id didn't seem to be going after anybody, but my reading of the previous license seems to indicate that distributing modified versions of the DOOM source code was not permitted. The only thing permitted was "Educational Use," which included using parts of the code in your own programs (which you were allowed to distribute, even for money), but nowhere was permission given to distribute the entire original source code with modifications.
Judging by your ad hominem attacks on the public license-discuss mailing list, I'd hardly think you're in a position to denounce someone for public personal attacks.
Thomas Jefferson was right because he was a principal author of the First Amendment. Hence, it's quite likely that he knew what it was intended to mean.
Actually, in Win9x drivers aren't required on all the client machines (at least for parallel port printers, i dunno about network printers). I have a two-computer network, with a Canon BJC-4000 on one of the computers. That computer has the Canon drivers installed, and the other computer can send stuff to print on it, even though there are no print drivers installed on that computer.
60 F is around 15.5 C. Not cold, but somewhat chilly.
I personally can get along pretty well in both systems, since I live in the US and have spent quite a bit of time in Greece. I still don't like Celcius's lower precision, since having to use half a degree (i.e., saying it's 16.5 out) is more annoying than using smaller degrees and sticking with integers (like Fahrenheit does).
While for most purposes I agree that the Celsius system is superior, for weather the Fahrenheit system still seems better. It allows people to say things such as "the weather is in the 90s today" and people know what you mean. In Celsius you'd have to say "the weather is in the mid 30s" or something, since 30 and 40 are certainly not what you're referring to.
With some practice I suppose it isn't that bad, but the greater precision of the Fahrenheit units (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius) makes smaller changes easier to understand.
Yes, autodetection is your friend. If it can be optionally bypassed, I don't see what's wrong with adding it in.
I find it fairly pathetic that X can't even run with some decent defaults. You have to run XF86Setup before starting X, or else X won't start *at all*. It should at least start at 640x480x16, as you mentioned, and then inform the user to run XF86Setup if he wants to configure his display beyond what the defaults have set.
I'd have to disagree. I've installed Windows 95 twice, and upgrade 95 to 98 once, and all these installations were much easier than my installation of Linux (and subsequent problems getting X to actually start). Windows 95/98 auto-detected my video card and monitor and chose a default resolution that worked, auto-detected my modem, network card, and USB scanner, and set those up properly, and auto-detected my non-IDE proprietary Panasonic CD-ROM drive (an old 2x one). PPP setup took about 2 minutes.
Linux (Slackware 3.0), on the other hand, didn't auto-detect anything, and my USB scanner never did work. I had to create a special boot disk (sbpcd.i) to work with my CD-ROM drive, had to look up detailed specifications of the resolutions/refresh rates supported by my video card and monitor (XF86Setup apparently can't choose any reasonable defaults), and PPP was *really* annoying to get working properly.
Now some of these problems are the fault of device manufacturers for proprietary interfaces and drivers, but a newbie can be forgiven for not knowing that it's not *really* the OS's fault - to the newbie, one OS works with his scanner, while the other doesn't. Whether this is the OS's fault or somebody else's fault is somewhat irrelevant.
Some of the problems really are the fault of the OS and the windowing system, however. XF86Setup could be a lot more friendly with auto-detection. X could start with some decent VESA defaults (like Windows does), so somebody could start X for the first time without even needing to run XF86Setup at all. PPP configuration could be nicer, and (for laptops) PCMCIA support could be built in, rather than having to be added separately.
That's exactly what I've been saying for a while - AOL is great at what it does. It is obviously not something intended for techies, so they dislike it. However, for your average person, it's much much better than a "normal" ISP.
On a normal ISP, if you want to chat online with some people, send email, use an FTP client, and visit webpages, you need to install and configure an email client, ICQ or AIM, an FTP client, and a web browser. With AOL, you don't have to do anything other than install AOL. You click "Write" to send email, AIM is built in, a web browser (IE5) is built in, and FTP is built in at keyword:FTP.
I suppose where we disagree is in our definitions of "compel." As you see it, the GPL compels others to make their source code free. As I see it, the GPL merely gives a choice:
1) Use the GPL'd software, and follow its restrictions.
2) Do not use the GPL'd software.
Nobody is *forcing* you to choose #1. You are free to use a similar package under another license (if one exists), to write your own, or to forgo its use altogether. Nowhere are you *forced* to distribute your software under the GPL. You agree to do so in exchange for using that person's code. If this bothers you, don't agree, and don't use the code, and you're not subject to any sorts of restrictions. Similarly, if you're unhappy about the "viral" nature of GPL'd libraries, don't call them from your programs (incidentally, glibc is LGPL, so this particular case isn't a problem).
What I happen to personally desire -- to wit, a completely free operating system -- is somewhat beside the point of my question for Eric. I hoped through that question to generate a well thought-out response to the somewhat unpleasant but nonetheless important situation of the relationship of the various classes of software currently grouped under the term "Open Source". I'd like to solicit comment on the effects both benign and malignant that these shadings might hold on the development and the business communities. Is this effect changing? Do some versions of "open source" prove more efficacious than others?
I understand your question - I was merely commenting on a somewhat tangental point. You had expressed an intention in the past to create a completely BSD-style licensed version of Linux (with the exception of the kernel, I assume), so I was wondering whether you had progressed significantly in that regard. Apparently not.
Some software currently classed as open source is clearly saddled with restrictions on use. For example, anything that cannot be effectively used in a value-added, commercial licensing situation. This is not unique to code under the GPL, although it is the only one that is particularly popular. Most are related to money. Some licences say no one may make money off licensing. Others say no one but the original author/owner can. Still others are "open" only if you buy the licence, and aren't allowed to resell it.
Since the copyright author is free to license his code in any manner he sees fit, obviously there will be a myriad of license restrictions with which various coders may wish to encumber their code. That's why, as you noted, we have the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which the OSI has, with some minor changes, renamed the "Open Source Definition"). These specify which restrictions are onerous and not allowed (such as discriminating against different groups in the licensing), and which are okay (such as the BSD's advertising clause, or the GPL's "all derivatives must be Free" clause). AFAIK, there is almost no code actually licensed under what you consider to be a truly "free" definition. The GPL and BSD licenses certainly don't qualify, and the QPL, MPL, APSL, and NPL are even worse in that respect.
Now, regarding your personal attack on me. I don't like to any sort of restrictions on the use of code, none whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'm some anarchist who wants to enable others to pretend authorship of what isn't theirs. I simply want to return to those precupidinous days when giftware reigned, back when software was source code and the only letter of the law was "Do as thou wilt."
The problem is that the majority of corporations do not like participating in this sort of giftware culture. The GPL is designed to force them to either join the mutually beneficial development, or to write their own code. Without such a "viral" clause, the giftware culture could certainly continue on its own, but there would be virtually no chance of corporations joining or contributing their own code. In effect, the authors will have created code for someone else to modify and make money from. The GPL at least requires that the other party contribute the changes back for the good of everybody.
You seem to be in favor of freely available source code - why, therefore, are you against an incentive for businesses to make their source code freely available?
Linux does not reach into other people's closed-source, dynamically loaded device drivers and blow them up to the whole world, despite at least one popular but untested interpretation of the GPL which would dispute that. Linus said it doesn't, and it's his code, so that's that. And everyone is happier that way.
A minor nitpick - Linus has interpreted the GPL this way. However, his interpretation does not carry any legal weight, since, despite your assertion, it is really not "his code." Some of the code is indeed his, but the majority of code is still copyright to its author, which in most cases is not Linus. Unless Linus has obtained permission for this license exemption from the authors of all the other code he has accepted (and the authors of other GPL'd software he's "borrowed" code from), his exception carries no legal weight. Moral weight, sure, as it certainly discourages a lawsuit on those grounds, but no legal weight. Linus cannot relicense code he did not write, and he is not a legal authority on the interpretation of the GPL (his view may be right, but it is not guaranteed to be right, so his "exception" doesn't guarantee anything).
As for your BSD vs. Linux point, I tend to agree regarding the better integration of BSD systems. I assume, however, that you haven't forgotten that the various free software BSD operating systems use the Free Software Foundation's GCC (licensed under the GPL, incidentally) as their compiler.
Regarding the FSF, they believe that the only way to perpetuate free code is to require that all code based on their code (or similarly licensed code) is also free. Since it is indeed their code, they have every right to do this. I tend to agree, but if you disagree, you are free to do so. Nobody is forcing you to use GCC - the Free Software Foundation wrote it, and you can accept or reject their license terms.
And, finally, strangely enough, this is the first follow-up to your message. No massive flame-wars today, I suppose.
While I'd agree with you that most of the OSS companies have been generally well-behaved, the "rift" does indeed exist, mainly between ESR and his camp and RMS and his camp. If you take a look at the license-discuss list that OSI runs, there's been some notable incidents, including:
RMS (correctly) insisting that GNOME is Free Software, not Open Source (and being backed up by Miguel de Icaza, the GNOME project leader)
ESR asserting that RMS could be a better spokesman, but isn't because he doesn't bathe often enough (an assertion that RMS calls exaggeration).
You'll notice that we're talking about computer science, which is a math/science degree. We're not talking about English or Humanities PhD's - I know that these take longer.
Umm, your own numbers seem to support my age range. You say it takes 5 years after earning a bachelor's, or 6 for some fields. Since most people finish a bachelor's degree in 4 years, and are therefore 22, that would mean they earn their PhD by the time they're 27 or 28. I said "26 or 27," which is pretty darn close.
I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps he could earn a PhD in sociology by turning Linux development into a thesis on large-scale cooperation in software development. However, I doubt anybody would accept "I wrote a UNIX clone for the x86" as a computer science thesis.
As for the time period, the time period is normally seven years *total*, that's bachelor's plus PhD (PhD's rarely take more than 4 years by themselves), and Linus has taken more than that. Most people get their PhDs by the time they're 26 or 27 or so, and Linus is 29.
Actually, since the company that created sendmail is the one selling it, they could do this with GPL'd software as well. As long as they didn't accept patches from other people, or required that the copyright for those patches be signed over to them, they could release a new version not under the GPL, since they own the copyright to the code. The GPL restricts everybody *except* the copyright holder on code - they still retain all the normal rights a copyright holder has.
Well, this is *identical* to baseball cards. They've been popular and legal for nearly 100 years. You buy packs in the hopes of finding one of the valuable cards, which is exactly what this lawsuit is complaining about.
Since baseball cards are a fairly well-established legal industry, I don't think this lawsuit has much of a chance.
Yeah, people don't realize that those prices aren't really the values of the cards. Those are the prices the stores will charge you, but if you have a card, you're not very likely to be able to get that much for it. Back when I played MtG (4-5 years ago), the "dual lands" were worth around $10 each. However, I could never find anybody to even pay $5 for the ones I had, so obviously they weren't really worth $10 each.
Yes, I understand what you're saying...perhaps I wasn't being very clear.
What I meant to do is to counter the argument "tragedies like Columbine show we need to do things like put in more metal detectors and have more IDs (and more prayer to God - but not Allah - of course)" with a reminder that those things wouldn't have done any good at Columbine.
I have no problem with people who want to install them for other reasons. I personally am not in favor of metal detectors, but I would be willing to listen to an argument for them that had some substance. Using Columbine as a reason for more school security of this type, however, is illogical, which is what I was trying to point out.
I agree that it gives a very bad impression of Linux tech support. Anybody calling a Linux-related company for tech support can be assured that if their call isn't actually published for public ridicule, the tech support people will at least be making fun of their call internally. Doesn't make me anxious to call.
Sure, I know this is standard practice (the internal making fun of not-as-geeky people), but there's no need to publicize it so widely, unless you're deliberately trying to scare people off.
Slashdot Mirror
id didn't seem to be going after anybody, but my reading of the previous license seems to indicate that distributing modified versions of the DOOM source code was not permitted. The only thing permitted was "Educational Use," which included using parts of the code in your own programs (which you were allowed to distribute, even for money), but nowhere was permission given to distribute the entire original source code with modifications.
Judging by your ad hominem attacks on the public license-discuss mailing list, I'd hardly think you're in a position to denounce someone for public personal attacks.
Thomas Jefferson was right because he was a principal author of the First Amendment. Hence, it's quite likely that he knew what it was intended to mean.
Actually, in Win9x drivers aren't required on all the client machines (at least for parallel port printers, i dunno about network printers). I have a two-computer network, with a Canon BJC-4000 on one of the computers. That computer has the Canon drivers installed, and the other computer can send stuff to print on it, even though there are no print drivers installed on that computer.
Well then convert =)
60 F is around 15.5 C. Not cold, but somewhat chilly.
I personally can get along pretty well in both systems, since I live in the US and have spent quite a bit of time in Greece. I still don't like Celcius's lower precision, since having to use half a degree (i.e., saying it's 16.5 out) is more annoying than using smaller degrees and sticking with integers (like Fahrenheit does).
While for most purposes I agree that the Celsius system is superior, for weather the Fahrenheit system still seems better. It allows people to say things such as "the weather is in the 90s today" and people know what you mean. In Celsius you'd have to say "the weather is in the mid 30s" or something, since 30 and 40 are certainly not what you're referring to.
With some practice I suppose it isn't that bad, but the greater precision of the Fahrenheit units (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius) makes smaller changes easier to understand.
Why do we care about an upgrade of a particular port of a particular proprietary product? This isn't freshmeat after all.
It's also a bit too close to FIDONET, which is quite unfortunate, since FIDONET is good, while FIDNET is not.
What's the point of that? The only reason I use Netscape in the first place is for Java (and Flash and whatnot). If it's a plain page, I'll use Opera.
Yes, autodetection is your friend. If it can be optionally bypassed, I don't see what's wrong with adding it in.
I find it fairly pathetic that X can't even run with some decent defaults. You have to run XF86Setup before starting X, or else X won't start *at all*. It should at least start at 640x480x16, as you mentioned, and then inform the user to run XF86Setup if he wants to configure his display beyond what the defaults have set.
I'd have to disagree. I've installed Windows 95 twice, and upgrade 95 to 98 once, and all these installations were much easier than my installation of Linux (and subsequent problems getting X to actually start). Windows 95/98 auto-detected my video card and monitor and chose a default resolution that worked, auto-detected my modem, network card, and USB scanner, and set those up properly, and auto-detected my non-IDE proprietary Panasonic CD-ROM drive (an old 2x one). PPP setup took about 2 minutes.
Linux (Slackware 3.0), on the other hand, didn't auto-detect anything, and my USB scanner never did work. I had to create a special boot disk (sbpcd.i) to work with my CD-ROM drive, had to look up detailed specifications of the resolutions/refresh rates supported by my video card and monitor (XF86Setup apparently can't choose any reasonable defaults), and PPP was *really* annoying to get working properly.
Now some of these problems are the fault of device manufacturers for proprietary interfaces and drivers, but a newbie can be forgiven for not knowing that it's not *really* the OS's fault - to the newbie, one OS works with his scanner, while the other doesn't. Whether this is the OS's fault or somebody else's fault is somewhat irrelevant.
Some of the problems really are the fault of the OS and the windowing system, however. XF86Setup could be a lot more friendly with auto-detection. X could start with some decent VESA defaults (like Windows does), so somebody could start X for the first time without even needing to run XF86Setup at all. PPP configuration could be nicer, and (for laptops) PCMCIA support could be built in, rather than having to be added separately.
That's exactly what I've been saying for a while - AOL is great at what it does. It is obviously not something intended for techies, so they dislike it. However, for your average person, it's much much better than a "normal" ISP.
On a normal ISP, if you want to chat online with some people, send email, use an FTP client, and visit webpages, you need to install and configure an email client, ICQ or AIM, an FTP client, and a web browser. With AOL, you don't have to do anything other than install AOL. You click "Write" to send email, AIM is built in, a web browser (IE5) is built in, and FTP is built in at keyword:FTP.
I suppose where we disagree is in our definitions of "compel." As you see it, the GPL compels others to make their source code free. As I see it, the GPL merely gives a choice:
1) Use the GPL'd software, and follow its restrictions.
2) Do not use the GPL'd software.
Nobody is *forcing* you to choose #1. You are free to use a similar package under another license (if one exists), to write your own, or to forgo its use altogether. Nowhere are you *forced* to distribute your software under the GPL. You agree to do so in exchange for using that person's code. If this bothers you, don't agree, and don't use the code, and you're not subject to any sorts of restrictions. Similarly, if you're unhappy about the "viral" nature of GPL'd libraries, don't call them from your programs (incidentally, glibc is LGPL, so this particular case isn't a problem).
Thank you as always for your kind words.
You are quite welcome.
What I happen to personally desire -- to wit, a completely free operating system -- is somewhat beside the point of my question for Eric. I hoped through that question to generate a well thought-out response to the somewhat unpleasant but nonetheless important situation of the relationship of the various classes of software currently grouped under the term "Open Source". I'd like to solicit comment on the effects both benign and malignant that these shadings might hold on the development and the business communities. Is this effect changing? Do some versions of "open source" prove more efficacious than others?
I understand your question - I was merely commenting on a somewhat tangental point. You had expressed an intention in the past to create a completely BSD-style licensed version of Linux (with the exception of the kernel, I assume), so I was wondering whether you had progressed significantly in that regard. Apparently not.
Some software currently classed as open source is clearly saddled with restrictions on use. For example, anything that cannot be effectively used in a value-added, commercial licensing situation. This is not unique to code under the GPL, although it is the only one that is particularly popular. Most are related to money. Some licences say no one may make money off licensing. Others say no one but the original author/owner can. Still others are "open" only if you buy the licence, and aren't allowed to resell it.
Since the copyright author is free to license his code in any manner he sees fit, obviously there will be a myriad of license restrictions with which various coders may wish to encumber their code. That's why, as you noted, we have the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which the OSI has, with some minor changes, renamed the "Open Source Definition"). These specify which restrictions are onerous and not allowed (such as discriminating against different groups in the licensing), and which are okay (such as the BSD's advertising clause, or the GPL's "all derivatives must be Free" clause). AFAIK, there is almost no code actually licensed under what you consider to be a truly "free" definition. The GPL and BSD licenses certainly don't qualify, and the QPL, MPL, APSL, and NPL are even worse in that respect.
Now, regarding your personal attack on me. I don't like to any sort of restrictions on the use of code, none whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'm some anarchist who wants to enable others to pretend authorship of what isn't theirs. I simply want to return to those precupidinous days when giftware reigned, back when software was source code and the only letter of the law was "Do as thou wilt."
The problem is that the majority of corporations do not like participating in this sort of giftware culture. The GPL is designed to force them to either join the mutually beneficial development, or to write their own code. Without such a "viral" clause, the giftware culture could certainly continue on its own, but there would be virtually no chance of corporations joining or contributing their own code. In effect, the authors will have created code for someone else to modify and make money from. The GPL at least requires that the other party contribute the changes back for the good of everybody.
You seem to be in favor of freely available source code - why, therefore, are you against an incentive for businesses to make their source code freely available?
Linux does not reach into other people's closed-source, dynamically loaded device drivers and blow them up to the whole world, despite at least one popular but untested interpretation of the GPL which would dispute that. Linus said it doesn't, and it's his code, so that's that. And everyone is happier that way.
A minor nitpick - Linus has interpreted the GPL this way. However, his interpretation does not carry any legal weight, since, despite your assertion, it is really not "his code." Some of the code is indeed his, but the majority of code is still copyright to its author, which in most cases is not Linus. Unless Linus has obtained permission for this license exemption from the authors of all the other code he has accepted (and the authors of other GPL'd software he's "borrowed" code from), his exception carries no legal weight. Moral weight, sure, as it certainly discourages a lawsuit on those grounds, but no legal weight. Linus cannot relicense code he did not write, and he is not a legal authority on the interpretation of the GPL (his view may be right, but it is not guaranteed to be right, so his "exception" doesn't guarantee anything).
As for your BSD vs. Linux point, I tend to agree regarding the better integration of BSD systems. I assume, however, that you haven't forgotten that the various free software BSD operating systems use the Free Software Foundation's GCC (licensed under the GPL, incidentally) as their compiler.
Regarding the FSF, they believe that the only way to perpetuate free code is to require that all code based on their code (or similarly licensed code) is also free. Since it is indeed their code, they have every right to do this. I tend to agree, but if you disagree, you are free to do so. Nobody is forcing you to use GCC - the Free Software Foundation wrote it, and you can accept or reject their license terms.
And, finally, strangely enough, this is the first follow-up to your message. No massive flame-wars today, I suppose.
While I'd agree with you that most of the OSS companies have been generally well-behaved, the "rift" does indeed exist, mainly between ESR and his camp and RMS and his camp. If you take a look at the license-discuss list that OSI runs, there's been some notable incidents, including:
RMS (correctly) insisting that GNOME is Free Software, not Open Source (and being backed up by Miguel de Icaza, the GNOME project leader)
ESR asserting that RMS could be a better spokesman, but isn't because he doesn't bathe often enough (an assertion that RMS calls exaggeration).
So, Tom, how has your "Linux with no GNU software" distribution been coming along? Have you gotten around to writing a BSD-licenced compiler yet?
Or was that big rant you had here on Slashdot a while back just idle ranting with no real substance (or code) behind it?
You'll notice that we're talking about computer science, which is a math/science degree. We're not talking about English or Humanities PhD's - I know that these take longer.
Umm, your own numbers seem to support my age range. You say it takes 5 years after earning a bachelor's, or 6 for some fields. Since most people finish a bachelor's degree in 4 years, and are therefore 22, that would mean they earn their PhD by the time they're 27 or 28. I said "26 or 27," which is pretty darn close.
Yes, we have them here too, but they came out about a year ago, and only cost $150 or so (around 80 or 90 pounds).
I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps he could earn a PhD in sociology by turning Linux development into a thesis on large-scale cooperation in software development. However, I doubt anybody would accept "I wrote a UNIX clone for the x86" as a computer science thesis.
As for the time period, the time period is normally seven years *total*, that's bachelor's plus PhD (PhD's rarely take more than 4 years by themselves), and Linus has taken more than that. Most people get their PhDs by the time they're 26 or 27 or so, and Linus is 29.
Actually, since the company that created sendmail is the one selling it, they could do this with GPL'd software as well. As long as they didn't accept patches from other people, or required that the copyright for those patches be signed over to them, they could release a new version not under the GPL, since they own the copyright to the code. The GPL restricts everybody *except* the copyright holder on code - they still retain all the normal rights a copyright holder has.
Well, this is *identical* to baseball cards. They've been popular and legal for nearly 100 years. You buy packs in the hopes of finding one of the valuable cards, which is exactly what this lawsuit is complaining about.
Since baseball cards are a fairly well-established legal industry, I don't think this lawsuit has much of a chance.
Yeah, people don't realize that those prices aren't really the values of the cards. Those are the prices the stores will charge you, but if you have a card, you're not very likely to be able to get that much for it. Back when I played MtG (4-5 years ago), the "dual lands" were worth around $10 each. However, I could never find anybody to even pay $5 for the ones I had, so obviously they weren't really worth $10 each.
Yes, I understand what you're saying...perhaps I wasn't being very clear.
What I meant to do is to counter the argument "tragedies like Columbine show we need to do things like put in more metal detectors and have more IDs (and more prayer to God - but not Allah - of course)" with a reminder that those things wouldn't have done any good at Columbine.
I have no problem with people who want to install them for other reasons. I personally am not in favor of metal detectors, but I would be willing to listen to an argument for them that had some substance. Using Columbine as a reason for more school security of this type, however, is illogical, which is what I was trying to point out.
I agree that it gives a very bad impression of Linux tech support. Anybody calling a Linux-related company for tech support can be assured that if their call isn't actually published for public ridicule, the tech support people will at least be making fun of their call internally. Doesn't make me anxious to call.
Sure, I know this is standard practice (the internal making fun of not-as-geeky people), but there's no need to publicize it so widely, unless you're deliberately trying to scare people off.