- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Cheapening Linux
As I go through our submissions each morning, I see proprietary companies attempting to ride the wave of open source. The sheer volume of press releases annoys me. These companies have not embraced or understand the notion of free software in the sense of open code, communities of interest , support , stability and security. Open codeA significant volume of press releases and articles speak of open code. Let's take Open Exchange's open source concept. Here's their idea of open code: In other words, you can obtain the packages they use from the free software community. However, the things that make the product really work are not "open". I see this sort of thing continuously in other products. The companies have utilized components such as Apache, OpenLDAP, proFTP, Tomcat, PostgreSQL, Postfix and Cyrus IMAP. They write proprietary components so you can't utilize them without buying the product. Communities of InterestWhen some people talk about communities of interest, they refer to the communities that support free software products like those noted above. Developers and project members participate in those efforts as contributors. If a company wants to support developers by offering staff members, they do not restrict the project.The open source pretenders see free software they can use to cut down their costs of research and development. They rarely contribute back. I understand this problem as well as anyone. I struggled with people internally at a company I started that held a pretender philosophy. Internal people had invested money in the company and had fears that other companies would use the code developed in-house. They did not read or understand the GPL. Support , stability and securityProprietary companies have few eyes looking at their code. If they do not make it open how can a community of interest develop? So, such companies want the help of free software developers only to throw them a bone.Other companies have submitted press releases to LXer saying they support Linux, Macintosh and Windows. They do not open their product code at all. How can I tell if the product has proper community support, stability and security. I know of one company, for example that claims open source status and yet has a vulnerability they have not disclosed. If such disclosure became common knowledge, the company in question would have to fix the product. Unfortunately, they do not know how to fix the product. Get Rid of the Open Source LabelMany analysts and commentators feel that GNU/Linux would have emerged without the terminology of open source. The founders of the Open Source Initiative just decided one day to form their initiative. They had no authority to do so except themselves.Now companies like Sun, who has released many products into the free software community, have relied on OSI to say their CDDL license fits the definition of open source. The spirit exists but the communities are at odds. Would you rather have a company like Sun opening their code or some startup pretending to have the community's welfare at heart? While I have concerns about the Solaris10 project, it fits more of the criteria of free software than others. Without the open source label, perhaps OpenSolaris would have used a GPL license instead. The public would not have confusion over the issues. The OSS LabelI find the OSS label annoying. While popular with the press today, that same press heckled the notion not long ago. Now, they say people have rushed to the trend toward open source software . Maybe people have rushed to the trend of throwing people a bone or two. That's not what advocates had in mind.Surely people will take this article and label it a rant by a fanatic with a vendetta. Unfortunately such critics do not understand some of the English language. They do not know the difference between someone marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea and an advocate of an idea. An advocate appeals or requests earnestly for a cause or offers something for discussion or consideration. If all writers decided to stop writing until they were certain they wouldn't offend everyone, then writers would stop writing. Maybe that's a good thing. Criticism welcome. |
|
Comments (27)
I'm missing the old voting system...
Then comment - that is: vote with your comments, say why you liked of disliked the content. The votes were impossible to interpret, because there were many times no explanation. Moreover, the some times the same person seemed to show no consistency in their votes.
I like this article, because it expresses the same views I have held for quite some time. Moreover, I think they are valid views well expressed.
In another thread I too expressed my view that I could not even discern what Open Source was supposed to mean.
I like this article, because it expresses the same views I have held for quite some time. Moreover, I think they are valid views well expressed.
In another thread I too expressed my view that I could not even discern what Open Source was supposed to mean.
Why I think the OSS licenses are more relevant than the GPL
2 earlier comments in the full thread.
Point well taken Grouch,
I would like to clarify, I do not think that GPL and/or Stallman are explicitly Marxists, remember I am still trying to figure it out.
And let us look at a few of these companies, I will only talk about what I know.
Let's look at Redhat, I believe that businesswise Redhat is the best thing that ever happened to Open Source, yet I would not consider them a provider of free software. Even though they talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software. I regularly see distributions declaring proudly that they are a derivative of Debian, yet Centos on their website has to make an oblique reference to Redhat as "a prominent North American Distribution" I think this is wrong, however it shows that Redhat believe that some form of restriction is necessary to keep it profitable, legally it is not a violation of the GPL but in spirit it is. As far as I am concerned the only free distributions are Debian,Slackware and Gentoo ( no.. I did not leave out Ubuntu, I consider this distribution the unruly son of Debian who is going force his parents to upgrade their wardrobe).
IBM, how much more money did they make selling Windows ? Is Linux their way of getting out from under the thumb of Microsoft and therefore is the fact that linux is GPL, only incidental and they can live with it (for now)? If I did not know better I would think that IBM invented the word patent.
Mysql is dual licensed , why the need if the GPL is so great.
The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine.
Note you said " ...after examining the GPL and finding it very suitable to them." I fully agree with you on that one, but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it. I say "when" because I get the impression that the true GPL supporters want this.
These companies do not use open source software because of the GPL, they use it because it is open source ( yes ,this is only my opinion). These companies are going to make sure and protect whatever they believe gives them competitive advantage.
The trend I see is that the big companies only make something open source when it is failing. No problem there, I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems, and Sun chose to use their own license.
My basic premise is that the philosophy of Mr.Richard Stallman is flawed,and if and when he can plug all the loopholes that allow companies to use GPL software for IT related business, that is not totally transparent and "free", that will be the end of the GPL.
I would like to clarify, I do not think that GPL and/or Stallman are explicitly Marxists, remember I am still trying to figure it out.
And let us look at a few of these companies, I will only talk about what I know.
Let's look at Redhat, I believe that businesswise Redhat is the best thing that ever happened to Open Source, yet I would not consider them a provider of free software. Even though they talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software. I regularly see distributions declaring proudly that they are a derivative of Debian, yet Centos on their website has to make an oblique reference to Redhat as "a prominent North American Distribution" I think this is wrong, however it shows that Redhat believe that some form of restriction is necessary to keep it profitable, legally it is not a violation of the GPL but in spirit it is. As far as I am concerned the only free distributions are Debian,Slackware and Gentoo ( no.. I did not leave out Ubuntu, I consider this distribution the unruly son of Debian who is going force his parents to upgrade their wardrobe).
IBM, how much more money did they make selling Windows ? Is Linux their way of getting out from under the thumb of Microsoft and therefore is the fact that linux is GPL, only incidental and they can live with it (for now)? If I did not know better I would think that IBM invented the word patent.
Mysql is dual licensed , why the need if the GPL is so great.
The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine.
Note you said " ...after examining the GPL and finding it very suitable to them." I fully agree with you on that one, but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it. I say "when" because I get the impression that the true GPL supporters want this.
These companies do not use open source software because of the GPL, they use it because it is open source ( yes ,this is only my opinion). These companies are going to make sure and protect whatever they believe gives them competitive advantage.
The trend I see is that the big companies only make something open source when it is failing. No problem there, I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems, and Sun chose to use their own license.
My basic premise is that the philosophy of Mr.Richard Stallman is flawed,and if and when he can plug all the loopholes that allow companies to use GPL software for IT related business, that is not totally transparent and "free", that will be the end of the GPL.
And Grouch,
Would I be correct in saying that the great majority of companies you listed depend on closed source software and/or patents for their bread and butter?
Would I be correct in saying that the great majority of companies you listed depend on closed source software and/or patents for their bread and butter?
jboyd: I read your comment. I'd retort but I haven't got the motivation to correct such a huge misunderstanding of the subject. You haven't got your hands around the issues at all. Sorry. Keep trying.
tadelste,
I am disappointed, If you reread my first paragraph, I indicated that I am trying to understand, hence my post, I know that this is a touchy subject yet I opened myself up. With the hope that eventually I would be able to concretize my impressions and change them if need be . So be it .I would have expected that this would be the sort of forum for this. I guess this is your version of RTFM.
Best regards.
I am disappointed, If you reread my first paragraph, I indicated that I am trying to understand, hence my post, I know that this is a touchy subject yet I opened myself up. With the hope that eventually I would be able to concretize my impressions and change them if need be . So be it .I would have expected that this would be the sort of forum for this. I guess this is your version of RTFM.
Best regards.
jboyd: If you would ask questions instead of making assertions, it would be easier for me and others to support you. I'd also suggest chunking the questions into multiple posts.
I also feel disappointed. Your post looked like an onslaught to me.
The article itself attempted to deal with the flotsum and jetsum that comes across our editors' desks each day. So, which issue would you like to discuss first?
I also feel disappointed. Your post looked like an onslaught to me.
The article itself attempted to deal with the flotsum and jetsum that comes across our editors' desks each day. So, which issue would you like to discuss first?
Fair enough, I do apologise.
And I will take your suggestion of chunking the question into multiple posts.
My first issue is the definition of open source. When I think open source, I think only that, the source is open,nothing else. I do not ascribe any concept of freeness, desire for community building or anything else of the sort to it. Therefore if open-exchange decides to give a piece of software under the GPL, it means that they feel that it is good for their business, fine with me, the source code, don't matter what the attendent license, once it is out in the open, it is open source.
Alternatively if they feel that they need to keep certain tools proprietary to stay in business, that is fine with me also.I feel that every software company should have that right, without having to have whatever open source contribution they make, be depreciated.
Whoa boy ... I am having great difficulty pressing that send button.
Whoops there I go making assertions again, give me time I will eventually find a way around that.
And I will take your suggestion of chunking the question into multiple posts.
My first issue is the definition of open source. When I think open source, I think only that, the source is open,nothing else. I do not ascribe any concept of freeness, desire for community building or anything else of the sort to it. Therefore if open-exchange decides to give a piece of software under the GPL, it means that they feel that it is good for their business, fine with me, the source code, don't matter what the attendent license, once it is out in the open, it is open source.
Alternatively if they feel that they need to keep certain tools proprietary to stay in business, that is fine with me also.I feel that every software company should have that right, without having to have whatever open source contribution they make, be depreciated.
Whoa boy ... I am having great difficulty pressing that send button.
Whoops there I go making assertions again, give me time I will eventually find a way around that.
A definition with explanations of open source exists: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
You suggest that "the source is open, nothing else". However, that's not what they definition says. It deals with all kinds of issues such as distribution and redistribution, license specific to products, derived works, etc. Unfortunately, people claim that they product is open source and it is not. It doesn't comply with the definition.
My issue deals with branding. You can say you have an open source software product and keep the code from being distributed. That's not open source but the people use the brand.
JBoss is a good example of a company that says they are a Professional Open Source company. They trademarked that term. But the main product is LGPL - totally free in every sense of the word.
I had a serious problem with Open Exchange because they don't contribute back. They say, "here's our open source components which we took from the community but you can't have our installer and admin panel."
I don't consider them open source based on the definition. Not only that, they combine software under the GPL and similar licenses with proprietary stuff. That's provides no value add to me or you. I can show you the document that tells you how to put those components together.
http://www.ibiblio.org/oswg/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_US.ISO_8859...
Mead and Johnson put it together. So, they took the components and the software combined it with their wrapper and that's it. They don't get my vote. Something seems odd about that.
If you could see the flotsom and jetsom that comes across our editors' desks every day, you might understand the annoyance. People say open source this and that but they are not open source. They use free software in their products. For example, Microsoft used the BSD code for TCP/IP. Does that make them open source? Rhetorical question - I know.
So, the problem I had in the first place and to which I addressed the article is how Linux, the trend setter is cheapened by the so-called open source companies.
You suggest that "the source is open, nothing else". However, that's not what they definition says. It deals with all kinds of issues such as distribution and redistribution, license specific to products, derived works, etc. Unfortunately, people claim that they product is open source and it is not. It doesn't comply with the definition.
My issue deals with branding. You can say you have an open source software product and keep the code from being distributed. That's not open source but the people use the brand.
JBoss is a good example of a company that says they are a Professional Open Source company. They trademarked that term. But the main product is LGPL - totally free in every sense of the word.
I had a serious problem with Open Exchange because they don't contribute back. They say, "here's our open source components which we took from the community but you can't have our installer and admin panel."
I don't consider them open source based on the definition. Not only that, they combine software under the GPL and similar licenses with proprietary stuff. That's provides no value add to me or you. I can show you the document that tells you how to put those components together.
http://www.ibiblio.org/oswg/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_US.ISO_8859...
Mead and Johnson put it together. So, they took the components and the software combined it with their wrapper and that's it. They don't get my vote. Something seems odd about that.
If you could see the flotsom and jetsom that comes across our editors' desks every day, you might understand the annoyance. People say open source this and that but they are not open source. They use free software in their products. For example, Microsoft used the BSD code for TCP/IP. Does that make them open source? Rhetorical question - I know.
So, the problem I had in the first place and to which I addressed the article is how Linux, the trend setter is cheapened by the so-called open source companies.
Ahh,
I see from just the introduction on the first hyperlink that my concept of open source is wrong, I stand corrected.
On the way down to point 9 on the same page:
" 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed."
I am looking at the first three lines, can Open-Exchange seek refuge under this clause, alternatively do you view their removal of their admin tools to violate the spirit of the last three lines. That is, important parts necessary to the proper use of the program they kept for themself, and they can always claim it (the tools) are not an integral part of the software , to work their way out of the GPL requirements.
PS I have seen other posters get a red background on their pasted stuff, how do I do that?
I see from just the introduction on the first hyperlink that my concept of open source is wrong, I stand corrected.
On the way down to point 9 on the same page:
" 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.
Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed."
I am looking at the first three lines, can Open-Exchange seek refuge under this clause, alternatively do you view their removal of their admin tools to violate the spirit of the last three lines. That is, important parts necessary to the proper use of the program they kept for themself, and they can always claim it (the tools) are not an integral part of the software , to work their way out of the GPL requirements.
PS I have seen other posters get a red background on their pasted stuff, how do I do that?
jboyd:
Well, let me take a stab at some of your perception problems.
> What grinds the me the most is that the Free Software movement says it is morally and ethically wrong for someone to produce software under anything but the GPL .
This is incorrect. The FSF says that it is wrong to produce non-free software. They recognize a number of licenses, among them being the BSD license, as being free. Note that they make no effort to make it illegal to produce non-free software. They're not trying to ban the practice. They only say that it's wrong.
> While I have read many articles that rebut the view that GPL and Mr.Stallman are communist/Marxist ,I am not totally convinced,
Communism and Marxism are political theories. The GPL is about free software, not political structures. Since the FSF doesn't advocate using the law to force the use of free software or stop the use of non-free software, it can' t really be considered in political terms. Doing so is sort of like saying a potato makes a great projectile. Well, yes, it can, but that's not really the point of a potato, is it?
> The BSD license is the only license that guarantees true freedom.
From a user's perspective, there's almost no difference between the BSD license and the GPL, which is why the FSF considers the BSD license to be free. From a developer's perspective, there is a great deal of difference, and yes the BSD license is more free than the GPL. The question is, which license results in more free software being produced, the BSD license or the GPL? Remember that for the FSF, the goal is the production and use of free software. They think the GPL does a better job of promoting free software than the BSD license does. From what I've seen, I'd say they are correct, but the matter is not yet settled to everyone's satisfaction.
> Free software truely became accessible to the average man when Mr.Eric "Shoot the recruiter" Raymond and company formalised the concept of Open Source.
I believe that Eric himself will tell you that he considers Open Source and free software to be the same thing. Eric and company (correctly, as far as I can tell) realized that RMS and company's rhetoric was frightening off many businesses, and simply came up with a new way of talking about the subject which was not as frightening to the business community. This is a point you really need to understand: From a practical stand point, OSS and free software were and have largely continued to be the same thing. However, with some of the later Open Source licenses, this is no longer quite as true, and this is why it's important to clear up your misconceptions. What was originally merely a semantic difference has now developed into a slowly widening rift, and it's important to know on which side you belong.
> I believe that the more the GPL is modified to reflect Mr.Stallman's philosophy , the less developers and companies would use it.
RMS wants free software. The GPL is (to the extent it is humanly possible) the codified form of his vision of what free software should be. To the extent that other people want free software and share his vision of what free software is, the GPL will continue to be used. If other people decide that they do not share his vision of what free software is, or do not want free software, then the GPL will die.
> ...They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software.
Red Hat owns their trademark. It's not software, and is not covered by the GPL. The free software community has no claim on it. And yet White Box Linux and CentOS exist and are functional replacements for RHEL. The GPL worked as intended, and yet you see this as a problem. Can you see the disconnect here? I see it as a success.
> ... but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it.
From a free software perspective, the more important question is should they be using it at all? Is allowing the use of DRM to lock down programs and content an appropriate use of free software? That's what the community is trying to decide now. That's the type of thing the GPL3 process is all about.
> I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems...
Actually, IBM has done exactly that with large chunks of code. You can see the SCO complaint for a detailed listing of what they consider "misappropriated technology" which has found it's way into Linux. Groklaw is a good site for doing so: http://www.groklaw.net/
> The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine.
Well, that's sort of a tautology. Companies exist to make money for their owners. They're not interested in anything which "messes with the dollar machine".
What you seem to be overlooking, however, is that this is exactly why the GPL exists, and why free software folks prefer it to the BSD license. The GPL tells IBM and other companies: Sure you can use our software for your own benefit, but you have to share your improvements with everyone else. Without the GPL, there is no incentive for any company to do so, and numerous incentives for them not to do so. The hope is that the GPL creates a virtuous circle, where the software keeps getting better as more companies and people decide to use it, resulting in yet more companies and people using it, ad infinitum.
I hope this clarifies some of the points where I feel you're mistaken, and explains some of the points you seem to be missing. I don't expect it to convince you that free software is better than Open Source software, that's a decision everyone must make on their own over time. I'm just trying to help make your decision a more informed one. Hopefully I've succeeded, at least partially.
Well, let me take a stab at some of your perception problems.
> What grinds the me the most is that the Free Software movement says it is morally and ethically wrong for someone to produce software under anything but the GPL .
This is incorrect. The FSF says that it is wrong to produce non-free software. They recognize a number of licenses, among them being the BSD license, as being free. Note that they make no effort to make it illegal to produce non-free software. They're not trying to ban the practice. They only say that it's wrong.
> While I have read many articles that rebut the view that GPL and Mr.Stallman are communist/Marxist ,I am not totally convinced,
Communism and Marxism are political theories. The GPL is about free software, not political structures. Since the FSF doesn't advocate using the law to force the use of free software or stop the use of non-free software, it can' t really be considered in political terms. Doing so is sort of like saying a potato makes a great projectile. Well, yes, it can, but that's not really the point of a potato, is it?
> The BSD license is the only license that guarantees true freedom.
From a user's perspective, there's almost no difference between the BSD license and the GPL, which is why the FSF considers the BSD license to be free. From a developer's perspective, there is a great deal of difference, and yes the BSD license is more free than the GPL. The question is, which license results in more free software being produced, the BSD license or the GPL? Remember that for the FSF, the goal is the production and use of free software. They think the GPL does a better job of promoting free software than the BSD license does. From what I've seen, I'd say they are correct, but the matter is not yet settled to everyone's satisfaction.
> Free software truely became accessible to the average man when Mr.Eric "Shoot the recruiter" Raymond and company formalised the concept of Open Source.
I believe that Eric himself will tell you that he considers Open Source and free software to be the same thing. Eric and company (correctly, as far as I can tell) realized that RMS and company's rhetoric was frightening off many businesses, and simply came up with a new way of talking about the subject which was not as frightening to the business community. This is a point you really need to understand: From a practical stand point, OSS and free software were and have largely continued to be the same thing. However, with some of the later Open Source licenses, this is no longer quite as true, and this is why it's important to clear up your misconceptions. What was originally merely a semantic difference has now developed into a slowly widening rift, and it's important to know on which side you belong.
> I believe that the more the GPL is modified to reflect Mr.Stallman's philosophy , the less developers and companies would use it.
RMS wants free software. The GPL is (to the extent it is humanly possible) the codified form of his vision of what free software should be. To the extent that other people want free software and share his vision of what free software is, the GPL will continue to be used. If other people decide that they do not share his vision of what free software is, or do not want free software, then the GPL will die.
> ...They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software.
Red Hat owns their trademark. It's not software, and is not covered by the GPL. The free software community has no claim on it. And yet White Box Linux and CentOS exist and are functional replacements for RHEL. The GPL worked as intended, and yet you see this as a problem. Can you see the disconnect here? I see it as a success.
> ... but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it.
From a free software perspective, the more important question is should they be using it at all? Is allowing the use of DRM to lock down programs and content an appropriate use of free software? That's what the community is trying to decide now. That's the type of thing the GPL3 process is all about.
> I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems...
Actually, IBM has done exactly that with large chunks of code. You can see the SCO complaint for a detailed listing of what they consider "misappropriated technology" which has found it's way into Linux. Groklaw is a good site for doing so: http://www.groklaw.net/
> The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine.
Well, that's sort of a tautology. Companies exist to make money for their owners. They're not interested in anything which "messes with the dollar machine".
What you seem to be overlooking, however, is that this is exactly why the GPL exists, and why free software folks prefer it to the BSD license. The GPL tells IBM and other companies: Sure you can use our software for your own benefit, but you have to share your improvements with everyone else. Without the GPL, there is no incentive for any company to do so, and numerous incentives for them not to do so. The hope is that the GPL creates a virtuous circle, where the software keeps getting better as more companies and people decide to use it, resulting in yet more companies and people using it, ad infinitum.
I hope this clarifies some of the points where I feel you're mistaken, and explains some of the points you seem to be missing. I don't expect it to convince you that free software is better than Open Source software, that's a decision everyone must make on their own over time. I'm just trying to help make your decision a more informed one. Hopefully I've succeeded, at least partially.
Quoting:Open-Exchange seek refuge under this clause, alternatively do you view their removal of their admin tools to violate the spirit of the last three lines
That's only one item of complaince. Open Exchange isn't comppliant with other requirements. Look at item 2.The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost–preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge.
Jboyd: I would just add that Stallman's real platform is anti-greed. Using the GPL practically makes greediness a moot point. Greedy people aren't all that likely to choose it because it means allowing others to share. And, building on the point jdixon made about which license leads to the most free software, I would suggest that the U.S. Constitution includes a few restrictions in order to ensure the greatest amount of freedom for all. In that light, copyright exists to ensure a balance of rights between authors and audiences. Technically speaking, a EULA circumvents this balance, as does DRM.
Don: To build on your point, people continually put the blame on Richard for everything out of the FSF. He's a nomad continually traveling. He may have started the FSF but today some pretty bright people operate that foundation. Eben Moglen has as much or even more architectural influence on the Free Software movement. Lawrence Lessig is no slouch. A large brain trust exists and everyone has a say.
Stallman has never been anti-business. This is a typical misinformation attack by those who cannot stand the fact that the days of perpetually renting licenses for commodity software to customers they've trapped are dying.
Sorry to have fed the troll.
Sorry to have fed the troll.
Good morning to all,
You guys have certainly given me a lot of home work, your responses are well appreciated, I must admit that some of Stallman's antics have made somewhat biased against him, maybe unnecessarily so.
jdixon: thanks for taking the time to treat all the points I made, I understand now why Tom suggested I break things up in multiple posts : )
Please do understand, as jdixon rightfuly said "..and it's important to know on which side you belong" and this is what I am trying to do.
Yes you all have cleared up some of my thoughts , and have given me starting points to deal with other stuff that I may be at loggerheads with.
As long as you will allow me to , I would like to explore these things until I feel that I understand it all. For instance some time in the near future I would like bring up the issue of non-free software being wrong ( as in a moral judgement)
grouch: I use free software, I enjoy the community around the use of free software. And I plan in the very near future to make some kind of serious contribution back to the community . Hence the reason that this is necessary for me, maybe you have it totally figured out in your head, I do not. I apologise if I came across as a troll. And I guess until I have it totally figured out , I will come across at times as being an a$$ , at times ignorant, and when I am at my very best, totally hopeless : )
Time for me to start some reading, keep it coming.
best regards.
PS I am heading over to the open exchange site to judge for myself. I will get back to you on it.
You guys have certainly given me a lot of home work, your responses are well appreciated, I must admit that some of Stallman's antics have made somewhat biased against him, maybe unnecessarily so.
jdixon: thanks for taking the time to treat all the points I made, I understand now why Tom suggested I break things up in multiple posts : )
Please do understand, as jdixon rightfuly said "..and it's important to know on which side you belong" and this is what I am trying to do.
Yes you all have cleared up some of my thoughts , and have given me starting points to deal with other stuff that I may be at loggerheads with.
As long as you will allow me to , I would like to explore these things until I feel that I understand it all. For instance some time in the near future I would like bring up the issue of non-free software being wrong ( as in a moral judgement)
grouch: I use free software, I enjoy the community around the use of free software. And I plan in the very near future to make some kind of serious contribution back to the community . Hence the reason that this is necessary for me, maybe you have it totally figured out in your head, I do not. I apologise if I came across as a troll. And I guess until I have it totally figured out , I will come across at times as being an a$$ , at times ignorant, and when I am at my very best, totally hopeless : )
Time for me to start some reading, keep it coming.
best regards.
PS I am heading over to the open exchange site to judge for myself. I will get back to you on it.
jboyd,
Its much easier to understand the GPL from a conservative libertarian point of view. The GPL is about guaranteeing the ongoing rights of software users. The purpose is to ensure that the ability of users to access and manipulate the stuff that makes the software work (source code) is never jeopardized.
Kind of like Democracy, where the people are actually supposed to participate in the development and running of the government, not just be on the receiving end of solutions handed down from on high.
The fact that Free software's source code (That's 'Free' as in Free enterprise remember) is available for no-cost does have an interesting side effect. You are free to distribute the free software created by others. You can charge as much as you want. As an example, IBM's Websphere Application Developer's suite is based on free software but is rather costly.
So what is this side effect? Well, no matter what you charge for the end product, the source code is available for no-cost. This promotes competition. Some other people can repackage the same source you are charging too much for and under cut your prices. Yes GPL software is a promoter of that evil capitalist nuisance, Free Market Competition. This tends to have the side effect of turning software from a high cost item into a low cost commodity. Another one of those evil conservative economic trends, commoditization of goods due to increased competition in free markets.
This is why so many corporations prefer the OSS licenses. They can legally make a few small changes to other people's copyrighted works, close up those changes, and reduce the competition they face in the market place. Corporations can minimize their costs by using other people's copyrighted works, and maximize their profits while reducing the competitive forces they face.
The key to understanding the GPL is to picture it as a mechanism meant to guarantee the rights of the software user to access, manipulate, and re-distribute the source code.
If you think like a modern day Thomas Jefferson, it helps.
Its much easier to understand the GPL from a conservative libertarian point of view. The GPL is about guaranteeing the ongoing rights of software users. The purpose is to ensure that the ability of users to access and manipulate the stuff that makes the software work (source code) is never jeopardized.
Kind of like Democracy, where the people are actually supposed to participate in the development and running of the government, not just be on the receiving end of solutions handed down from on high.
The fact that Free software's source code (That's 'Free' as in Free enterprise remember) is available for no-cost does have an interesting side effect. You are free to distribute the free software created by others. You can charge as much as you want. As an example, IBM's Websphere Application Developer's suite is based on free software but is rather costly.
So what is this side effect? Well, no matter what you charge for the end product, the source code is available for no-cost. This promotes competition. Some other people can repackage the same source you are charging too much for and under cut your prices. Yes GPL software is a promoter of that evil capitalist nuisance, Free Market Competition. This tends to have the side effect of turning software from a high cost item into a low cost commodity. Another one of those evil conservative economic trends, commoditization of goods due to increased competition in free markets.
This is why so many corporations prefer the OSS licenses. They can legally make a few small changes to other people's copyrighted works, close up those changes, and reduce the competition they face in the market place. Corporations can minimize their costs by using other people's copyrighted works, and maximize their profits while reducing the competitive forces they face.
The key to understanding the GPL is to picture it as a mechanism meant to guarantee the rights of the software user to access, manipulate, and re-distribute the source code.
If you think like a modern day Thomas Jefferson, it helps.
Hello number6x,
I am still digesting what you wrote, and I like the angle you are taking.
I should point out though that I consider myself a Capitalist, and I consider Free Market Competition necessary for healthy living (as opposed to evil or a nuisance).
I am still digesting what you wrote, and I like the angle you are taking.
I should point out though that I consider myself a Capitalist, and I consider Free Market Competition necessary for healthy living (as opposed to evil or a nuisance).
jboyd: I do not think capitalism or communism have anything t do with the issues of OSS or Free Software. Also, I'm a little baffled by what you refer to as Stallman antics. He has a quirky personality, but like I said previously, he's one voice out of many.
The difference between capitalism and communism is not political.. Again, we're dealing with labels.
In economics, we look at Marx's argument as one related to ownership of the profits of an enterprise. The question comes down to this: Who owns the profit, labor or the people providing the means of production.
That argument came up during the National Football League contract talks. The NFL owners last week ratified a contract where 59.5% of revenues, not profits, went to the players association. That's the argument in a nutshell. No one mentioned communism or capitalism during these negotiations. Revenues equate to profits and I don't know the percentages.
What people call intellectual property is a hoax. I have contracts with publishers of my books and that's all that really matters. Ownership of a copyright means very little to me and I did a summer internship at the Library of Congress in the copyright division.
The original copyright law came about because George Washington wanted to protect map makers for their efforts for a period of time that they were printed and only until someone else came up with a more accurate map or not to exceed a few years. "Map makers".
The difference between capitalism and communism is not political.. Again, we're dealing with labels.
In economics, we look at Marx's argument as one related to ownership of the profits of an enterprise. The question comes down to this: Who owns the profit, labor or the people providing the means of production.
That argument came up during the National Football League contract talks. The NFL owners last week ratified a contract where 59.5% of revenues, not profits, went to the players association. That's the argument in a nutshell. No one mentioned communism or capitalism during these negotiations. Revenues equate to profits and I don't know the percentages.
What people call intellectual property is a hoax. I have contracts with publishers of my books and that's all that really matters. Ownership of a copyright means very little to me and I did a summer internship at the Library of Congress in the copyright division.
The original copyright law came about because George Washington wanted to protect map makers for their efforts for a period of time that they were printed and only until someone else came up with a more accurate map or not to exceed a few years. "Map makers".
jboyd,
My comments about the 'evils' of capitalism are sarcasm. I should have added a smiley
:)
This is because I'm fed up with the constant "Linux is communist" kind of FUD. The reasons for the start of the free software movement have little to do with economics. They have everything to do with guaranteeing the rights of the users of software. Those rights include the right to have access to the code, the right to change the code, and the right to redistribute the code.
The creators of the GPL also want to guarantee these rights to later generations of the code. This is why the GPL requires that derivative works also stay GPL'ed.
Some people believe other open source licenses are freer because they allow you to do more varied things with later generations of the code than the GPL does. Apple can take a version of Mach/BSD, add proprietary code to it and close the whole thing up. This is more freedom for Apple, but not more freedom for the users of OS/X.
The GPL is about guaranteeing the rights of the users to code now and in the future. You have to look at it as an effort to guarantee the continuing rights of the users.
I guess the most 'free' way to do things would be to put them in the public domain, but this would not guarantee access to users of future generations of derivative code. Public domain code can be altered and locked up.
The point of the GPL is to ensure access to current code and its derivatives. This may or may not be the best license for a work you create. You have to look at what you want to achieve. A BSD or MIT License will allow others to use your code. A GPL license will allow others to use your code, and derivatives of your code.
They are all open source, and all good choices. Don't get religious about it, that just adds to the FUD.
Oh, and Let Freedom Ring.
My comments about the 'evils' of capitalism are sarcasm. I should have added a smiley
:)
This is because I'm fed up with the constant "Linux is communist" kind of FUD. The reasons for the start of the free software movement have little to do with economics. They have everything to do with guaranteeing the rights of the users of software. Those rights include the right to have access to the code, the right to change the code, and the right to redistribute the code.
The creators of the GPL also want to guarantee these rights to later generations of the code. This is why the GPL requires that derivative works also stay GPL'ed.
Some people believe other open source licenses are freer because they allow you to do more varied things with later generations of the code than the GPL does. Apple can take a version of Mach/BSD, add proprietary code to it and close the whole thing up. This is more freedom for Apple, but not more freedom for the users of OS/X.
The GPL is about guaranteeing the rights of the users to code now and in the future. You have to look at it as an effort to guarantee the continuing rights of the users.
I guess the most 'free' way to do things would be to put them in the public domain, but this would not guarantee access to users of future generations of derivative code. Public domain code can be altered and locked up.
The point of the GPL is to ensure access to current code and its derivatives. This may or may not be the best license for a work you create. You have to look at what you want to achieve. A BSD or MIT License will allow others to use your code. A GPL license will allow others to use your code, and derivatives of your code.
They are all open source, and all good choices. Don't get religious about it, that just adds to the FUD.
Oh, and Let Freedom Ring.
And one important issue about the, "guaranteeing the rights of the users to code now and in the future", by making sure no one can hide how something works, you make sure everyone can always use or duplicate it. This is one of the big reasons why some people consider it a moral issue. All you have to do is look at Microsoft Word to see what happens when this "isn't" the way things work. A document from Word 1.0 **will not** load 100% correctly in 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc., they don't load 100% correctly in any clones or translators people have made, etc. This means that any document made a few years ago, unless you reproduce them some other way, like retyping them, cannot be recovered perfectly, even the same product of the same company that you produced the original document on. Then you get situations like Dr. DOS, where the company owning the original can alter it, or their software, in a way that disables the ability to to use the competing product. MS does this with damn near everything at some point, even adding features that are implimentable within and existing protocol, and instead adding secondary protocols or non-standard changes to the existing one, which don't just add information, but efectively prevent any non-MS (or the original) protocol from working with the modified version. Etc, etc. While MS is the king of this kind of BS, they are not the only ones that do it.
For a regular user, this kind of lock-in, lock-out or, "Oops! You mean you can't access your files anymore? Too bad!", type of business is usually only very annoying and time wasting. For a company, it can cost millions. It would be the equivalent of the US mint suddenly reprinting every single denomination of currency, then telling everyone they only had one day to trade the all of the old versions in, after which "no" bank in the country will be allowed to honor the value of the bills. They would have to be insane to pull that, but companies have done, and continue to do, that sort of thing all the time, because they *can* do so, under a non-free license.
For a regular user, this kind of lock-in, lock-out or, "Oops! You mean you can't access your files anymore? Too bad!", type of business is usually only very annoying and time wasting. For a company, it can cost millions. It would be the equivalent of the US mint suddenly reprinting every single denomination of currency, then telling everyone they only had one day to trade the all of the old versions in, after which "no" bank in the country will be allowed to honor the value of the bills. They would have to be insane to pull that, but companies have done, and continue to do, that sort of thing all the time, because they *can* do so, under a non-free license.
Hello Kagehi,
I am in full agreement that it is highly unethical for any person or company to hold a persons private property ( in this case information) as hostage.
However can you not get around this by making sure that your software can generate standardised formats eg. ODF for documents, DXF for technical drawings etc. ( I am not sure if DXF is considered a standard, I just brought it up because it seems nearly all cad programs seem to be able to read it.
If so, would it be fair to say it did not matter if you use a proprietary or free software product , once it can generate these formats ? And would a person not also get this benefit if he used any number of OSS labels or are you saying that only the GPL guarantees this.
Remember I originally started arguing for the relevance of OSS labels over just the GPL. Admittedly I did not do a good job of it (understatement) and I may have put my foot so far down my mouth my tail pipe is growing toes :)
Overall though,I understand and agree with what you are saying, a proprietary program leaves room for the software writer/vender to be unethical ( hold your info as hostage) whereas free software does not leave room for this abuse . In fact whether or not there are standardised formats you always have the means to access you data.
I am in full agreement that it is highly unethical for any person or company to hold a persons private property ( in this case information) as hostage.
However can you not get around this by making sure that your software can generate standardised formats eg. ODF for documents, DXF for technical drawings etc. ( I am not sure if DXF is considered a standard, I just brought it up because it seems nearly all cad programs seem to be able to read it.
If so, would it be fair to say it did not matter if you use a proprietary or free software product , once it can generate these formats ? And would a person not also get this benefit if he used any number of OSS labels or are you saying that only the GPL guarantees this.
Remember I originally started arguing for the relevance of OSS labels over just the GPL. Admittedly I did not do a good job of it (understatement) and I may have put my foot so far down my mouth my tail pipe is growing toes :)
Overall though,I understand and agree with what you are saying, a proprietary program leaves room for the software writer/vender to be unethical ( hold your info as hostage) whereas free software does not leave room for this abuse . In fact whether or not there are standardised formats you always have the means to access you data.
nobody imitates failure
Tom:
"Open source" has become a part of the language. In spite of all attempts by the other side to ridicule it, the process of collaboratively producing software in the open has proven itself to be superior.
Taunts, such as "open sores", have simply been absorbed, adopted and owned while the coding and testing and advances continued. As it became obvious that the juggernaut really was headed for world domination, naturally there would be some who would hitch a ride without assisting or even caring to assist. They have not taken the time to understand the difference between non-free, custom coding and proprietary software for distribution. They think renting black boxes is good for them and tying those black boxes to something open will make them easier to rent, i.e., "open" is perceived by the general software-renting public as superior.
There are indicators of how much the term is respected. Note Microsoft's recent attempt to blur the lines and hitch a free ride with "Office Open" to combat OpenOffice.org. While searching for news about schools using Linux, I also tried "open-source schools" and came up with a story about "Iraqi insurgents": http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/essay-security.htm
"But their single most important asset is their organizational structure, an open-source community network very similar to what we now see in the software industry. It is an extremely innovative structure, sadly, and results in decision-making cycles much shorter than those of the U.S. military."
It certainly looks to me like the writer was trying to convey a sense of formidable power, using a term that would be widely recognized as associated with such power.
It hasn't been that long ago when people thought Microsoft was the juggernaut. Why aren't those "open source pretenders" you wrote about calling themselves "WinXchange"? Do they see the cracks in the MS fortress?
Nobody imitates failure.
"Open source" has become a part of the language. In spite of all attempts by the other side to ridicule it, the process of collaboratively producing software in the open has proven itself to be superior.
Taunts, such as "open sores", have simply been absorbed, adopted and owned while the coding and testing and advances continued. As it became obvious that the juggernaut really was headed for world domination, naturally there would be some who would hitch a ride without assisting or even caring to assist. They have not taken the time to understand the difference between non-free, custom coding and proprietary software for distribution. They think renting black boxes is good for them and tying those black boxes to something open will make them easier to rent, i.e., "open" is perceived by the general software-renting public as superior.
There are indicators of how much the term is respected. Note Microsoft's recent attempt to blur the lines and hitch a free ride with "Office Open" to combat OpenOffice.org. While searching for news about schools using Linux, I also tried "open-source schools" and came up with a story about "Iraqi insurgents": http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/essay-security.htm
"But their single most important asset is their organizational structure, an open-source community network very similar to what we now see in the software industry. It is an extremely innovative structure, sadly, and results in decision-making cycles much shorter than those of the U.S. military."
It certainly looks to me like the writer was trying to convey a sense of formidable power, using a term that would be widely recognized as associated with such power.
It hasn't been that long ago when people thought Microsoft was the juggernaut. Why aren't those "open source pretenders" you wrote about calling themselves "WinXchange"? Do they see the cracks in the MS fortress?
Nobody imitates failure.
grouch: I wrote a very successful article called "How to Misunderstand Open Source Software Development".
http://www.consultingtimes.com/ossdev.html
When you Googled my name it was at the top of the hits. Lots of people republished the article and lots of people linked to it. I think you'll see that I did a fairly good job of explaining the open source collaborative development process.
On the Linux Show, Eric Raymond said to me that the article was not about Open Source and therefore couldn't endorse it. Open source has a definition and it's not about collaboration, open code methods, etc.
At the time, Eric was still the Chairman of OSI and we remained friends.
Please don't take this as an argument form my side. I just wanted to give you an example of how easily one can misuse the term, Open Source. That's all I am saying.
http://www.consultingtimes.com/ossdev.html
When you Googled my name it was at the top of the hits. Lots of people republished the article and lots of people linked to it. I think you'll see that I did a fairly good job of explaining the open source collaborative development process.
On the Linux Show, Eric Raymond said to me that the article was not about Open Source and therefore couldn't endorse it. Open source has a definition and it's not about collaboration, open code methods, etc.
At the time, Eric was still the Chairman of OSI and we remained friends.
Please don't take this as an argument form my side. I just wanted to give you an example of how easily one can misuse the term, Open Source. That's all I am saying.
Sorry if it sounded like I was arguing against the points you raised in "Cheapening Linux". I wasn't. My intent was only to try to give one explanation of why there are "pretenders" and why we can expect more.
Thanks for the link. I hadn't read that before and only just scanned it now. Thought I'd better reply before finishing the read because I don't want misunderstanding.
Let me be clear: I think Stallman's arguments are logical and inescapable. The distinction he makes between non-free software and proprietary software is important.
A business which tries to straddle the fence by using open source as a platform from which to rent proprietary software is attempting to be a parasite and will not thrive for long. Renting proprietary software does social damage. Keeping non-free software in-house does not try to bribe others to give up their freedom and cease helping their neighbors. That non-free software _may_ cause problems for its owner because it does not have the advantages provided by an open development, open testing and open maintenance model, but at least it is not an attempt to bribe or extort others to be anti-social.
Now I'm going to go read that article. Thanks again.
Thanks for the link. I hadn't read that before and only just scanned it now. Thought I'd better reply before finishing the read because I don't want misunderstanding.
Let me be clear: I think Stallman's arguments are logical and inescapable. The distinction he makes between non-free software and proprietary software is important.
A business which tries to straddle the fence by using open source as a platform from which to rent proprietary software is attempting to be a parasite and will not thrive for long. Renting proprietary software does social damage. Keeping non-free software in-house does not try to bribe others to give up their freedom and cease helping their neighbors. That non-free software _may_ cause problems for its owner because it does not have the advantages provided by an open development, open testing and open maintenance model, but at least it is not an attempt to bribe or extort others to be anti-social.
Now I'm going to go read that article. Thanks again.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Some comments anyway:
I would not say that I prefer the one thing over the other. There are good startups (and after all any company has started as one - even though in earlier days this label hasn't been used or at least it hasn't been tainted by all the bubble-companies of 2000 and of late again), which provide pretty good code.
But agreed, the suckers are the majority. They take all the code they can get and do not give back anything or just some pieces (BTW: Google, far from beeing a startup any more, and despite laudable things like their summer of code still falls into the sucker category IMHO).
Sadly enough some open source coders (and the use of open source has been intentional here since these coders are prefering the term over free software) even brag with the "Allows to take without giving back"-provision of the licenses they choose. At the FOSDEM in Brussels last month I saw a hacker with a t-shirt that went along the lines that any company would be foolish to use any other license than the BSD license because with the BSD license they do not have to give back (don't remember the exact wording).
Quite sad in my opinion. And in my opinion also not even true.