the USA. His analysis is a brilliant denial of Microsoft's lies, so well-worded many have noted it should be required reading. Congressman Villanueva is from Peru. Again I stress: there are all sorts of people all over the world you need to talk to and learn from in order to really understand the Free Software community enough to do a good report.
Have you also considered that many people who talk about "Open Source" don't understand what that means? If you think it's all about seeing the source code, you're wrong. Some of the licenses the Open Source movement advocates support allow proprietary derivatives to be made. This is a major issue for the two movements. But members of the two movements get along too: they work on software projects together and the Open Source movement proponents create a lot of valuable software that are genuinely worthwhile Free Software contributions.
Your post doesn't indicate how much research you've done to understand what's going on, so forgive me if this seems like a repeat of what you already know. I hope you understand the community of developers and users that started in 1984 has more to say than just "don't believe everything Microsoft tells you".
I'm glad I could help. There are some uses of terminology I'm not used to seeing; I might misunderstand what you're getting at because of a miscommunication somewhere. Also this discussion is getting long, perhaps we should consider taking it to e-mail.
There is no competition to speak of between "copyleft" and "non-copyleft software and licenses". Free Software, whether copylefted or not, competes with non-free software (including proprietary software).
All computer users have very good reasons to want software that can be modified by multiple people and organizations; this was one of the major points in the Peruvian Congressman's letter. Proprietary software is a monopoly for support. Proprietary software can't provide the advantages of free market competition, only Free Software can. When you find a bug in Microsoft Word, only Microsoft can fix it. Unless you're a particularly big customer, Microsoft doesn't have much incentive to listen to you (and my experience, which I posted to /. a while ago but I can't find now, is Microsoft won't listen to you without payment in advance). When you find a bug in a Free Software word processor, you can fix it yourself or hire someone to fix it for you. You might even be able to report the bug somewhere and get it fixed for free.
The problem isn't with creating a GUI to run atop non-copylefted Free Software. The problem is that Apple's GUI is non-free. People need the freedoms of Free Software for all their software. You can't tell a priori where a bug will be, what will need changing, what software will violate your privacy, or a dozen other problems that crop up. Also, it's not at all clear that Apple would be less profitable selling a Free Software OS because they make their money from hardware sales and people buy their systems for a complete package of hardware and software. But, more importantly, it's not the job of anyone outside Apple to look out for Apple's profit (that is solely Apple's responsibility). Like other important social movements, the Free Software movement lays down ethically-based arguments about why it harms society to do something (in this case distribute non-free software), and then they take on the huge task of changing society to make its goals real. This means writing the Free Software needed so people don't have to lose their software freedoms by using non-free software.
The Free Software movement details four specific freedoms when they talk about Free Software or software freedom. They are not advocating "absolute freedom" (which makes little sense to me because there are so many freedoms and some conflict). I don't see how Winzip's business plan enters into a discussion on software freedom except to note that Winzip is proprietary. There is no issue of software freedom involved in whether to use Winzip without paying versus using it with payment—either way, that user is selecting the same master: Winzip. Fortunately there are Free Software replacements available (I'm told).
The Free Software community does both. The Free Software community says "you should give these rights to everyone": that is one of the reasons why they write Free Software! They also have the power to demand "you must give these rights to everyone else" because copyright grants the power to control derivatives of one's copyrighted work. The genius of the GNU GPL lies in returning to users most of the power copyright takes away by default, then making sure those rights are not lost for users of derivatives by requiring anyone who shares copies to pass on those rights with the software.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but it sounds like what you're asking for is something the GNU GPL already allows. One can either call GPL'd software as a separate program (for example, the bash shell running the mutt MUA) or one can modify GPL'd software to do something differently. Those are the only two functional things you can do with any program. The bulk of the GPL doesn't come into play for software that calls GPL-covered software as a separate program. So, your non-GPL'd shell can run mutt (a GPL'd MUA) without the GPL having any say in the licensing of that shell. But if you were to add a GUI to mutt by modifying mutt to incorporate the GUI code, you would be making a derivative of mutt which means copyright power comes into play. The GNU GPL (mutt's license) says your mutt derivative must be GPL'd.
Not only would I like to thank the AbiWord team for their incredible contribution to Free Software, I'd also like to thank them for being so nice. Working with friendly people is socially motivating. I look forward to continuing contributing any way I can (which up to now has been primarily trying to confirm bugs people report on AbiWord's Bugzilla). It's a pleasure working with you, thanks for the comaraderie.
Copyleft is one of the qualities of licenses that separate the Free Software movement from the Open Source movement. The Free Software movement mostly backs copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the GNU GPL). The Open Source movement mostly backs non-copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the X11 and new BSD licenses). Copyleft refers to a Free Software license's ability to maintain the fundamental software freedoms of Free Software for derivatives—the ability to run, copy, modify, and distribute software at any time to anyone.
So when you share copylefted Free Software with your friends, your friends get the same freedom to share and modify the software you had. You can't pass on a copy of GNU Emacs that your friends are prohibited from modifying and distributing. If you shared non-copylefted Free Software, your friend can add some of her own improvements to what you gave her and not share her new improvements with you. She can do this by changing the license to make the changes non-free or by patenting her changes, for example. Microsoft and Apple do this with portions of BSD systems (some of Microsoft Windows' network tools come from BSD, and MacOS X is based on a BSD operating system). In a particularly bad case, someone can "embrace and extend" the non-copylefted Free Software by distributing derivatives that are purposefully made to be incompatible with the software they derive code from.
The copyleft concept is useful when talking about competition (as you were) because copylefted Free Software licenses allow competition in a way non-copyleft licenses do not. Copylefted Free Software licenses prevent uncooperative people/organizations from making proprietary derivatives. The copyleft concept grew from the Free Software movement's attention to software freedom. The Open Source movement, by comparison, dismisses all talk about software freedom including evaluating licenses on whether they are copyleft or non-copyleft licenses. Thus, if you value competition as you said you do, it would be wise to back the Free Software movement because the Free Software movement values competition by paying so much attention to software freedom. Copyleft is the evidence of this attention.
No, as jcast said, the point is to use Free Software. If the difference between the movements escapes you, consider learning about the history of the two movements and what they stand for.
No on the second count. The Open Source movement centers on telling businesses about a development methodology that produces good software (so you miss points there in that the audience this movement talks to is primarily businesses). But the second argument about support is completely untrue (that movement doesn't speak to support if a proprietor goes away or is uncooperative) and impossible when you consider that the Open Source movement backs Free Software licenses that sometimes become proprietary software (even to the extent of embrace and extend)—commonly known as non-copyleft Free Software licenses (like the X11 and new BSD licenses). This is why Microsoft likes the Open Source movement so much and they continue to target the GNU GPL (a copylefted Free Software license).
But in the case of Apple, the APSL is a non-free license, so there is much to lose even if one has the source code and the ability to work on it.
No, at most they can only work on some parts of the system, and only then if they're willing to do so under a non-free software license. With MacOS X, you have the choice between not being able to work on some parts of the system at all (the proprietary parts such as QuickTime and Quartz) and deciding whether to work under a non-free software license for those parts you have source code to (mostly the parts Apple copied from Free Software). Either way, it's a significantly worse situation than working on a Free Software operating system (GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and many others).
No, the Open Source movement is about convincing businesses to leverage the peer review process to have better software. The Free Software movement is about allowing every computer user to share and modify software. Please learn the difference between the two movements.
Microsoft has no problems with the Open Source movement, they very much like it when that movement strongly encourages developers to use the non-copylefted Free Software licenses (namely the X11 and new BSD licenses). Microsoft hates the GNU GPL (a copyleft Free Software license) because the GNU GPL preserves software freedoms for everyone. That is why Microsoft targets the GNU GPL by name.
Apparently you are under the mistaken impression the Congressman's letter or the bill spoke of "Open Source" software. It does not. The letter made it quite clear the bill talks about Free Software which is the appropriate term and philosophical ground for refusing Microsoft's request. For good reason: The Open Source movement and the Free Software movement are not the same thing and the difference is of the utmost relevance here. If you're unaware of the difference, there are plenty of good essays in the GNU project's philosophy section to help you.
If you genuinely enjoy competition, I suggest you back the Free Software movement which places emphasis on copylefted Free Software licenses (primarily the GNU GPL) and not the Open Source movement which backs non-copyleft Free Software licenses (such as the X11 and new BSD licenses) which sometimes result in embrace and extend where competition is made much more difficult.
Don't forget your software freedom.
I understand your smiley may indicate you're joking, but this is incredibly important particularly in the context of the Congressman's letter.
If you bother to read the letter, which you apparently haven't read very closely, you'll note he does not call the operating system "Linux", he calls it GNU/Linux. I'm willing to bet the Congressman understands far better than you do that it was the GNU project that brought us the concepts of Free Software, copyleft, and the importance of defending software freedom. The Free Software movement continues to talk about software freedom and ethics and apparently moved the Peruvian government to consider this bill. All of the issues of the Free Software movement are at the heart of the bill that is the subject of the Congressman's letter.
No, he goes on to explain the advantages of Free Software, naming it by name repeatedly (and taking the time to correct the Microsoft representative who uses the wrong term). Although he doesn't explain the difference between the two movements in the letter, given his obvious mastery of the concepts involved and the ethical basis of the responsibility the state has to its citizens (resulting in using strictly unencumbered formats, for instance), I think it's very likely he knows the difference you apparently missed. Briefly, the Free Software movement is the movement concerned with ethics, software freedom, and building and maintaining a software commons for all computer users by allowing sharing and modifying software. The Open Source movement speaks primarily to businesses about a development methodology wherein the business can enjoy faster, cheaper, more advanced, or less buggy software. The Open Source movement dismisses software freedom and backs licenses that sometimes result in embrace and extend. You'll find some of the same practical benefits in both movements but only Free Software talks about the issues from the ethically-minded standpoint of maintaining freedom.
You will note that the good Congressman's letter takes care to use appropriate terminology such as Free Software rather than "Open Source" and uses the appropriate term GNU/Linux to discuss the operating system distributions rather than "Linux" (which is at best ambiguous). These are parts of the reason why he is so clued in.
I suggest against that wording for two reasons:
If there was ever a time to understand why the GNU GPL and defending software freedom is so important to the fight against software patents, it's now. The GNU GPL "[makes] it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." (in the words of the GPL's preamble).
Microsoft maintains the GPL and LGPL are "cancer"s to "intellectual property" in an attempt to dissuade you from even using (much less developing and shipping) GPL and LGPL'd software in your organization. If they took that seriously, they would never ship GPL or LGPL'd software for their customers to use. It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
The question here is not a legal one—Microsoft was always welcome to share and modify Free Software. The question is ethical—in regards to the GPL and LGPL, Microsoft has made statements it is apparently unwilling to live by.
Another question is how this plays out if Microsoft tries doing something in violation of the GNU GPL. It will be interesting to see how many copyright holders actually defend their license. I'm sure the FSF will (GCC is part of Interix). The FSF has demonstrated the will to get involved, they have the money to get involved, and they have the legal expertise to defend their license in court. Not all copyright holders are in such a position.
You've hit on one of my pet peeves: I hate it when rules are specified like this. Saying the limits are "within reason" is too vague to be enforced fairly and consistently. I'm not picking on you personally, I'm picking on rules that could be specified clearly but aren't (for example, "traffic is unmetered" or "You pay according to the size of your website, not how many people visit it".
Either there are no bandwidth limits (which is highly unlikely and what some providers tell you just before they go under because someone took them up on their offer) or there are limits (which, if unstated, means the admins create the rules on-the-fly so you're not getting the same deal as some other customer who's signed up for the same package). If I were basing a business on hosting, I'd need to budget, so I'd want to have a firm figure how much I'll have to spend for hosting. Not everything in business can be budgeted, but bandwidth use is not one of those things.
No matter who the questioner ends up going with, I suggest getting commitments in writing and knowing what the limits of the service are as much as can be specified (this certainly includes bandwidth use). Like so many other people say: bandwidth isn't free to you or your provider. Keep that in mind if someone tries to tell you they'll sell you something that sounds like unlimited bandwidth.
...don't see his movies. His reaction to "Star Ballz", his re-re-releasing the same movie multiple times (he's working on yet another version of the original trilogy), and this all make me not want to contribute one more dime to his empire. Regardless of the quality of the plot, it looks to me like Lucas is treating the worst those consumers who care the most about his movies—Star Wars fans. I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I have no interest in helping him treat people poorly. I'm sure he won't miss my money, but if enough people refuse to go see his movies he'll miss that large sum of income.
My father ordered a copy of this movie on VHS and received it about a week ago. I don't know when they'll ship DVDs.
I'd say it is odd to describe the open source movement as being free as in speech as the whole movement was set up to dismiss software freedoms entirely. Also odd is the story submitter's description of open source software hinging on commercial software (as if the free software movement is opposed to selling free software). Neither properly state the hinges for understanding the differences between the two movements.
The free software movement discusses software freedoms and ethics. The four fundamental freedoms of free software are running, copying, modifying, and distributing software. For the free software movement, everyone should have these freedoms for all of their software. The free software movement's message is aimed at all computer users. The open source movement dismisses software freedoms and ethics. The open source movement centers on a development methodology. The open source movement aims their message at businesses.
The free software movement keeps the freedom of the software in mind all the time, hence you get the GNU GPL which refuses to let anyone make proprietary derivatives of GPL-covered software. "Copyleft" is the term used to describe defending the freedoms of free software. The GNU GPL has a strong copyleft. By contrast, the open source movement most heavily advocates non-copylefted licenses (most notably the X11 and new BSD licenses). As per the name "non-copylefted", these licenses do not protect software freedom for derivatives. Thus BSD and X11 licensed software are sometimes made into proprietary software.
The main open source audience—businesses—like the open source movement because the open source movement advocates leveraging a source of free laborers who are willing to donate their time and effort to building software a business can turn into a proprietary product.
For the free software movement all proprietary software is the enemy. After all, proprietary software robs you of the four fundamental freedoms. This is why it is inappropriate to focus solely on Microsoft (even though they are such a widely-recognized proprietary software developer). Microsoft does stand out, however, because they are currently waging a war against the GNU GPL. Microsoft recognizes that the non-copylefted free software licenses advocated heavily by the open source movement (such as the aforementioned BSD and X11 licenses) do them no harm. In fact, Microsoft Windows' network stack and some network utilities come from BSD. Microsoft hates the GNU GPL because the GPL does such a good job of making sure the fundamental freedoms of free software never leave the software. Microsoft's Craig Mundie has made a number of speeches denouncing the GPL as a "cancer" telling companies they had better not let any GPL'd software run on their computers because if they do they will lose their "intellectual property" (a propaganda term that is an inappropriate obfuscation for reasons that are outside the scope of this discussion). Microsoft is powerless to offensively leverage patents and incompatible proprietary derivatives ("embrace & extend") against GPL'd works.