In the article above, the author says he wishes his software to be "free." In that case, his only alternative is to license it under a truly free license such as the BSD License or the MIT X License.
Code licensed under the GPL or LGPL is not free in any sense of the word. It's not free "as in speech," because there are major strings attached. And it's not free "as in beer," because the GPL and LGPL force the developer to forfeit any reward he or she might get from improving the code. (He or she must also forfeit all rewards for a product which incorporates even one or two lines of GPLed or LGPLed code, even if the overwhelming majority of the code is his or her own work.)
A truly free license does not limit what you can do with the code, but only what you can do to the author who generously released it to the world. (For example, you can't sue for bugs.) This is true freedom. The GPL's preamble makes deceptive claims that it creates freedom in an attempt to persuade hackers to sign onto Stallman's anti-business agenda. But the fact is that the GPL makes software anything but free.
At http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2 825260,00.html, Senator Mike Enzi, in a carefully scripted political message, tries to convince citizens that this is not a new tax. But it is. Enzi conveniently neglects to tell you that while many states' laws authorize the
collection of "use taxes," they have never actually been imposed. The US
Supreme Court, in Quill v. North Dakota, ruled that such taxes were
unconstitutional unless they were imposed or authorized by Congress -- not the
states.
What Senator Enzi's bill does is impose the taxes which the states were justifiably blocked from imposing. The result: the imposition of
new taxes -- ones that will cripple e-commerce and new high tech businesses --
in the midst of an economic recession.
The $5 million minimum in Enzi's legislation is a red herring, too. Any
e-commerce business that does not achieve at least $10 million in sales per
year cannot compete due to a lack of volume purchasing power and economies of
scale.
Why did Senator Enzi advance the legislation? To find out, we need
look no farther than his own state -- Wyoming -- which has a sales tax but no
income tax. Wyoming's Governor Jim Geringer, and his state revenue director
Johnnie Burton, have decided that rather than putting a tax increase to the
voters (which might allow a fair debate on the issue and give citizens some
control of the outcome), or creating a state tax regime that is fairer and
less regressive, they would aggressively pursue this new tax, which could be
imposed without such "inconveniences."
The fact that this tax would
appear to be imposed from without (by Congress), and that it could be
implemented without a vote of the people or debate in the state legislature,
makes it just the ticket for Mr. Geringer, who has failed to confront tough
issues and has bowed in the past to the influence of large, out-of-state
coporations at the expense of his citizens' best interests. For example, the
mineral industry, which is the single largest campaign contributor in Wyoming,
favors measures which will make Wyoming a less desirable place to live,
because this makes it easier to carve up Wyoming's vast, unpopulated open
spaces in their relentless quest for minerals. This industry also favors every
measure which raises taxes on residents rather than upon itself.
It is also telling that Mr. Geringer, during the Microsoft antitrust case,
favored Microsoft (see http://www.state.wy.us/governor/press_releases/199 8/june_1998/micro.html)
-- even though Microsoft had just been proven to have fabricated
evidence and lied to the judge during the trial. "In a time when most of us are striving for excellence,
[the Department of] Justice and the 20 states want only to assure mediocrity," wrote Geringer,
conveniently failing to note that Microsoft was using Internet Explorer -- a
"knock-off" product that showed no innovation whatsoever -- to crush the
innovative Netscape. In Wyoming, whatever large corporations want, they get...
and the shameless greasing of palms is barely concealed.
Michael Enzi's legislation would do nothing good for anyone -- except large
corporate interests (Wal-Mart and other "big box" retailers favor the tax
because they have retail stores everywhere and want to have an edge over
e-commerce) and cowardly state politicians. It should -- no, must -- be
defeated. And so should Enzi. (Geringer, now a "lame duck" due to term limits laws, is -- no joke! -- reputed to be considering a position with Microsoft.)
Microsoft publishes free viewers for PowerPoint and Excel files. There's no mention in the advisory of whether these are vulnerable or not. Are the viewers safe?
But, your single handed
rejection of open source software does identoify you as someone who ascribes to an agenda.
Again, you apparently know nothing of my opinions or of my work. I have written and released quite a lot of software which is "open source," and which in fact is TRULY free and not GPLed. (GPLed software is not open source.)
Before you become yet another member of the "Slashdot sheep," learn whereof you speak.
--Brett Glass
I'm sure that George Wubble-ya Bush will say...
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
...that all of these wouldn't have happened if we had a strategic missile defense.
If you knew my work, you'd know that I'm anything but a corporate shill. I've spent a great deal of time exposing the actions of rapacious corporations, regardless of their claimed political ideologies. These include both Microsoft and the so-called "Free" Software Foundation, both of which engage in unethical and predatory practices and seek to hurt the fortunes of programmers and other creative people.
Programmers and musicians deserve to eat. They should act in their own financial self interests and protect their rights. What is truly amazing is the attitude of some people here on Slashdot, who seem to believe that they should be able to appropriate creative people's work without ever having to pay for it. Yes, the DMCA is bad; however, so is theft of intellectual property.
As for using YMMV as a trademark for my publication: Why not? It is absolutely no different from having a publication called "Time," "Life," or "People." Apparently you are unfamiliar with what trademarks are about.
What the government will do is ensure that if you try to license code under unconscionable terms, those terms will have no force.
If you enjoy distributing software under unconscionable terms and the government -- by setting things right -- deprives you of that enjoyment, then, well, what can I say? You'll have to get your enjoyment another way. I'd recommend the Apache, MIT, or BSD license.
I posted because there are a lot of newbies on Slashdot who might not know Brett and his history.
And you couldn't possibly stand to allow them to think for themselves and form their own opinions, could you now....
A number of the other panelists did not feel he belonged there, and although the SV folks admitted they screwed up by inviting him, and were quite chagrined about it, their own policies did not let them uninvite him.
A blatant falsehood. The SV.COM folks invited me because they knew I was knowledgeable about the subject matter, and did not at all regret doing so (they thanked me, during and after the event, for bringing up the points I did). They were a bit concerned when Richard Stallman attempted to "censor" me by threatening to withdraw if I participated. But eventually, they recognized Richard's immature behavior as what it was: an attempt to silence someone who, he knew, would articulate an opposing viewpoint. The SV.COM people stuck to their guns and did not uninvite me. The result: Richard stomped off in a huff and did not participate. Apparently, he could not tolerate either dissent or a forum whose coordinators did not treat him like a deity and indulge his every whim.
Yes, I think that taking public software private is a selfish act.
Again, Bruce, the same misleading propaganda. When one uses publicly available software in one's own work, one does not "take it private;" the original version is still available. Only the new work which is added is kept private. And it's the author's right to do that -- and also his only feasible way of making money. (Selling support for GPLed software doesn't work, as has been shown by the many failed companies that attempted to use this bogus business model.)
As for "selfish acts:" What is most selfish is destroying others to indulge yourself. Which is what you're doing by promoting the GPL.
The BSD license is not about freedom. It's about one party giving a gift, and the other party taking it.
Again, bogus rhetoric. The BSD license confers true freedom, and only where this freedom exists can there truly be giving. The GPL does not. The "giving" forced by the GPL is not "giving" at all, because it is compulsory. It does not leave one free to give or not give. The GPL claims to be about freedom, but is actually intended to destroy programmers' livelihoods and companies. And it has done quite well as this. Andy Hertzfeld's company is already gone, and Larry Augustin's and Ransom Love's are on the ropes. Red Hat will follow. As for HP: You're gnawing at it from the inside, Bruce, attempting to turn it into another VA. I certainly hope you do not succeed.
At last, a reasonable question. (I've been ignoring the many ad hominem attacks; there's simply no point in responding when one is "slashed on Slashdot."
Brett, just for the record, if I write a piece of software and distribute it under the GPL,
1.Do you think I'm acting unethically?
2.Do you think it should be illegal for me to do so?
1. You may or may not be acting unethically. If you use the GPL with full knowledge and approval of the destructive effects it will have upon others, then -- yes -- you are acting unethically. You are knowingly and willingly hurting people who have done no harm. This is fundamentally unethical according to any code of ethics.
Many people, however, stamp the GPL on their code because they believe that it is "the" license for open source (even though it is not an open source license at all, as even the FSF agrees). Or because they were swayed by the misleading rhetoric in the GPL's "preamble" or on the FSF's Web site. Or because the boss said they had to. Or because, for one reason or another, they have no choice in a specific situation but to work with GPLed code. (This last is becoming a more and more common occurrence now that the GPL is extinguishing alternatives.) These people are not acting unethically. However, they should be informed of the effects of their actions and should endeavor to avoid the GPL.
2. The law does not make it illegal to proffer a contract with unconscionable terms (which is what the GPL does). Nor, IMHO, would it be a good idea to make that illegal. The way courts and legislation deal with such contracts is to declare them to be unenforceable. This is, IMHO, what should be done in the case of the GPL. The clauses that cause it to be "viral," and which compel authors to give away their work without compensation, should be ruled by a court to be unenforceable. There are many sound arguments, based on current contract and copyright law, for this.
Looking at the text of the "story" above, I see that the Slashdot editor who approved the story appended a personal attack on me and what I wrote to the text that I submitted. Do others besides me see this as an abuse of editorial privileges? It seems to me that if this person disagrees with me (which is fine; that's what discussions are all about), he should post his views as comments as everyone else does.
Bruce's ad hominem attacks above are uncalled-for. He does nothing to attack the substance of my arguments, but merely attempts to attack me personally.
HP has been able to be somewhat independent of Microsoft because it sold many things -- printers, instruments, etc -- that were not dependent upon Windows. If it absorbs Compaq -- the vast majority of whose revenues rely upon Windows PCs -- this will change. The merged company will be much more dependent upon Microsoft than HP was before. Microsoft will own the combined company.
As for Linux dominating the *NIX world? Perish the thought. We do not need a monoculture; that's one of the biggest problems with Windows.
It's ironic.... This whole situation reminds me of the situations of numerous doomsday cults that have forecasted the end of the world -- or the New Testament "Second Coming" -- for a particular day.
The day comes and goes, and the world does not end.
What's amazing is what often happens next. If the cult is not a suicide cult, its members nearly always regroup and reset the deadline for a later date. (The Jehovah's Witnesses did this twice before they deciding to abandon the idea of a fixed "doomsday." They now preach, in much more vague terms, that a doomsday is coming but do not attempt to specify the date; in fact, they even deleted all references to specific dates from their writings and their logo.)
Faith so completely triumphs over reality and common sense that the failure of the first prediction does not hurt the cultists' faith in the next one.
What does all of this have to do with the above examples? Plenty. It appears that many people -- including VA Linux's Larry Augustin, Caldera's Ransom Love, and Cygnus/Red Hat's Michael Tiemann -- all are so blinded by the rhetoric of the GPL that they fail to recognize that it does not allow a viable business strategy. (In fact, it was never intended to; it was created by Richard Stallman with the express intent of preventing software businesses from being viable.) So long as these people pass one doomsday after another, without realizing that they must re-evaluate the beliefs they hold in light of new evidence, they will likely fail themselves. There is a possible balance between releasing source code, stimulating collaborative effort, and making money -- but it does not lie at the extremes dictated by the GPL or the FSF. It lies, rather, in the enlightened self interest of a more moderate, fair, and pragmatic licensing regime such as that adopted by the Apache Project and the collaboratively developed BSDs. While the GPL is bankrupting Caldera, the BSD license created the Internet and is ensuring the long term survival of Apple. There is a lesson here that the "faithful," if they are willing to wake up, can learn.
An assembly language OS takes a lot of resources to debug and develop. It's a shame, therefore, that it is licensed under the GPL, because it will not be as likely to see commercial investment. Because companies will not be able to sell value-added versions of the product before contributing the code back to the project, they will be less likely to develop for it and more likely to use software that's licensed in a more business-friendly way, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, and PicoBSD. The author should reconsider licensing the software under the GPL and move to a license which is truly free and is open source. (The GPL, as stated by the FSF, is not.)
In approaching the government regarding open source, it is important that we advocate not GPLed software but truly free software. Software developed with taxpayer money should be free for use by anyone, for any purpose, with no strings attached. It should not carry a "poison pill" that precludes use by those who want to build on it and be rewarded for doing so.
The BSD TCP/IP stack, whose development was funded by DARPA, is a good example. It led directly to the development of the Internet -- including Slashdot. If companies had been prevented from incorporating that network stack into their own products (and they would have, if the software had been GPLed), we simply would not have had an Internet today. Likewise, we would not have a World Wide Web were it not for truly free software such as NCSA Mosaic.
GPLed software is -- as the FSF itself says -- not open source. And it violates the Open Source Definition, since it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and a field of endeavor (the creation of commercial software). It is also viral. For these reasons, it is important that those approaching Congressman Boucher advocate truly free software (such as Apache) and not GPLed software. Otherwise, government money will be paying for software which is licensed in an un-free and discriminatory manner, and this would not be good.
Brett Glass
Re:Bruce Perens And Debian @ HP & Compaq
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, Bruce, but IMHO the fact that HP is allowing you -- as their employee -- to damage their company from within by urging it to adopt a strategy similar to that of VA Linux is only another sign that HP and Ms. Fiorina lack judgement and basic business sense.
HP doesn't need to enslave itself further to Microsoft by merging with a company over which Microsoft has life-or-death control. Nor should it do what VA Linux has done. VA's deadly embrace of the GPL and GPLed software has done it tremendous harm by making it impossible for the company to be profitable. If HP is silly enough to let you talk them into going down the same road, all that will be left is the business of selling Windows machines... which Microsoft will control. You will have fed both companies to the monster.
Very good article on this by Merc's Mike Langberg
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
In his column, Mike Langberg writes:
HP-Compaq merger should set off antitrust alarms
By Mike Langberg, Mercury News
Hewlett-Packard should not be allowed to acquire Compaq Computer, not if the concept of antitrust law still has any meaning.
There will be much talk this week about the declining health of the personal computer industry, global strategy in the information services business and the clout of such rivals as IBM and Dell.
None of that matters.
Antitrust law exists to protect ordinary consumers -- you and me -- from actions that would damage competition in the marketplace.
Many of us ordinary consumers buy PCs in retail stores. Compaq and HP together control about two-thirds of PCs sold at retail in the United States.
There is no powerful third competitor, just a few also-rans that include eMachines and Sony.
Dell and Gateway, the other major providers of desktop PCs to consumers, don't offer their products for sale in stores.
To prove my point, I grabbed Sunday's Mercury News from the recycling bin and pulled out the advertising inserts for five national retail chains that are major PC vendors: Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Office Depot and Staples.
The five inserts carried ads for 25 different desktop PC systems: 11 from HP, eight from Compaq, four from eMachines and two from Sony.
In other words, 76 percent of the advertised desktop PCs came from the company that will perhaps be called Hewlett-ComPaqkard.
There is no amount of public-relations spin that will overcome my gut-level reaction here: Such an extreme level of market concentration can't be good for PC buyers....
Will a merger pass muster with the DoJ and FTC?
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that, by any commonly accepted measure, a merger between HP and Compaq would create a dangerous concentration of market power. Dell, Gateway, Micron, and Toshiba America should oppose the merger on anti-trust grounds.
A merger would also give Microsoft and Intel greatly increased control via the combined company. The PC business would be such a large portion of the merged corporation that it would have to dance to the tune of the two existing monopolists. (It's already a struggle to put anything but Windows on an HP or Compaq machine.) In all, the merger would be so bad for consumers that it should not be approved. Of course, with Dubya in the White House, it might happen.... Compaq is a Texas firm and Bush and Cheney are -- ostentatiously -- the puppets of corporations (the bigger the better). But hopefully the light is still on over at the DoJ and FTC....
So I am curious - just how many companies/organizations are using such a dual license AND succeeding?
None. In every case on record, the GPLed version has undermined the commercial success of versions licensed any other way. Hans Reiser, Peter Deutsch... the list of people who have attempted this and failed to sell commercial licenses is quite long. It's sad, but it's reality: the effect of the GPL is to destroy commercial opportunities in the markets it enters.
The GPL and the Aladdin license hurt businesses and programmers in that they make the code free to end users but unavailable to programmers who wish to be rewarded for adding value to it. But the "SPL" is even more so. It even prohibits such things as invoking the code from a CGI script that provides a for-profit service to the public.
At this time, when companies such as VA Linux and Caldera are retreating from the GPL because it makes it impossible for them to be profitable, the SPL is a move in the wrong direction. We must shift the balance so that companies which create open source software can survive -- not so as to disadvantage them more. We must opt for more freedom -- as is provided by the Apache and MIT X licenses -- rather than less. When we see that businesses that sell products based on collaboratively developed code for which source is available are surviving and thriving, we will know that the balance is right. This hasn't been the case with the GPL, and certainly could not be with a license such as the SPL.
--Brett Glass
Re:BSDs should develop a truly free CVS equivalent
on
CVS Infrastructure
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Given GCC's extensive use to compile BSD licencsed code, getting rid [of] GCC should be a higher priority issue.
I don't disagree. GCC also poses another threat: it is wiping out virtually all alternatives. A monoculture is not a good thing, and so for this reason alone a BSD-licensed alternative should be developed.
BSDs should develop a truly free CVS equivalent
on
CVS Infrastructure
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
It is ironic that while CVSup is licensed under a BSD-like license, CVS itself is licensed under the GPL. This places the BSDs -- which themselves are licensed under a truly free license -- in thrall to a product that is GPLed.
What should the BSDs do to avoid becoming dependent upon software which is licensed in a way that is contrary to their underlying philosophy -- to wit, that free software should be truly free for anyone to use in the way that benefits him or her most?
In June, during the SiliconValley.com Open Source Roundtable, I pointed out to VA's Larry Augustin that basing the company's business model upon GPLed software prevented it from doing two things which are necessary to survival in a market where one is competing against "generic" hardware and software. These are: (a) differentiating one's products from competitors' offerings; and (b) adding unique value that others cannot simply copy for free. Larry never responded to my posting (in fact, he dropped out of the conversation at that point when I was hoping to read a response). But maybe he listened! While the company has now exited the hardware business (a shame; it was what they were founded to do) and is still competing with itself by offering GPLed versions of its products, it is moving in the right direction. I am convinced that a BSD-like approach will work for the company: creating unique enhancements that are at first available only from them, and then -- sometime later -- giving them to an open source project once they are no longer strategic. It would be better for VA if such projects used a truly free license such as the BSD License, so that subsequent improvements made in the open source projects could be rolled back into VA's own code.
In all of this, it pays to bear in mind that the GPL was originally created by Richard Stallman as a way of destroying companies such as Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. -- two companies which tried to build specialized hardware that was differentiated by uniquely powerful software. Just like VA. By embracing the GPL, VA Linux unwittingly clasped the serpent that was designed to hurt these two companies to its own breast. By backing away from the GPL and moving toward a win-win strategy that combines the advantages of open source and commercial software, VA can embark upon a sustainable business model.
--Brett Glass
Yes, it works. And it's not "socialist" at all.
on
Make Your Own DSL
·
· Score: 1
I'm the one mentioned in Cringe's article. And I can tell you for certain that the technology -- both wired and wireless -- really works. I've been flown all over the country to help people set it up and use wired and wireless broadband networks.
Yes, there are snags -- and tricks to getting around them -- but in almost all cases it's possible to set up high quality network connections throughout a community. LARIAT, the group mentioned in the article, connects schools, community organizations, families, and individuals as well as for for-profit businesses.
At the moment, LARIAT is organized as a 501(c)(12) non-profit mutual benefit society.
Note the words "mutual benefit." This means that while it is non-profit, the group is not a charity. It's motivated by enlightened self interest. By pooling their money and putting their heads together, all members of the group (and the group is only allowed to do things which are in its members' interests) are able to get things which would be unobtainable or prohibitively expensive otherwise.
Some of LARIAT's members are non-profits, such as schools and community organizations. (We're glad to offer them an economical way to get onto the Net in a city where good net access is expensive if you go it alone.) Others are for-profit businesses. (We've had some real success stories in which small businesses grew and blossomed when we got them on the Net.) Other members are simply families and individuals who find it beneficial to participate in a users' group and community Internet. Anyone in the community is welcome.
It's important to remember that a community network does not have to be a non-profit. In fact, there are advantages to making it "not-for-profit" or even for-profit. No one can hold a personal stake in a non-profit, and non-profits generally cannot borrow money from a bank (though they occasionally get government loans). So, it's much harder for a non-profit group to get capital to deploy equipment. If you're not a non-profit, you can have investors -- particularly local businesses -- who are willing to accept a low rate of return or even no on their investments,knowing that their businesses will benefit greatly from good connectivity.
So, being a non-profit isn't a necessary condition. It's just the way we've set things up for now. In fact, our Board has considered that it might one day best serve the members' interests (again, the group can only do what's best for its members!) if the group relinquished its non-profit status and became a "private club." If we decide to do a big wireless build-out that requires lots of capital equipment, this will probably happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Code licensed under the GPL or LGPL is not free in any sense of the word. It's not free "as in speech," because there are major strings attached. And it's not free "as in beer," because the GPL and LGPL force the developer to forfeit any reward he or she might get from improving the code. (He or she must also forfeit all rewards for a product which incorporates even one or two lines of GPLed or LGPLed code, even if the overwhelming majority of the code is his or her own work.)
A truly free license does not limit what you can do with the code, but only what you can do to the author who generously released it to the world. (For example, you can't sue for bugs.) This is true freedom. The GPL's preamble makes deceptive claims that it creates freedom in an attempt to persuade hackers to sign onto Stallman's anti-business agenda. But the fact is that the GPL makes software anything but free.
--Brett Glass
What Senator Enzi's bill does is impose the taxes which the states were justifiably blocked from imposing. The result: the imposition of new taxes -- ones that will cripple e-commerce and new high tech businesses -- in the midst of an economic recession.
The $5 million minimum in Enzi's legislation is a red herring, too. Any e-commerce business that does not achieve at least $10 million in sales per year cannot compete due to a lack of volume purchasing power and economies of scale.
Why did Senator Enzi advance the legislation? To find out, we need look no farther than his own state -- Wyoming -- which has a sales tax but no income tax. Wyoming's Governor Jim Geringer, and his state revenue director Johnnie Burton, have decided that rather than putting a tax increase to the voters (which might allow a fair debate on the issue and give citizens some control of the outcome), or creating a state tax regime that is fairer and less regressive, they would aggressively pursue this new tax, which could be imposed without such "inconveniences."
The fact that this tax would appear to be imposed from without (by Congress), and that it could be implemented without a vote of the people or debate in the state legislature, makes it just the ticket for Mr. Geringer, who has failed to confront tough issues and has bowed in the past to the influence of large, out-of-state coporations at the expense of his citizens' best interests. For example, the mineral industry, which is the single largest campaign contributor in Wyoming, favors measures which will make Wyoming a less desirable place to live, because this makes it easier to carve up Wyoming's vast, unpopulated open spaces in their relentless quest for minerals. This industry also favors every measure which raises taxes on residents rather than upon itself.
It is also telling that Mr. Geringer, during the Microsoft antitrust case, favored Microsoft (see http://www.state.wy.us/governor/press_releases/199 8/june_1998/micro.html)
-- even though Microsoft had just been proven to have fabricated
evidence and lied to the judge during the trial. "In a time when most of us are striving for excellence,
[the Department of] Justice and the 20 states want only to assure mediocrity," wrote Geringer,
conveniently failing to note that Microsoft was using Internet Explorer -- a
"knock-off" product that showed no innovation whatsoever -- to crush the
innovative Netscape. In Wyoming, whatever large corporations want, they get...
and the shameless greasing of palms is barely concealed.
Michael Enzi's legislation would do nothing good for anyone -- except large corporate interests (Wal-Mart and other "big box" retailers favor the tax because they have retail stores everywhere and want to have an edge over e-commerce) and cowardly state politicians. It should -- no, must -- be defeated. And so should Enzi. (Geringer, now a "lame duck" due to term limits laws, is -- no joke! -- reputed to be considering a position with Microsoft.)
Microsoft publishes free viewers for PowerPoint and Excel files. There's no mention in the advisory of whether these are vulnerable or not. Are the viewers safe?
Again, you apparently know nothing of my opinions or of my work. I have written and released quite a lot of software which is "open source," and which in fact is TRULY free and not GPLed. (GPLed software is not open source.)
Before you become yet another member of the "Slashdot sheep," learn whereof you speak.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
Programmers and musicians deserve to eat. They should act in their own financial self interests and protect their rights. What is truly amazing is the attitude of some people here on Slashdot, who seem to believe that they should be able to appropriate creative people's work without ever having to pay for it. Yes, the DMCA is bad; however, so is theft of intellectual property.
As for using YMMV as a trademark for my publication: Why not? It is absolutely no different from having a publication called "Time," "Life," or "People." Apparently you are unfamiliar with what trademarks are about.
--Brett
If you enjoy distributing software under unconscionable terms and the government -- by setting things right -- deprives you of that enjoyment, then, well, what can I say? You'll have to get your enjoyment another way. I'd recommend the Apache, MIT, or BSD license.
--Brett
I posted because there are a lot of newbies on Slashdot who might not know Brett and his history.
And you couldn't possibly stand to allow them to think for themselves and form their own opinions, could you now....
A number of the other panelists did not feel he belonged there, and although the SV folks admitted they screwed up by inviting him, and were quite chagrined about it, their own policies did not let them uninvite him.
A blatant falsehood. The SV.COM folks invited me because they knew I was knowledgeable about the subject matter, and did not at all regret doing so (they thanked me, during and after the event, for bringing up the points I did). They were a bit concerned when Richard Stallman attempted to "censor" me by threatening to withdraw if I participated. But eventually, they recognized Richard's immature behavior as what it was: an attempt to silence someone who, he knew, would articulate an opposing viewpoint. The SV.COM people stuck to their guns and did not uninvite me. The result: Richard stomped off in a huff and did not participate. Apparently, he could not tolerate either dissent or a forum whose coordinators did not treat him like a deity and indulge his every whim.
Yes, I think that taking public software private is a selfish act.
Again, Bruce, the same misleading propaganda. When one uses publicly available software in one's own work, one does not "take it private;" the original version is still available. Only the new work which is added is kept private. And it's the author's right to do that -- and also his only feasible way of making money. (Selling support for GPLed software doesn't work, as has been shown by the many failed companies that attempted to use this bogus business model.)
As for "selfish acts:" What is most selfish is destroying others to indulge yourself. Which is what you're doing by promoting the GPL.
The BSD license is not about freedom. It's about one party giving a gift, and the other party taking it.
Again, bogus rhetoric. The BSD license confers true freedom, and only where this freedom exists can there truly be giving. The GPL does not. The "giving" forced by the GPL is not "giving" at all, because it is compulsory. It does not leave one free to give or not give. The GPL claims to be about freedom, but is actually intended to destroy programmers' livelihoods and companies. And it has done quite well as this. Andy Hertzfeld's company is already gone, and Larry Augustin's and Ransom Love's are on the ropes. Red Hat will follow. As for HP: You're gnawing at it from the inside, Bruce, attempting to turn it into another VA. I certainly hope you do not succeed.
--Brett Glass
Brett, just for the record, if I write a piece of software and distribute it under the GPL,
1.Do you think I'm acting unethically?
2.Do you think it should be illegal for me to do so?
1. You may or may not be acting unethically. If you use the GPL with full knowledge and approval of the destructive effects it will have upon others, then -- yes -- you are acting unethically. You are knowingly and willingly hurting people who have done no harm. This is fundamentally unethical according to any code of ethics.
Many people, however, stamp the GPL on their code because they believe that it is "the" license for open source (even though it is not an open source license at all, as even the FSF agrees). Or because they were swayed by the misleading rhetoric in the GPL's "preamble" or on the FSF's Web site. Or because the boss said they had to. Or because, for one reason or another, they have no choice in a specific situation but to work with GPLed code. (This last is becoming a more and more common occurrence now that the GPL is extinguishing alternatives.) These people are not acting unethically. However, they should be informed of the effects of their actions and should endeavor to avoid the GPL.
2. The law does not make it illegal to proffer a contract with unconscionable terms (which is what the GPL does). Nor, IMHO, would it be a good idea to make that illegal. The way courts and legislation deal with such contracts is to declare them to be unenforceable. This is, IMHO, what should be done in the case of the GPL. The clauses that cause it to be "viral," and which compel authors to give away their work without compensation, should be ruled by a court to be unenforceable. There are many sound arguments, based on current contract and copyright law, for this.
--Brett
--Brett Glass
Naah. The entire post is all about your beliefs,
Not so, Bruce. Your attack above contains beliefs which you would like to attribute to me so as to slander me, but does not at all reflect my views.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
As for Linux dominating the *NIX world? Perish the thought. We do not need a monoculture; that's one of the biggest problems with Windows.
--Brett Glass
The day comes and goes, and the world does not end.
What's amazing is what often happens next. If the cult is not a suicide cult, its members nearly always regroup and reset the deadline for a later date. (The Jehovah's Witnesses did this twice before they deciding to abandon the idea of a fixed "doomsday." They now preach, in much more vague terms, that a doomsday is coming but do not attempt to specify the date; in fact, they even deleted all references to specific dates from their writings and their logo.)
Faith so completely triumphs over reality and common sense that the failure of the first prediction does not hurt the cultists' faith in the next one.
What does all of this have to do with the above examples? Plenty. It appears that many people -- including VA Linux's Larry Augustin, Caldera's Ransom Love, and Cygnus/Red Hat's Michael Tiemann -- all are so blinded by the rhetoric of the GPL that they fail to recognize that it does not allow a viable business strategy. (In fact, it was never intended to; it was created by Richard Stallman with the express intent of preventing software businesses from being viable.) So long as these people pass one doomsday after another, without realizing that they must re-evaluate the beliefs they hold in light of new evidence, they will likely fail themselves. There is a possible balance between releasing source code, stimulating collaborative effort, and making money -- but it does not lie at the extremes dictated by the GPL or the FSF. It lies, rather, in the enlightened self interest of a more moderate, fair, and pragmatic licensing regime such as that adopted by the Apache Project and the collaboratively developed BSDs. While the GPL is bankrupting Caldera, the BSD license created the Internet and is ensuring the long term survival of Apple. There is a lesson here that the "faithful," if they are willing to wake up, can learn.
--Brett Glass
An assembly language OS takes a lot of resources to debug and develop. It's a shame, therefore, that it is licensed under the GPL, because it will not be as likely to see commercial investment. Because companies will not be able to sell value-added versions of the product before contributing the code back to the project, they will be less likely to develop for it and more likely to use software that's licensed in a more business-friendly way, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, and PicoBSD. The author should reconsider licensing the software under the GPL and move to a license which is truly free and is open source. (The GPL, as stated by the FSF, is not.)
The BSD TCP/IP stack, whose development was funded by DARPA, is a good example. It led directly to the development of the Internet -- including Slashdot. If companies had been prevented from incorporating that network stack into their own products (and they would have, if the software had been GPLed), we simply would not have had an Internet today. Likewise, we would not have a World Wide Web were it not for truly free software such as NCSA Mosaic.
GPLed software is -- as the FSF itself says -- not open source. And it violates the Open Source Definition, since it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and a field of endeavor (the creation of commercial software). It is also viral. For these reasons, it is important that those approaching Congressman Boucher advocate truly free software (such as Apache) and not GPLed software. Otherwise, government money will be paying for software which is licensed in an un-free and discriminatory manner, and this would not be good.
Brett Glass
HP doesn't need to enslave itself further to Microsoft by merging with a company over which Microsoft has life-or-death control. Nor should it do what VA Linux has done. VA's deadly embrace of the GPL and GPLed software has done it tremendous harm by making it impossible for the company to be profitable. If HP is silly enough to let you talk them into going down the same road, all that will be left is the business of selling Windows machines... which Microsoft will control. You will have fed both companies to the monster.
HP-Compaq merger should set off antitrust alarms
By Mike Langberg, Mercury News
Hewlett-Packard should not be allowed to acquire Compaq Computer, not if the concept of antitrust law still has any meaning.
There will be much talk this week about the declining health of the personal computer industry, global strategy in the information services business and the clout of such rivals as IBM and Dell.
None of that matters.
Antitrust law exists to protect ordinary consumers -- you and me -- from actions that would damage competition in the marketplace.
Many of us ordinary consumers buy PCs in retail stores. Compaq and HP together control about two-thirds of PCs sold at retail in the United States.
There is no powerful third competitor, just a few also-rans that include eMachines and Sony.
Dell and Gateway, the other major providers of desktop PCs to consumers, don't offer their products for sale in stores.
To prove my point, I grabbed Sunday's Mercury News from the recycling bin and pulled out the advertising inserts for five national retail chains that are major PC vendors: Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Office Depot and Staples.
The five inserts carried ads for 25 different desktop PC systems: 11 from HP, eight from Compaq, four from eMachines and two from Sony.
In other words, 76 percent of the advertised desktop PCs came from the company that will perhaps be called Hewlett-ComPaqkard.
There is no amount of public-relations spin that will overcome my gut-level reaction here: Such an extreme level of market concentration can't be good for PC buyers....
Full text at:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/hottopics/hp/ml0 90401.htm
A merger would also give Microsoft and Intel greatly increased control via the combined company. The PC business would be such a large portion of the merged corporation that it would have to dance to the tune of the two existing monopolists. (It's already a struggle to put anything but Windows on an HP or Compaq machine.) In all, the merger would be so bad for consumers that it should not be approved. Of course, with Dubya in the White House, it might happen.... Compaq is a Texas firm and Bush and Cheney are -- ostentatiously -- the puppets of corporations (the bigger the better). But hopefully the light is still on over at the DoJ and FTC....
None. In every case on record, the GPLed version has undermined the commercial success of versions licensed any other way. Hans Reiser, Peter Deutsch... the list of people who have attempted this and failed to sell commercial licenses is quite long. It's sad, but it's reality: the effect of the GPL is to destroy commercial opportunities in the markets it enters.
At this time, when companies such as VA Linux and Caldera are retreating from the GPL because it makes it impossible for them to be profitable, the SPL is a move in the wrong direction. We must shift the balance so that companies which create open source software can survive -- not so as to disadvantage them more. We must opt for more freedom -- as is provided by the Apache and MIT X licenses -- rather than less. When we see that businesses that sell products based on collaboratively developed code for which source is available are surviving and thriving, we will know that the balance is right. This hasn't been the case with the GPL, and certainly could not be with a license such as the SPL.
--Brett Glass
I don't disagree. GCC also poses another threat: it is wiping out virtually all alternatives. A monoculture is not a good thing, and so for this reason alone a BSD-licensed alternative should be developed.
What should the BSDs do to avoid becoming dependent upon software which is licensed in a way that is contrary to their underlying philosophy -- to wit, that free software should be truly free for anyone to use in the way that benefits him or her most?
Brett Glass
In all of this, it pays to bear in mind that the GPL was originally created by Richard Stallman as a way of destroying companies such as Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. -- two companies which tried to build specialized hardware that was differentiated by uniquely powerful software. Just like VA. By embracing the GPL, VA Linux unwittingly clasped the serpent that was designed to hurt these two companies to its own breast. By backing away from the GPL and moving toward a win-win strategy that combines the advantages of open source and commercial software, VA can embark upon a sustainable business model.
--Brett Glass
Yes, there are snags -- and tricks to getting around them -- but in almost all cases it's possible to set up high quality network connections throughout a community. LARIAT, the group mentioned in the article, connects schools, community organizations, families, and individuals as well as for for-profit businesses.
At the moment, LARIAT is organized as a 501(c)(12) non-profit mutual benefit society.
Note the words "mutual benefit." This means that while it is non-profit, the group is not a charity. It's motivated by enlightened self interest. By pooling their money and putting their heads together, all members of the group (and the group is only allowed to do things which are in its members' interests) are able to get things which would be unobtainable or prohibitively expensive otherwise.
Some of LARIAT's members are non-profits, such as schools and community organizations. (We're glad to offer them an economical way to get onto the Net in a city where good net access is expensive if you go it alone.) Others are for-profit businesses. (We've had some real success stories in which small businesses grew and blossomed when we got them on the Net.) Other members are simply families and individuals who find it beneficial to participate in a users' group and community Internet. Anyone in the community is welcome.
It's important to remember that a community network does not have to be a non-profit. In fact, there are advantages to making it "not-for-profit" or even for-profit. No one can hold a personal stake in a non-profit, and non-profits generally cannot borrow money from a bank (though they occasionally get government loans). So, it's much harder for a non-profit group to get capital to deploy equipment. If you're not a non-profit, you can have investors -- particularly local businesses -- who are willing to accept a low rate of return or even no on their investments,knowing that their businesses will benefit greatly from good connectivity.
So, being a non-profit isn't a necessary condition. It's just the way we've set things up for now. In fact, our Board has considered that it might one day best serve the members' interests (again, the group can only do what's best for its members!) if the group relinquished its non-profit status and became a "private club." If we decide to do a big wireless build-out that requires lots of capital equipment, this will probably happen.
--Brett Glass