- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Beware of Those Calling Themselves Open Source
If you sat on this end of the journalistic seesaw instead of the reader's side, you might understand the perspective. I see a world running amok with members of the technology ecosystem using terms they do not understand. I cannot imagine the people responsible for GNU/Linux expecting the outcomes we experience today. You can confuse the public, just call yourself Open Source. Aside from the commercial end of the industry, we have had people making up acronyms like FOSS, FLOSS and who knows what else. For those unfamiliar with the acronyms, FOSS means Free Open Source and FLOSS means Free Libre Open Source Software. Throwing those terms around has become the "in thing". You know when something becomes posh that you can starting counting the days before it becomes a cliché. Unwitting companies could easily ruin the reputation the public does not understand anyway. We have reached a time when closing down the OSI website might make sense. I wish people would discontinue the use of term Open Source. It doesn't represent our community any more, if it ever did. Let's look at the intent versus what has happened. Some perspectiveI remember a time when I embraced the concept of open source software. While participating on a web cast with Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman, I heard the latter person say he never worked on any open source software. At the time, I thought he was splitting hairs. Now I appreciate his perspective. I can live with Free Software but I have some trouble with open source the way I perceive most people using the term. I see too many press releases and articles submitted here that use the term frivolously. I read those stories and roll my eyes. I'm sure we will soon see a new line of designer clothes on Rodeo Drive called open source. They will open the erogenous zones of the rich and famous even more than they do now. Back to basics, pleaseFree Software advocates saw a time when distributions of GNU/Linux had to include libraries and processes that used a variety of licenses that did not comply with the GPL. The Apache, Perl and Sendmail licenses provide some examples. When the National Science Foundation dumped NSFnet on the public, lots of software came along with it. To accommodate the gifts heaped on the technology industry, licenses became important issues. Those licenses existed in a context of open standards compliance promulgated by Internet Engineering Task Force. Culling through existing Internet software became a challenging task. Regardless, the concept of Free Software promulgated the thinking. The US government had funded many projects that wound up in places like the OpenLDAP Foundation. Researchers from the University of Michigan developed the original version of LDAP circa 1993. The IETF issued approximately 20 RFCs related to the protocol. Eventually the project like many others went into a Foundation. The National Science Foundation originally intended for the slew of projects opened to the public to become part of the structure of the Super Information Highway. Coincidentally, the Free Software Foundation and the Linux kernel project merged into the perception of this "gift" from the government. I always considered the gift as a way for the US Government to rid itself of the expense of keeping up the DARPA, ARPA, NFSnet. The parties to the cold war called it quits, the Soviet Union broke up and we didn't need a back up communication network in case of Nuclear attacks. So, the government handed the network over to people like MCI, BBN Planet, UUNet and others. Now, that's my perception of what happened leaving out lots of details. We got this gift, people bought modems, ISPs started up everywhere and suddenly lots of people were "on-line". The Free Internet morphsInstead of using the GNU/Linux distribution licensing model, a group of technologists created the "open source" label. The group included Todd Anderson, Chris Peterson, John Hall, Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman and Eric Raymond. They had a strategy session in Palo Alto, California and decided to begin the Open Source Initiative. I suppose they wanted to provide a way to allow a distribution of Linux to include software using a variety of licenses. One way that could have eliminated the need for the OSI included dual licensing. But the need for such licensing became academic because commercial distributors like SuSE simply put Free Software and commercial software together and sold it. Even though companies like SuSE, Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrakesoft and others began distributing a mixture of Linux, GNU and other licensed software, people still considered the distribution free software as in freedom to use it. Free Software MorphsSo what has the Open Source Initiative created? Unfortunately, another form of software emerged that does not embrace precepts of the GPL, BSD style licensing and the Free Internet. In fact, we have a hodge podge of proprietary companies disguising software does not come anywhere close to the concept of "freedom". French telecom has a nice explanation of what free software means: To understand free software correctly, certain ambiguities of the language tied to the problem of translating English expressions must first be cleared up. In fact, Anglo-Saxons use the same "free" term to describe two fundamentally different notions: freedom of use and free of charge use. However, software may be accessed without restrictions but not used free of charge (several companies sell the Linux operating system) or, on the contrary, free of charge but not unrestricted use (e.g.: the audio Real Player reader from Real Networks). It's this unfree software that some people have self-styled as open source that creates confusion. If people would follow the lead of someone like JBoss who licensed their code under the lesser GPL, then the concept would work. JBoss is software that anybody can use, copy, modify and redistribute freely without having to ask for authorization from anyone. Open-xchange, for example, does not fit the category of software that anybody can use, copy, modify and redistribute freely without having to ask for authorization from anyone. I hope you understand the distinction here. Understanding this concept becomes important to understanding when someone can call him/herself an open source company but "no" act like one. Should we end the Open Source Initiative now?Hopefully, enough free software advocates can understand how the term open source can and has been abused. I could live with the term if it actually meant what free software means. In this age of posh expressions, someone can easily confuse the end user. With many opinion leaders praising the open source software movement, I have serious concerns about how the concept of freedom will turn out in the public mind. Finding 50 or more press releases and article submissions on my desk each day that have little to do with free software concerns me. If you decided to read this article to this point, I would bet you have the same concerns as me. That's why we call ourselves a community: The Free Software community. |
|
|
Comments (23)
The greatest rock song ever? Is it Legal on Linux?
Free Bird, Lynyrd Skynyrd.
> ...which song hits the top as far as love songs....
Unchained Melody. The Righteous Brothers.
> I want to know the best duet...
Hmm, that's a tough one. There are a lot of good ones from a number of eras, and none really stands out for me. Your pick is a good one. So is "The Core" by Clapton and Levy. There was a song on "The Last Waltz" which had a number of artists joining in. From memory, it was "The Weight", but I'm not certain. That's not a duet, but it deserves mentioning. If we don't limit it to rock, "Louisiana Woman Mississippi Man" by Lynn and Twitty is pretty good, and if nothing else the legendary status of the performers makes it worth listening to.
> Is that free, open source or propietary?
Trying to spark discussion again Tom? You know the answers as well as I do. Now, whether those answers should be true or not is another discussion, as is the fact that the laws governing the matter are almost completely unenforcable. You also should realize that such a discussion could rapidly move in directions which violate the TOS. :)
I do agree about Unchained Melody. What happened to my memory on that one? That's truly a "haunting" song. Note the subtext. Are we doing honorbale mentions then anything by Karen Carpenter.
The duets are tough. I'm staying with Beyonce and Luther.
But you didn't answer my question and I don't think it involves religion or politics unless you want to pick on Judy Collins for Amazing Grace.
If I hum the song and hear it in my mind, is it still someone's intellectual property. If not, then suddenly the wheels are in motion.
Well, IANAL, but as far as I can determine: Humming the song counts as a performance, though I don't know if it counts if there's no one to hear it. Hearing it in your mind doesn't count, at least not until the RIAA starts hiring telepaths.
Oh, and having some time to think about duets: Paradise by the Dashboard Light. Meatloaf and Ellen Foley.
> ...Free Bird doesn't make it...
We obviously have different tastes in music. :) What do you think of Christine Perfect's version of "I Would Rather Go Blind" from "The Legendary Christine Perfect Album"?
On the duet, I'm going back to the Closer I Get to You but I want to change artists. I'll go with Roberta Flack and Johnny Hathaway.
Free Bird is definitely up there . I keep remembering the scene from Forrest Gump where Jenny wanted to jump, but I just can't imagine anything matching Stairway. They are different genres for sure - English rock vs Southern rock. I give Stairway an inch.
You were joking about Meatloaf - right?
I have to admit "I Would Rather Go Blind" is top of the list. Awesome.
I was just sitting here thinking about it.
Not really, though it's Foley's vocals which make the song. It simple, elementary rock, but as long as you don't expect too much of it it's pretty good.
And no...I am not particularly drawn to show tunes.
I was thinking that one of the musicals might have the best duet, but it's not my genre, so I can't actually think of any. The problem for me is that none of the ones I can think of actually stands out as being significantly better than the others. There are a bunch of duets that are approximately equal.
Quoting:Diamond and Streisand
You were so joking, absolutely. ROFL. When you were still in the service did you stand next for those fifty mils without head gear?
Time by Pink Floyd from Dark Side of The Moon. I think you'll find Mr Gilmour is a slightly better guitar player than Mr Page. (Dave "wrote Shine on You Crazy Diamond" Gilmour vs Jimmy "bum-notes" Page? hmm no contest!)
Pink Floyd are just better all round really. (And I speak as one who as a teenager had bedroom that was a bit of a Led Zeppelin shrine).
Best love song... Too many to choose from, The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face sung by Roberta Flack. Joni Mitchell has written some powerful stuff. Since I've Been Lovin You from Led Zeppelin 3 , Tea For One from Presence.
Best duets for me are (discounting classical which is where the best voices tend to be) Simon and Garfunkel.
Is it a performance to hum a song? No. It's a performance to get some instruments and do a cover version. It could be argued (and probably will be at some point) that to play a new record to friends is a performance. You could argue that when a song has been released in sheet music form that it's been open sourced (though you still can't copy it without problems).
Expecting people to buy a copy of something they want to listen to is not unreasonable. And even though most of the music industry is shot through with greed and rip-off merchants this doesn't mean that it's a free for all with regard to copying. The problem arises when customers are treated as having lost all rights because they copied something when those doing the prosecuting are even more guilty of ripping unknown artists off, making huge profits and rigging the market with regard to prices.
Sound familiar?
A certain software company that squeals like a stuck pig when anyone tries to even suggest they might abide by the law. The same law they demand is applied to their competitors.
I think mostly people are sick to the heart with the double standards employed by these industry types. No one minds having to pay for a CD unless 95% of the money you're paying is clear profit for the record company who already ripped the original artist off. No one would mind paying a reasonable sum for an OS, but not if the OS is full of holes and bad code and certainly not if the maker treats you as a stupid criminal and seems more intent on getting himself off the hook than supporting you.
Enough with the hypocrisy already!
Big business is trying to dictate everything. They have (allegedly) clever lawyers and attack funds and they want to control your thoughts as well as your desires and habits. It's one thing to try to persuade people via advertising, quite another when they begin to ask for the law to formally back them up in setting the market place to their advantage.
We have the power because we have the money and the numbers. But that power only works if we stand up to them and refuse to buy from the worst offenders. So, when Nestle flood Africa with powdered baby milk and run campaigns designed to make mothers question the value of breast milk in order to sell more powdered milk and the result is more babies dying due the powdered milk being crap and not boosting their immune systems the way mothers milk does. We stop buying from Nestle. And if that means we have to change a habit or two then get on with it. The market would have you believe that there's no point in objecting, no point in refusing to buy, no point in resisting because their victory is inevitable.
I disagree.
Sony decided not to pay off the manfia. Big business Sal? How about organized crime.
Also, most Pink Floyd songs are about 15 minutes long and consists of awesome music while Roger Waters whines about what a crap life he's had. This is not a commercial radio, 3 minute "feel good" ditty band.
;-)
Big business and the Mafia.
What's the difference between "pay us or your pc is at risk" and "pay us or something might happen to your lovely wife"?
Quoting:did you stand next for those fifty mils without head gear?.....
Headgear,,,? We had headgear?
huh, go figure.
It is the greatest Led Zepplin song EVER!!!
Hands down people, hands down.
Chinese Menu Licensing?
I think what it comes down to (and this a bit of a simplification, too) is a set of rights that the owner of the original may choose to let you have along with that software. These rights can be things like a right to use it (anyone know of a license that doesn't include that one?), a right to make copies for yourself, a right to make copies and give them away, a right make copies and sell them, a right to make changes and give that away, a right to put your own name on it and claim it is yours, and so on. Not all licenses grant every right. For example, GPL does not grant a right to someone to give away or sell changes they make to that software without licensing those changes under the same GPL terms and providing source. Additionally, rights may be implied on the basis of how the terms are actually enforced; e.g. not enforcing certain apparent violations may imply your real intention was to grant those rights.
But just which rights are actually granted by a specific license? That's the hard part to understand. If we were to make a menu of grantable rights, and let the owners of the software creation pick and choose what rights they want to grant, it could certainly be more flexible and clear. OTOH, without a catchy label on the licensing (such as "GPL") it can also complicate things because people will have to look at all the details of what is granted; the list would definitely not be a small one.
And then there are some really strange characters such as myself who are giving their software tiered licensing. For example, my LIBH library (see link below) of a bunch of C functions is currently licensed under GPL for the alpha version, LGPL for the beta version, and BSD for the final release version. There, I just made your licensing life miserable. Maybe I'll change my mind and use some other licensing when it finally reaches a final release.
But I won't use Public Domain; that one is too hard to enforce.
http://libh.slashusr.org/
Well written, Tom
Basically, when community pays the price of business without deriving value... it's time for a paradigm shift. But you knew that :-)
The Three Freedoms and the bad OpenSpoofs
If you don't like the BSD code you are welcome to fork it yourself as you wish. Just don't get all bossy on those that made it.
And, yes watch out for those that get their Open Source from the Marketing Department. Call them OpenSpoofs.
Quoting: Free as in To Pursue Happiness - BSD
A little close to the edge?
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:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Next, I want to know the best duet. I have to give Beyonce and Luther the nod on "The Closer I get to you". So, when I hear it on a radio station in Belton, Texas and it's being broadcast over the air is it free, open source or proprietary?
Next, I want to know which song hits the top as far as love songs. OK. In "The Family Man", Nicholas Cage sings a Delphonics number called "La La I Love You". The original puts electricity in the air. So, if you can find the MP3 on the Internet, is it free, open source or proprietary?
If you decide to buy it on one of the legal download services and you figure out how to play any of these tunes on Linux - are you legal?
I guess this is the best question. If you hear any of these tunes in your head or sing them while taking a walk, do you owe the RIAA 9 cents?
Is that free, open source or propietary?
"Oohhhhh, it really makes me wonder".