I for one am glad that Katz where's geek glasses
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 3
Many readers on this thread have complained about Katz's "geek-colored glasses." And there can be no doubt that he wears them. Basically every post is about geeks, quite predictably in the "post-Columbine" era.
However, I for one am glad that he wears them all the time. I mean, without his glasses, a huge destructive beam of GEEKS would shoot out from his eyes, vaporizing anthing in its path! Nobody would be safe! Think about the incredibly effort Katz must have invested to learn to control that powerful "gift" - I think we all owe a debt to Prof. X!
What about business-oriented develoeprs who want to enjoy the benefits of free (as in speech!) software and communal development? Shouldn't they be able to release their source with the same level of protection as other software developers (ie. no redistribution without source)?
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
"In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. "
Let's put aside the actual text of the GPL for one second. Let me quote the following from the GNU web page (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html):
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
"In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. "
My question that I keep hammering at is whether or not the effect of considering a web application as simply "output" rather than a "redistribution" is to allow this freedom to be stripped out by a middle man. What do you think?
This is a very naive view. In my experience, it is just this "loophole" that we have been discussing that _prevents_ commercial web developers from going open-source. Their thinking is: if my competitors can grab my source, modify it and use it without opening their source, they would then have a competitive advantage over me. In the eyes of their investors, etc. they would have a proprietary feature set that set them apart from other vendors, even though they leveraged my work to get there. Therefore, they would have reaped the benefits of my labour without contributing anything back. That's not fair, and furthermore, it's not good business. What makes sense from a business point of view is cooperation. If I release my source, and other companies help me develop it (i.e. we cooperate) then everybody benefits. These companies can then compete on the important things like content, service, etc. Consumers benefit by not being locked into proprietary software systems.
Note that this is NOT the same as a company deploying a proprietary service on top of Apache/MySQL/Linux - only the case of a company creating a derived work from an existing open-source project.
I don't want commercial software developers to "adopt" open-source (or FAIS) software - I want them to participate in the process of creating it. That's good business practice. How do I know? Because I am a commercial software developer.
Always wanted to feed a troll, but this time I'll let RMS do it, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html:
By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
Some readers may question this statement because they know publishers claim that illegal copying causes them "loss." This claim is mostly inaccurate and partly misleading. More importantly, it is begging the question.
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friend would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
You and I seem to have gone back and forth on this a couple times on this thread. I want to reiterate my position that I dont' mind if other people get rich off of my code, as long as they keep the code free. The way I see it, they are depriving their users of the freedoms that the GPL guarantees - namely, the ability to see the source of GPL-derived software that you use. Why should web developers get all GPL source without having to show their modifications to their users the way all other GPL-users have to?
My analogy vs. the compiler is kind of a red herring. I don't mean to imply that compilation is simple. I just wanted to show that it's not like our scripts just generate HTML, which can then be taken to any machine at any time and executed, like a traditional binary. Instead, what makes our scripts useful is the unique combination of HTML and other data that they make available to the user in the course of a session.
Sorry if I was unclear in my original post - that is the point I am trying to make exactly. I'm trying to argue that the GPL should expand its definition of what constitutes a "binary redistribution" to cover cases like these.
Why is bytecode different from HTML? It's certainly not "native machine instructions" as defined by the GPL. It's just an intermediary format produced by a compiler on your source code. You still need a JVM (and related state) to execute it - just like you need a browser to "execute" the HTML. By some reasoning on this thread, the java applet would NOT be covered under the GPL, since it's just the "output" of your Java source code.
Actually this is not what my question was about at all. I'm not worried about other people being able to comply with the GPL if they want to (by linking to the source) but that they be required to provide the source to any modifications that they make _to the same people that they redistribute to_. Further, I happen to think that a "public performance" (like a website) is conceptually the same as a "binary redistribution" and so should be covered by the GPL, or a GPL-like license.
We don't want to bar anyone from using our code. We just want them to agree to open any changes to it that they make and subsequently publish. That's it.
Sounds terrific, but, as I mentioned in the original story, I don't really know which license to go to. Are there licenses that address our concerns with the GPL? What do you recommend?
And just for the record, I'll point out that it's quite a stretch to say that our program is a compiler. It produces HTML, but also Javascript and SQL, depending on how it is invoked via a continuous, session-based interaction with the user. This is simply not true of a compiler, which is a one-time, one-output, non-interactive experience.
Right. But I think that web use is obviously NOT "modification on your private copy" but rather a public "publication" or "performance" or (if you will) "distribution" of my work, and therefore should be covered by the GPL.
No, I just don't want people to redistribute my work in a non-free (or if you prefer, non-open-source) way. Isn't that what the GPL-shaman is supposed to protect me from? If not, what license should I be using instead?
but we don't sell or give the software to someone else
My claim (question) is that by allowing others to use our program via the web, you are giving the software, in effect, to someone else. You are not giving them the source, you are giving them the functional equivalent of the source - in other words, the binary.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you sell a modified version of Emacs, you have to make the source available. You don't have to email it personally to RMS, but you have to make the source public in some way. My claim is that web site applications should not be any different. But question is what constitutes the "binary" form of a PHP program...
It took me a while to figure out what this article is talking about. When the author says "free software" what he means is _not_ the same free as the FSF. He actually means "getting commercial software for free" and not "free software like Linux." The problem with this whole thesis is that I just can't imagine that it's particularly true of Linux writers, because the amount of money you save by getting a free copy of RedHat or Mandrake is pretty trivial, since you can just download them for free off the net.
However, in the world of non-free software, where "review copies" of software can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, it gets a lot more tricky. I have had plenty of personal experience with people (myself included!) who want to write reviews of product X in order to get a free copy. And that can definitely influence what you write...
Agreed, but what we're talking about here is not "private modifications" but ones that are quite public. If eBay steals my code, and makes $1 X 10^9 on it, I think they ought to at least be forced to open their code up.
I'm not really talking about either of these cases. We do sell a commercial product based on this code, which is not governed by the GPL but is a simple non-redistributable non-exclusive license. What we want is to be able to give away most of our code for free use so long as anyone that uses it also makes their source available for free use. We don't object to people making modifications, in fact we really want that, we just don't want one of our competitors to do a billion dollar IPO off our work without opening their code.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen! When OLGA was shut down, I was still in junior high school - and I still remember what it said in the FAQ:
"What can I do to help?"
We make quarterly backups of our entire content. Please download them and hold onto them. Wait until the time is right and we can resurface.
Those archives are still sitting on my old 486DX/33 - I wonder if the HD has decayed by now.
where's
anthing
incredibly
Many readers on this thread have complained about Katz's "geek-colored glasses." And there can be no doubt that he wears them. Basically every post is about geeks, quite predictably in the "post-Columbine" era.
However, I for one am glad that he wears them all the time. I mean, without his glasses, a huge destructive beam of GEEKS would shoot out from his eyes, vaporizing anthing in its path! Nobody would be safe! Think about the incredibly effort Katz must have invested to learn to control that powerful "gift" - I think we all owe a debt to Prof. X!
What about business-oriented develoeprs who want to enjoy the benefits of free (as in speech!) software and communal development? Shouldn't they be able to release their source with the same level of protection as other software developers (ie. no redistribution without source)?
let me just quote from the GNU home page:
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
"In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. "
Let's put aside the actual text of the GPL for one second. Let me quote the following from the GNU web page (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html):
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
"In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. "
My question that I keep hammering at is whether or not the effect of considering a web application as simply "output" rather than a "redistribution" is to allow this freedom to be stripped out by a middle man. What do you think?
Note that this is NOT the same as a company deploying a proprietary service on top of Apache/MySQL/Linux - only the case of a company creating a derived work from an existing open-source project.
I don't want commercial software developers to "adopt" open-source (or FAIS) software - I want them to participate in the process of creating it. That's good business practice. How do I know? Because I am a commercial software developer.
Always wanted to feed a troll, but this time I'll let RMS do it, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html:
By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.
Some readers may question this statement because they know publishers claim that illegal copying causes them "loss." This claim is mostly inaccurate and partly misleading. More importantly, it is begging the question.
The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friend would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.
The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.
You and I seem to have gone back and forth on this a couple times on this thread. I want to reiterate my position that I dont' mind if other people get rich off of my code, as long as they keep the code free. The way I see it, they are depriving their users of the freedoms that the GPL guarantees - namely, the ability to see the source of GPL-derived software that you use. Why should web developers get all GPL source without having to show their modifications to their users the way all other GPL-users have to?
My analogy vs. the compiler is kind of a red herring. I don't mean to imply that compilation is simple. I just wanted to show that it's not like our scripts just generate HTML, which can then be taken to any machine at any time and executed, like a traditional binary. Instead, what makes our scripts useful is the unique combination of HTML and other data that they make available to the user in the course of a session.
Sorry if I was unclear in my original post - that is the point I am trying to make exactly. I'm trying to argue that the GPL should expand its definition of what constitutes a "binary redistribution" to cover cases like these.
Would you guys be willing to make a generic version of your license (suitable for use in the US or elsewhere) available?
Why is bytecode different from HTML? It's certainly not "native machine instructions" as defined by the GPL. It's just an intermediary format produced by a compiler on your source code. You still need a JVM (and related state) to execute it - just like you need a browser to "execute" the HTML. By some reasoning on this thread, the java applet would NOT be covered under the GPL, since it's just the "output" of your Java source code.
Actually this is not what my question was about at all. I'm not worried about other people being able to comply with the GPL if they want to (by linking to the source) but that they be required to provide the source to any modifications that they make _to the same people that they redistribute to_. Further, I happen to think that a "public performance" (like a website) is conceptually the same as a "binary redistribution" and so should be covered by the GPL, or a GPL-like license.
We don't want to bar anyone from using our code. We just want them to agree to open any changes to it that they make and subsequently publish. That's it.
Sounds terrific, but, as I mentioned in the original story, I don't really know which license to go to. Are there licenses that address our concerns with the GPL? What do you recommend?
And just for the record, I'll point out that it's quite a stretch to say that our program is a compiler. It produces HTML, but also Javascript and SQL, depending on how it is invoked via a continuous, session-based interaction with the user. This is simply not true of a compiler, which is a one-time, one-output, non-interactive experience.
Right. But I think that web use is obviously NOT "modification on your private copy" but rather a public "publication" or "performance" or (if you will) "distribution" of my work, and therefore should be covered by the GPL.
No, I just don't want people to redistribute my work in a non-free (or if you prefer, non-open-source) way. Isn't that what the GPL-shaman is supposed to protect me from? If not, what license should I be using instead?
My claim (question) is that by allowing others to use our program via the web, you are giving the software, in effect, to someone else. You are not giving them the source, you are giving them the functional equivalent of the source - in other words, the binary.
bingo.
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you sell a modified version of Emacs, you have to make the source available. You don't have to email it personally to RMS, but you have to make the source public in some way. My claim is that web site applications should not be any different. But question is what constitutes the "binary" form of a PHP program...
It took me a while to figure out what this article is talking about. When the author says "free software" what he means is _not_ the same free as the FSF. He actually means "getting commercial software for free" and not "free software like Linux." The problem with this whole thesis is that I just can't imagine that it's particularly true of Linux writers, because the amount of money you save by getting a free copy of RedHat or Mandrake is pretty trivial, since you can just download them for free off the net.
However, in the world of non-free software, where "review copies" of software can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, it gets a lot more tricky. I have had plenty of personal experience with people (myself included!) who want to write reviews of product X in order to get a free copy. And that can definitely influence what you write...
Agreed, but what we're talking about here is not "private modifications" but ones that are quite public. If eBay steals my code, and makes $1 X 10^9 on it, I think they ought to at least be forced to open their code up.
right on. Natalie Portman's got your hot grits in a vice.
I'm not really talking about either of these cases. We do sell a commercial product based on this code, which is not governed by the GPL but is a simple non-redistributable non-exclusive license. What we want is to be able to give away most of our code for free use so long as anyone that uses it also makes their source available for free use. We don't object to people making modifications, in fact we really want that, we just don't want one of our competitors to do a billion dollar IPO off our work without opening their code.
Ugh! it's just not been a good day for me and typos. This should read, of course, "posted this story over at Kuro5hin..."