|
|
| A Message in a Bottle Aimed at Solaris Island |
 |
|
Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:17 PM EDT
|
What else is new? Sun's Jonathan Schwartz, who last time we looked was defending Open Source, this week attacks the GPL. Must be Jonathan's evil twin. I know. It's just a coincidence that Sun and Microsoft do a deal and then Sun begins attacking the GPL in public. Not only that, they present their own competing license, one he obviously believes CEOs will love: Schwartz singled out the GPL provision that says source code may be mixed with other code only if the other code also is governed by the GPL. That provision is intended to create a body of software that must remain liberated from proprietary constraints. But Schwartz said that some people he's spoken to dislike it because it precludes them from using open-source software as a foundation for proprietary projects.
"Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I've talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world," Schwartz said.
The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world," the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said. "If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their own) code." CEOs probably will love Sun's license, but here's the problem. CEOs don't generally write Free or Open Source software. Programmers do. That's the grain of sand in the CEO's eye. And there is a reason some 68% of all such projects are under the GPL. Here's the reason: it's fair to the programmers and to the end users, not just the landed gentry, so to speak.
As for Schwartz's observation that some folks don't like the GPL because it precludes them from using OS software as a foundation for proprietary products, here's a clue. That's a feature, not a bug. Open Source works so remarkably well because it's... well... open. The scientific method of sharing knowledge openly works. That's the secret sauce, bub. And the GPL ensures participants have to play fair.
The GPL says to proprietary companies that if they wish to write proprietary software, they should write their own from scratch. There is nothing wrong with being a proprietary company, if that is your choice, at least not to me. But don't pretend you are Open, slapping on a thin veneer of Open Source, just enough to pass, if you really are still dreaming your closed, proprietary dreams. You can make money from GPL code. Companies already are. But IBM at least made the effort to grasp the culture, not just the benefits of Open Source. But it's not nice to grab other people's hard work, which is protected by copyright to boot, and then violate the license under which the code is distributed. (It's not nice to trash talk it either, but that's a separate discussion.) Surely the proprietary mind can understand paying for what you use, if it belongs to someone else. With GPL code, the payment isn't money. The payment is code. The purpose of that is to ensure that the common pot of code keeps growing and having value.
The proprietary mind can't swallow the FOSS concept all the way down, I guess, so Sun's response to the GPL is to offer a license under which programmers can write Brand X Open Source software, software that ends up not open at all on a whim, which the engineers get to write for them in the open and then the company gets to take closed and proprietary, and not only that, you don't get any code back from them in return for the code you donated, unless they feel like it. No money either. The company makes all the money. What CEO wouldn't love that? The only thing better would be slavery. No. Slavery is worse, because you have to pay to feed slaves.
A Computer Associates' senior VP already is drooling and predicting the Open Source world will use Sun's almost open source license as a "constitution" for industry players. He's talking, he says, to Sun and IBM about it. But why would programmers find this appealing? How will these industry players get folks to do it their way instead of the GPL way?
What about programmers? Anything in it for them? The thrill of helping Sun make money from your unpaid labor, perchance? Sun's Schwartz says he expects open sourcing Solaris will make money for the company: Sun is trying to ally itself with the open-source programming movement as part of a strategy to turn around its ailing fortunes. The company's revenue and stock price have remained largely flat in recent years despite a recovery in Sun's core market, powerful server computers at the heart of corporate networks.
Open-source software, despite being available for free, will help Sun financially, Schwartz said. "We're expecting more revenue," he said, citing historical parallels with the company's support of the now universal TCP/IP networking standard and the widely used Java software. The problem with allying yourself with "the open-source programming movement as part of a strategy" is, programmers are generally brainiacs, and they see what you are doing. Sun is expecting more revenue, but what about you volunteers? Why, pray tell, should programmers donate their code so companies can take it proprietary? I see why Sun wants that, and I am sure some will sign on just for the fun of playing with the code (although I reiterate my cautions), but seriously. What is in it for the programmers? What do they get out of the deal? They contribute code, and they don't get any code back, and the company makes all the money and they work as volunteers. That isn't Open Source to me. That's worse than proprietary, actually, because at least proprietary software companies pay their employees and give them benefits.
The GPL prevents dipping into the common code pot unless you agree to contribute back, if you distribute code that isn't stand-alone. If you don't distribute the code, then you don't have to give anything back. That means a business can grab some GPL code, make changes and tweaks to suit the business, and keep their changes in-house and private forever. If, however, they decide to go into the software business, for one example, the authors of the GPL code they used to get started would expect "payment", and the payment they want isn't money. They want the common code pot strengthened with those additions.
That is the "consideration", you might say, the fairness in the deal. The code is yours to take and make use of, and there is wonderful code available to you, to help you and your business, if you have one, but if you distribute, you have to donate back any code you add on that becomes integral. You know why? Because, to quote that illustrious proprietary thinker, Darl McBride, there's no free lunch.
I'm not saying don't do it, if you don't care, but most people do care. If companies can get a lot of people to sign on to work for absolutely nothing, who am I to complain? But I bet in the long run the results won't hold a candle to GPL code. The quality is built in to the license. Humans are born with an innate sense of justice, so don't call it "Open Source" if the whole point of the license is to close off the results. OSI made a mistake approving this license in its current form, in my opinion, but when I saw all the Sun and Sun-oriented folks on the board, it wasn't exactly a surprise. Now we see that in fact the whole point of the license is a very not-so-Open goal. Promises were made that have not been kept, in addition, regarding the Contributors' Agreement and FAQ, and so there are alarming questions still in the air about the Microsoft factor and patent issues, and under no circumstances can I recommend this license to anyone in its current form. (Cf. here, here, here, and here.)
GPL code, by the way, is written all over the world, so the Schwartz trash talk that the benefits of contributing code back accrue only to the US reveals a serious misunderstanding of how the GPL works and where the FOSS community writes the code and who benefits from it. Ask Brazil.
Well, Schwartz is new to all this Open stuff, so he may need some time to learn. But attacking the GPL before you understand it is just asking for it. Speaking of the proprietary mindset, you might enjoy this April 1st joke, about SCO winning, as an antidote to all this offensive anti-GPL nonsense. Or for more comic relief, here's the winner of the Red Hat Magazine's contest to find the hidden meaning in the CDDL. At this point, I think it must be said that there is nothing hidden about it now. And for some intriguing thoughts, check out this article on open hardware, which links to www.power.org.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
..so PJ can find 'em fast.
Thx,
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
Please make the links clickable, like so:
<a href="http://www.example.com">your words here</a>
and post as HTML formatted.
Thanks,
-jb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DMCA - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- DMCA - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- DMCA - Authored by: Nick Bridge on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- DMCA - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- DMCA - Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- More FUD for debunking - Authored by: Anthony on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:05 PM EDT
- Not so OT: Hail to the Robber Baron? - Authored by: GelW on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- GPL propagation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Same story, lots of supportive links. - Authored by: Franki on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 01:13 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
| I don't get it... Somehow, it's bad for individuals to steal IP from
corporations, but it's just fine and dandy for CEO's and their corporations to
steal IP from individuals who want to release their code to the world. ---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dcarrera on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
The implication that Jonathan slander the GPL because of some agreement with
Microsoft is uncalled for and unfair. Jonathon has been throwing verbal abuse
for a long time, at anyone and anything that competes with Sun.
Slandering because xyz is a competitor is wrong. But it is a very different kind
of wrong than slandering xyz because of a deal with Microsoft. (I don't even
claim it's a lesser wrong, but it is certainly different, and it has very
different implications).
Without trying to defend anyone, I would like to remind everyone to try to be
fair and call it like it is.
Thank you for your time.
Cheers,
Daniel.
---
Make a difference. Join OpenOffice.org. Join OOoAuthors today.
http://oooauthors.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
As an contributor to a couple of open source projects, and more recently a
dev team member for one, I like and agree with most of what PJ has
written.
The only thing that bothers me is the first
par:
What else is new? Sun's Jonathan Schwartz, who last
time we looked was defending Open Source, this week attacks the GPL. Must be
Jonathan's evil twin.
... which has the implicit assumption
that it makes no sense to like Open Source, but not like the GPL. I couldn't
disagree more, though I myself am more comfortable working on GPL or (best of
all) LGPL software. Ask the BSD folks what they think about the issue if you're
confused about why one might like Open Source, but not Free Software,
though.
Now, I think we all understand the motives in this and the
rather interesting lack of understanding on the part of Sun that you're not
supposed to be able to just pick up GPL code and make a proprietary
product from it. However, I don't see any contridiction in their position - they
like Open Source, but not Free Software, since they can't take the latter and
turn it into a proprietary product.
It's also worth noting that Sun have
on a couple of occasions indicated that you "can't build on GPL software."
That's absolutely false - you can, as shown by the Linux kernel among other
things. You just can't extend GPL software. It's a small difference as
often the two are one and the same, but still worth keeping in mind. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good article - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Good article - Authored by: cmc on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Good article - Authored by: brian on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Good article - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Good article - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 12 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
| I've come to the conclusion that when a company leader spouts rubbish about FOSS
and/or GPL they are talking to a very specific audience... and it ain't
us.
Jonathan Schwartz is talking to share owners, governments and opinion
formers in Wall St. He has a complex circle to square... he can't be seen to
ignore FOSS/GPL as it's currently sexy, yet he cannot be seen to accept it as is
because that would scare shareholders, governments and opinion formers in Wall
St. So he speaks with an awful lot of spin.
The choice of a "blog" is also
significant. By using a "personal" method of publication he can say apparently
dumb things without them being official statements about Sun policy, nor can
they be questioned or challenged by a knowledgable interviewer.
I wish
Schwartz would concentrate on getting Sun building amazing hardware like they
used to do rather than trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth
simultaniously.
On the otherhand I'm planning on replacing RedHat on
this laptop with Solaris 10 as it is a better product for my needs.
---
Not using the GPL is not a character flaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
An interesting thought occured to me last night about the CDDL - it is that very
rare license that manages to be incompatible with itself.
If you have 2 bodies of work released under the CDDL but with different
"Initial Developer"s then you can't combine elements of those 2 bodies
of work into a single file as the term initial developer then becomes
meaningless.
Reading the CDDL I believe it would also technically be an infringment of the
license to distribute as part of a modification to CDDL licensed code, code
which you had previously distributed under a different license (because of the
requirement to comply with the CDDL from first binary distribution for modifiers
rather than from first distribution under the CDDL for Initial Developers)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
If you don't like the GPL, DON'T USE THE SOFTWARE.
But, that's not what this is
about. This is just
more FUD from a very, very transparent fudmeister.
And, not
a very good one at that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
The use of the term consideration (in a legal manner) is an absolute
masterstroke, PJ. Yes, it is common sense to most Groklaw users, but from a
legal/CEO position, consideration carries a lot more weight and meaning.
Obviously, the MS and Sun folks would prefer that the term was never mentioned,
but it is an important item. Congrats.
P.S.: Consideration has probably been mentioned before, but this is the first
time it's really hit home, to me personally.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- In the US - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT
- Consideration - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- Consideration - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 01:34 AM EDT
- Simple example - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 04:19 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
"...so the Schwartz trash talk that the benefits of contributing
code back accrue only to the US reveals a serious misunderstanding of how the
GPL works..."
Reminds me of a business card that I used to
use (and still have, BTW) that said: "Your criticism of this product reveals an
unsound technical background." I used to give it to PHBs a lot... Heh, heh,
heh... -jb [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
It is intended to be. Of course it is also business friendly and it is intended
to be. Is this inconsistent? No of course not Sun lives in a competitive world.
It is a business and its competitors are also businesses It wants to help its
allies and hurt its enemies.
Licences that allow the closing of code benefit one set of companies, those who
want to make final stage alterations and sell the result. They are definitely
not beneficial to companies that work at an earlier point in the development
cycle, they are also not of benefit to companies that work later in the the
game, providing support to users.
The GPL is business agnostic. It allows businesses to use any software they like
however they like, and it allows them to develop any software they like. The
only restriction it imposes is tit for tat. No business can use GPL software to
gain an unfair advantage, that is not the same (as IBM shows) as not being able
to use it to gain an advantage.
The problem for big businesses is that the GPL software doesn't live in the same
competitive world as the busineses do. There is intense competition between many
F/OSS projects but it is sporting (in its Olympian not win-at-all-costs sense)
competition. Developers want to be the best they can be, and they want all the
others to be the bast they can be too. This would not suit Sun, for them it is
enough to be the best available provider, the Human race requires a higher
standard we need the best possible services not to pick the best of a bad job.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bas Burger on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
That is exactly why I and many of my peers chose with full heart for the GPL, to
keep off types like Schwartz with their greedy little hands.
I am pro making money, also i am pro giving my peers the same opertunity.
A lot propietary firms are based on trying to destroy others.
It's that what makes me quite hostile against them, verbaly I mean.
Oh yes, this hostility towards the GPL means only one thing.
The GPL is extremely effective because of one thing, it plays by the Berne
convention rules.
People like Schwartz know this very well, this is the reason they try to take
the high value of the GPL licence down.
They stand none whatsoever chance when having to play by the rules, he is unable
to compete on merits, politics are the only option then.
So we can be at ease when using the GPL, but we have to stay alert.
As far as I can see, this is in good hands with Mr. Moglen, though I hope that
the generation that comes after him and RMS, (my generation) is able to keep
their backs straight as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
IANAC.
I'll leave it to the brainiacs to work it out.
I'm just saying, I wouldn't presume to advise paralegals on how to do their
thing. Oh, I have opinions, but I wouldn't preach.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
PJ asks:
What about programmers? Anything in it for them?
Possibly. Not all coders are driven by the same needs. Some coders get turned
on by knowing that eleventy-seven million people are using code that they wrote.
They don't care if the eleventy-seven people know that they wrote the code,
only that it is being used.
Such coders are perfectly happy to use licenses other than the GPL. They use a
BSD license, a Creative Commons Attribution license, or possibly place the code
directly in the public domain as such licenses expand the universe of potential
users.
And then there are the truly altruistic coders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
| Would it not be fairer to base criticism of what Jonathan Schwartz has said on
what Jonathan Schwartz has said rather than (in this case) a CNET reporter's
interpretation. Jonathan Schwartz's
Weblog would be one starting point but it would be good to have a link to
his actual speech at OSBC.
Alan(UK)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A criticism - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:46 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
Schwartz said:
"(...) disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world
(...)"
That makes no sense at all. In fact, the code exchange works both ways. You
share your code with me and I share mine with you.
And I even think wealthy nations have more programmers, which means more code is
generated by them and sent to developing nations. If anything, the GPL is an
equality tool. Let Brazil say it out loud.
I can't believe Jonathan Schwartz is subjecting himself to spreading such FUD. I
once considered him a smart individual.
Could it be that everybody has a price after all? I still like to believe some
people have principles. Maybe not this guy...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
As a man with a conscience, it amazes me what people will do to make money. I
was brought up to believe that in order to succeed in business, you had to
provide quality parts and service, and do your best to keep your customers
happy. Of course, in IT (such as repair), that can be a double-edged sword,
because if you do too good of a job, the customer may not need your services
again because things continue to run smoothly. But it's still how I work. I'd
rather have fewer repeat customers, and a line of happy customers, rather than
know I didn't do my best.
Sun is losing market share rapidly. There's just no incentive to buy Sun
anymore. Linux is rapidly replacing Solaris and the various flavors of UNIX on
servers, and most people just don't need Sun's hardware anymore. You can get a
good Opteron server or workstation from just about anywhere. Mr. Schwartz will
do and say anything necessary to keep making money. He'll attack the GPL
because he wants big corporations to view it as "damaged goods" and
avoid it, and to go to him instead. The largest GPL project is the Linux
kernel, which is turning out to be a Sun-killer, so Mr. Schwartz will do
whatever it takes to make sure people don't use it.
Also, Sun *IS* is bed with Microsoft now. Anyone who disputes that is
completely ignorant. Since they settled the Java deal, Sun has been on the
attack against Open Source (while claiming to support it). The attacks on the
GPL are only one part of it. Another part is their attack on Red Hat in which
they try to claim that Linux really isn't free simply because Red Hat charges
for service. It's more of the TCO stuff you see from Microsoft's "Get the
Facts" compaign. Pay someone a couple billion dollars and you can pretty
much get them to do whatever you want.
If I contributed to open source, I certainly would not want someone (anyone) to
take my hard work and make money off of it. Call me greedy, but if someone
makes money off of my work, I expect something in return. That's why I love the
GPL. I used to hate it. I had the same problems with it that Sun does. That's
because I was in a job where I wanted to use GPL code in proprietary products
(which did have the possibility of being distributed at some point down the
road). Since then I've come to terms with it, that it's about choice and
freedom. If you don't (or can't) GPL your software, you can *CHOOSE* not to use
the GPL software and either write your own, or license it from someone else.
Otherwise, it's just stealing.
What's the difference between using (and making money from) someone else's GPL
code, and illegally sharing music? In both cases, the authors aren't being
compensated. According to Mr. Schwartz's theory, the RIAA should release music
under a license where anyone can copy the music and use it however they see fit,
right?
What really gets to me the most is the implication that the GPL is used
exclusively. Mr. Schwartz talks about the horrors of the GPL, but never
mentions that many projects offer multiple licenses. Take MySQL, for example.
They use the GPL as one license, but they also have a proprietary license they
use (and they even, gasp, make money from it). It's your choice (to a point)
which one you use.
It amazes me to no end that Sun says they want to help you protect your IP while
stealing other people's IP. By the way, thanks for that bit from the CA guy.
That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. The only people who will
like the CDDL are those who don't care about their rights.
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
An article in Slashdot read:
"Michael Singer writes that Eben
Moglen and the folks rewriting the GPL are looking at a proposal where companies
would be required to pay money if they use GPLed software, even if they don't
redistribute the software."
Was that FUD or true? Or could that be
the fear of SUN? The GPL3?
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: urzumph on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
This is my impression of how Schwartz's brain works :
while 1
randret = random(1) // either 1 or 0
if randret = 1
bash(GPL)
else
praise(GPL)
end if
wait 24h
end while
Seriously, that guy can't make up his mind at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
He was reminding everybody out there, especially those in a developing
economy, that you can not base a business model on selling GPL'd software. You
can try to sell support but if your product is popular enough one of the big
guys like CA or IBM will take your source, jump on the support side, and drive
you out of your own market. You'll be left starving in a cardboard box while
IBM pays a bunch of developers in New Delhi or Beijing (wherever it's cheapest
this year) to improve and support what used to be your product.
If
you want to contribute to the greater good of humanity because
your trust fund takes care of you, great. Release your code under a BSD
license and be satisfied that you made the world a better place. Since it can
be incorporated into proprietary software, maybe it will help feed somebody
else. The GPL certainly won't even do that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: johan on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
| The moment I read PJ's headline I thought of the line "This is a bottle with a
message in, and the message is 'beware'." from the Monty Python sketch
"Australian Table Wines" (1972).
To paraphrase:
"[The CDDL] is
not a [license] for [coding], this is a [license] for laying down and
avoiding."
Here is the original sketch [my
highlight]:
A lot of people in this country pooh-pooh Australian
table wines. This is a pity as many fine Australian wines appeal not only to the
Australian palate but also to the cognoscenti of Great Britain.
Black Stump
Bordeaux is rightly praised as a peppermint flavoured Burgundy, whilst a good
Sydney Syrup can rank with any of the world's best sugary wines.
Château
Blue, too, has won many prizes; not least for its taste, and its lingering
afterburn.
Old Smokey 1968 has been compared favourably to a Welsh claret,
whilst the Australian Wino Society thoroughly recommends a 1970 Coq du Rod
Laver, which, believe me, has a kick on it like a mule: 8 bottles of this and
you're really finished. At the opening of the Sydney Bridge Club, they were
fishing them out of the main sewers every half an hour.
Of the sparkling
wines, the most famous is Perth Pink. This is a bottle with a message in, and
the message is 'beware'. This is not a wine for drinking, this is a wine for
laying down and avoiding.
Another good fighting wine is Melbourne
Old-and-Yellow, which is particularly heavy and should be used only for
hand-to-hand combat.
Quite the reverse is true of Château Chunder, which is
an appellation contrôlée, specially grown for those keen on regurgitation; a
fine wine which really opens up the sluices at both ends.
Real emetic fans
will also go for a Hobart Muddy, and a prize winning Cuivre Reserve Château
Bottled Nuit San Wogga Wogga, which has a bouquet like an aborigine's
armpit.
(If you are Australian, and is offended, first ask
yourself "How good were Australian Table wines in 1972?" before complaining.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian-from-fl on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
Jonathan Schwartz appears to be nothing more than a greedy has-been who lacks
the intellect to grow his company and instead lobbies for the legal ability to
steal copyrighted (ok, copylefted) software without abiding by the rules.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: Corporate programmers are slaves.
They (we!) sign employment contracts that renounce our rights to profit from our
own mind and hand. In exchange, we accept a (increasingly temporary) salary.
However, our salary is rarely in proportion to our contribution (except at
Microsoft during most of its rise to power, and hence its rise to power, IMHO).
Even worse, the corporation may terminate that salary at any time and yet
continue to profit from the software.
Is it voluntary? No. It seems so, but try to gain employment writing software
and keep your rights to use the software you write after you leave the company.
Yes, one can always start one's own company. And that is the reason I feel that
the US Patent Office must disallow software patents. Because with software
patents the way they are, corporations with lots of money can effectively
cripple or shut down startups and leave the option of corporate employment and
its IP contract as the only option. Hence, the claim of slavery.
Now along comes the GPL. What a horror it is (not!). It has the audacity to
prevent someone like Jonathan Schwartz from stealing the software without giving
anything back to the authors. And what does the GPL require? Money? No! It just
requires that you offer your software under the same rules by which you used the
GPL'd software you got from others. "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you." Good advice to live by.
Are you listening, Billy Gates? Your letter to hobbyists decried as theft the
use and copying of your software without payment. Are you and Jonathan Schwartz
and your ilk so hypocritical that you think you have the right to steal anything
you can get your hands on just because you are able to get your hands on it?
Re-read your own letter, Billy Gates. Read Billy's letter, Jonathan Schwartz.
And then remind yourself that just because you can download the source doesn't
mean you own it.
Killing software patents is the only way to level the playing field. Then the
corporate IP slavery contract won't be able to be such a slam-dunk certainty in
the world of paid software developers. And the criticism of the GPL is just one
more exposure of the corporate greed that says "You can't have my stuff,
but I have the right to take your stuff".
If software patents aren't killed, the GPL is the lone option that remains to
prevent one's software from being stolen by corporate greed. Continued
enforcement of the GPL ensures that stealing GPL'd software is properly treated
as a criminal act and not state-sanctioned slavery.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
and what CEO would be willing to pay programmers to write code that their
competitor can take propriatary.
don't pitch things as 'independant programmers vs big business' look at it from
the point of view of big business.
if businesses that pay programmers to write code aren't willing to allow their
competitors to take advantage of their work without paying them (either in money
or in code) why should anyone else? and if nobody is willing to then there won't
be any code under this license[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
What is or might be coming out of SUN executives mouths may not match their
behind the scenes beliefs on this issue..
The obstacle to GPL and opensourcing several porjects at SUn has always been
there since the foudning of SUN Microsystems and is probably this obstacle
somewhat fuding what otherwise could be a honest discussion with Sun and
outsiders abotu their cocnerns about the GPL..
In simple terms SUn makes money by selling services and hardware..
adopting the GPL allows SUn to get java fully on all linux/unix flavors thus
increasing the amount of services sold..
Take the top obstacle otu of SUn and tis a slam dunk..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
"Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves
up by their own bootstraps. I've talked to developing nations, representatives
from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL
software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver
their IP back into the world," Schwartz said.
I wonder with which developing nations he had a conversation since everywhere
you turn the developing nations are turning to GPL OS and Software in order to
run their business. Peru and Brazil are a perfect example.
They all like the cost benefit and the benefit of being able to dust off older
equipment and find new uses for it. To quote an article from the National Post
of Fri. April 8, 2005. "Brazil's government looks poised to take its free
software campaign to the masses. And once again, Microsoft may end up on the
sidelines. This month, the government plans to roll out a program called PC
Conectado or Connected PC, aimed at helping millions of low income Brazilians
buy their first computers.
"For this program to be viable it has to be with free software", said
Sergio Amadeu, president of Brazil's National Institute of Information
Technology, the agency that oversees the government's technology initiatives.
We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on a program so that Microsoft can
further consolidate its monopoly.
The government says seven million households and small business owners qualify
and it hopes to reach a million of them by the end of the year."
I guess Brazil thinks open source is the way to pull itself up by the bootstraps
and it is using Linux to do so.
To top things off in the article it says, " Walter Bender, the executive
director of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose
opinion was solicited by the Brazilian Government, wrote recently that
"high-quality free software" has proved more effective in stimulating
computer use among the poor than scaled-down versions of proprietary
software."
So much for the hopes of the proprietary software firms with respect to seeing
growth in the "developing economies". Most of their software won't
even run on the older equipment that these economies own nor can these economies
afford the costly upgrades. Yet they do need to be able to compete in a
technology supported world economy.
Linux and the open source software is the only viable option. Sun's OS
regardless of license won't run on their equipment anyway. It doesn't scale to
the older equipment.
regards, Grayhawk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
"Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves
up by their own bootstraps..."
I thought I'd take this over used bootstrap metaphor for a practical test.
The results
1. I cut off all circulation to my feet
2. I strained my back because, unexpectantly, my feet didn't come up at all, my
shoulders were bent over and down.
3. My face ended up in the dirt.
4. I fell over in a heap on the ground.
I can see how this fit's in perfectly with suns and MS plans for emerging
economies and nations.
Cheers
Rob Sixpack[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
While I agree with PJ on most subjects, this tirade about how the GPL is the
only "acceptable" open source license is malarky. Taken to its
logical conclusion, applications like Firefox, the Apache web server, and Apache
Jakarta simply wouldn't exist.
I am a software developer and a committer on one of the larger projects.
Frankly, I would never have become involved with it if it had not been licensed
under the GPL as my employer needs the source for our products to remain
proprietary. In fact, many companies, including IBM sell software that is
proprietary while supporting open source projects, like those at Apache. So
stating that somehow these companies are taking without giving back is very
short sighted.
The GPL works well for products that things run on, like Linux, but doesn't work
very well for libraries such as those at Apache.
If Sun wants to make code for something available under a license that is less
restrictive than the GPL, I'm all for it, although I don't understand why they
couldn't have used either one of the existing Mozilla, BSD or Apache licenses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
With all due respect the the FSF, RMS and The GPL, Open Source is not the same
thing as "Free Software" as defined by RMS, or with "free as in
beer" software. They are both most certainly related. It is possible to
believe in Open Source software without using the GPL for every project.
Apparently IBM thinks so because when the Open Sourced their Cloudscape software
as the Eclipse project they initially adopted the Eclipse Public License, an OSI
approved Open License, and later changed to similar Common Public License,
another OSI approved Open License.
I have and continue to find Sun's public pronouncements whether from McNealy or
Schwartz both entertaining and thought provoking. I would hope they would be
given the respect we have come to expect from Groklaw.
I continue to assert the the GPL is not appropriate for all applications and is
part of a continuum of licenses ranging form the Microsoft EULA to Public
Domain, which encompasses many possible variations most of which are appropriate
in some instances. we should all remember that is the the author of the
software who controls what license to use and we are legally bound to follow
their decision.
I have found no evidence that Sun has violated the GPL or encouraged others to.
They have not called the GPL invalid or unconstitutional. They have merely
expressed their opinion that the GPL is not the most appropriate license to
foster widespread corporate adoption of Open Source software.
That is certainly their right as it is RMS' right to attack all proprietary
licenses as unfair and Microsoft's to hold their code secret.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: electron on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
> The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes
> on its users "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all
> their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world," the
> United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz said.
Um...
Actually it imposes on everyone the obligation to keep the original code and any
modifications/extensions/ to (and derivations from) the said original code, all
under the GNU GPL.
This is so that what was originally developed and freely made available to
*everybody* can also benefit from the fact that *everybody* can
modify/extend/improve the said orignal code and then publish those changes for
*everybody* else to also benefit from those changes.
IOW, it's called "colaborative development" where *everybody* benifits
from the result and not just any one person or organisation or corporation or
nation.
Those who choose not to understand the colaborative/communal/public/free
philosophy behind the GPL are simply selfish and greedy, wanting only for
themselves rather than for everybody.
Now when is there gonna be a "wrap" on these SCO cases? It's taking
far too long to throw these cases out of court!
---
Electron
"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
... who does Mr. Schwartz hope to persuade with his arguments?
I don't think Linux users are the intended audience. As a Linux user, I don't
much care what somebody else is or is not allowed to do with Linux. All I care
about is that I can do what I want with it, and that I continue to be able to do
so indefinitely.
I suppose there are some Linux users who wish they could "take Linux
private" and make money by selling a proprietary variant, but Mr. Schwartz
accomplishes nothing by preaching to this choir. All he's doing is telling them
what they already know they want.
There are probably people who would like to see the Linux market fragmented by
the appearance of incompatible variants, but preaching to them does no good,
either.
PJ has already pointed out why the Linux developers are not likely to be swayed
by Mr. Schwartz's arguments. They don't have anything to gain by switching to a
license that is more to Mr. Schwartz's liking. I doubt they see any appeal in
the possibility of paying for their own work and being told how they may use
it.
So, I'm puzzled. What does Mr. Schwartz think he can accomplish by railing
against the GPL this way?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BSD drivers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 01:09 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
SUN is no friend of Linux.
Schwartz stabs Linux in the back every chance he gets.
I use Linux.
I do not trust SUN.
It is my understanding that SUN largely controls Open Office development. How?
It pays the developers.
Now I may not understand this completely, but -
Open Office developers are tossing SUN's JAVA into Open Office 2.0 - and dissing
anyone who doesn't want SUN's JAVA in OO as "religious fanatics."
Sound familiar?
It's those same "religious fanatics" who insist on the GPL over other
licenses.
Does becoming dependent on OO make sense for Linux users? Or does something
smell bad about this situation?
When XFree86 started pushing over the boundaries, X.Org was formed - and that
was that.
As soon as someone forks Open Office and removes the stab-Linux-in-the-back SUN
JAVA influence from Open Office, I will be happy to use the forked JAVA-free
Open Office product.
But as it is - Open Office running on Linux is like having one of your three
biggest enemies living in your home.
Don't turn your back.
I am exploring KWord and AbiWord.
But I look forward to the day that Open Office forks out of SUN's control and
becomes a real Linux product - and not the fifth column product that it
currently appears to be.
Best regards,
Epaminondas
_______________________________________________
fifth column
noun
1. A body of citizens prepared to co-operate with an invading enemy.
2. A group of Franco sympathizers in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War
who were prepared to betray the city by fighting with the four columns marching
on the city.
Derivative: fifth columnist
noun
Etymology: 1936, originally in sense 2.
http://www.allwords.com/word-fifth%20columnist.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
"Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves
up by their own bootstraps. I've talked to developing nations, representatives
from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL
software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver
their IP back into the world," Schwartz said.
My specific retort is: (1) you don't pull yourself by your bootstraps by
hijacking someone else's code. Write your own and repeat after me: "the
foundation of your IP cannot be someone else's GPL'ed code"; (2) when you
use GPL'ed code, the least you could do would be to read the terms of the GPL
license ...
My general comment is: "the dream of getting something for nothing dies
hard".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
I read the message above from Epinamondas (sp?), and while I agree with most of
his premise, I don't agree that OpenOffice is such a bad thing.
The reason I have OO on my Linux system is because it came with the SuSE 9.0
Linux (Professional) distribution. I happily paid $80 for this software, and it
has paid off in spades - just from a reliability standpoint alone. I have been
able to retain data for *years* now using tar and ftp, whereas with Windows, it
was a constant backup/restore kloodge (anyone remember Central Point Backup? I
get ill just thinking about it how much data I lost...). Having OO included in
the SuSE distribution is just icing on the cake.
And it's more than probable that SuSE paid Sun a small licensing fee to include
OO in the distribution. Let's say, for posterity, that SuSE paid a $5 per copy
license fee.
I am more than happy to pay $5 to Sun to get a fully-functional copy of OO. I'd
even be willing to pay a few dollars more, even if it meant a higher overall
cost, but don't tell them I said that.
My point is that sometimes it's not such a bad idea to include a little
"licensed" software in a Linux distribution, especially if that
software only adds a nominal cost to the overall package. And especially if it
means one less copy of the "DMCA armored" MS-Office sold (at $299 a
pop, no less).
(oh, and I love the OO math equation editor - I use it constantly)
---
Collaborative efforts synergise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
| Sun is expecting more revenue, but what about you volunteers? Why, pray tell,
should programmers donate their code so companies can take it proprietary? I see
why Sun wants that, and I am sure some will sign on just for the fun of playing
with the code (although I reiterate my cautions), but seriously. What is in it
for the programmers? What do they get out of the deal? They contribute code, and
they don't get any code back, and the company makes all the money and they work
as volunteers. That isn't Open Source to me. That's worse than proprietary,
actually, because at least proprietary software companies pay their employees
and give them benefits.
*cough* It's called the BSD license. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
"a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the
wealthiest nation in the world"
Yeah, right. With a
National debt of 7.7 trillion!
NATIONAL DEBT AWARENESS CENTER
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
| There are two counter-points I'd like to make in regards to Schwartz's
argument.
Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull
themselves up by their own bootstraps.
I can only imagine that Schwartz
is talking about companies that produce software. But let's face it,
there are only so many companies that can produce operating-systems, office
suites, accounting software, etc.; but almost every business can
use that software to increase productivity.
So yeah, strong IP laws
and closed-source software supports the software companies, but free,
open-source software improves productivity and profitability in the other 99% of
the companies out there. But Schwartz is CEO of a computer hardware/software
company, so we know who he supports.
The GPL purports to have freedom at
its core, but it imposes on its users "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge
all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world," the United States,
where the GPL originated,
Schwartz fails to mention the reverse is also
true; under the GPL, the wealthiest nation in the world must disgorge its IP
back to the poorest nations in the world. Funny he forgot about that. He also
forgot to mention that, using commercial software, the poorest nations in the
world are obligated to pay for software from one of the wealthest
companies in that selfsame wealthest nation in the world. Appearently he doesn't
mind that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: karl on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
I do a lot of work under the Berkeley copyright, including work on Tcl, FreeBSD,
PostgreSQL, and Rivet. It's all under the Berkeley copyright, and I don't at
all feel like a chump that people have taken that work and made money with it
and not shared their work back. Berkeley's the license I prefer to develop for
and the license I prefer open source software I use to have been release under,
and I also develop proprietary software and sell it. It's what heats the pool
and put the window tint in the Cobra.
Code released under the Berkeley copyright is more free than code released under
the GPL. That is to say, it has fewer restrictions on what can be done with
it.
I am glad that the TCP/IP stack that the huge majority of systems use was
released under the Berkeley copyright because without it the Internet as we know
it would not exist.
I'll probably get flamed for this, and I can get the slashdot mentality
operating at Groklaw and the whole GPL über alles mentality in operation, but
there is a lot of unglamorous software out there that needs to be written that,
in my opinion, will never exist in state-of-the-art form as open source. And I
could be wrong. But I suspect this idea of some perfect GPL world where all
software is free is a romantic fantasy, and there are ugly problems to be solved
that nobody is willing to work on for free.
I'm not against the GPL. I have super high respect for what Richard Stallman
has produced -- gcc is the foundation of all the major open source platforms. I
do think open source programmers should be free to release under whatever
license they want. But neither do I consider people who choose to release under
the Berkeley license to be fools or consider them to have been taken advantage
of for having done that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
I wrote about this on the 6th. It really does seem that Sun has done an about
face on the GPL since the MS deal. As I mention in the story, they did release
OpenOffice under the GPL so he must have liked it back then. (I'll bet he wishes
he could go back on that one.)
Anyway, for anyone interested in my take
on it (much the same as PJ's, but with lots more external links and tin foil hat
wearing speculation.) The URL is:
Sun
wants to filch OSS
developers?
regards
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux
attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rweiler on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
His hope is that his intended audience, programmers in third world countries,
don't understand it, and they will just accept his interpretation as gospel that
it is a bad thing. Well, I guess it could happen, but I think I would have a
plan B just in case.
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
crocodile tears
An insincere display of grief - false tears.
[From the belief that crocodiles weep either to lure a victim or when eating
one.]
Also see Jonathan Schwartz - on developing nations.
SUN cddl Definition: Hypocrisy insincerity double standards pretence duplicity
two-facedness
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 03:43 AM EDT |
CDDL: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
Hey! I think I have managed to encapsulate the essential meaning behind the CDDL
in a way that is easily accessible at a glance to most people.
Anyone want to do a bumper sticker and a graphic?
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Eagle on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products,
then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the
world
Look, there it is again... The Epitome of Obfuscation.
As a reminder, RMS has succintly defined what IP is, and when&why the word is
used.
Hint: "IP" is not one's tiny droplet in an ocean of free
knowledge - nor is it what one would like to own at the expense of
everyone else.
to quote that illustrious proprietary thinker, Darl
McBride, there's no free lunch.
Or to quote another one of them,
notorious software patent proponent Paul Heckel:
Heckel's
Principle of Dealing with Big Companies: There is no such thing as a free
lunch; unless you're the lunch.35:6 Communications of the ACM (June
1992), p. 121, 122 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Toon Moene on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
[ This is getting repetititious ]
If Sun wants us as repeat
customers, they do have to define a non-destruct-the-GPL corporate vision
that brings them into the 3rd millennium.
See humorix:
Humorix
year-in-preview, especially the meandering course of Sun Microsystems,
Inc. ---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OldGreyTroll on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Not only new folks stopping by... A huge benefit of a place like Groklaw is that
we can do Open Source WordSmithing. One person's argument or evidence or turn of
phrase can help another person make their arguments better and more persuasive
wherever else we may travel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mscibing on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Open source is about what us hackers can do with code: we can modify and use the
code, and we can share the code and our modifications in such a way that other
hackers can similarly modify and use the code and our modifications. We can
build on the code, and we can share our labours with the world. It's about what
we can do, not about what others are not allowed to do.
The open-source culture is about sharing code. Sun's CDDL license, and the BSD
licenses allow an open-source culture around the licensed code. The GPL goes
further and has provisions to defend such a culture. BSD has an open-source
culture. It remains to be seen if such a culture will grow up around Sun's code;
I have my doubts. But it is an open-source license.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Darkside on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
"...I've talked to developing nations, representatives from academia
and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into
their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back
into the world," Schwartz said.
I've talked to people who helped
themselves to other people's intellectual property without first checking
exactly what its owners permitted them them to do with it, and consequently only
later found that they couldn't redistribute that property without granting the
same rights to others that they themselves have enjoyed. But they were not
under any obligation to redistribute at all.
The GPL purports to
have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users "a rather predatory
obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the
world,"
The GPL purports to have freedom at it core, and it
imposes no obligations whatsoever upon its users. If users wish to avail
themselves of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, then they must do so
according to the latter's licence grant, but it's copyright law, not the
GPL, which restricts what the user can do without permission. The GPL grants
some permissions. If those permissions are insufficient, then users are free to
use other code released under another licence, or develop their own, or
negotiate with the GPLed code's copyright holders for additional
permissions.
Note that 99% of users of GPLed software never modify it. These
people are permitted under the GPL to redistribute without releasing any of
their IP to the community.
"If you look at the difference between
the license we elected to use and GPL, there are no obligations to economies or
universities or manufacturers that take the source code and embed it in (their
own) code."
That's fine. If you want to release your own code
under a more permissive licence (one which permits other people to redistribute
it under a less permissive licence), you're free to do so, but don't whine if
other people prefer to use a licence which doesn't permit this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
Well, the man is a liar:
"Schwartz singled out the GPL provision that says source code may be mixed
with other code only if the other code also is governed by the GPL."
Utterly not true. The code has to be licensed under GPL-compatible licence. For
instance MIT/BSD will do fine. LGPL will also do fine.
But this is the more puzzling bit:
"The GPL purports to have freedom at its core, but it imposes on its users
'a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest
nation in the world,' the United States, where the GPL originated, Schwartz
said. 'If you look at the difference between the license we elected to use and
GPL, there are no obligations to economies or universities or manufacturers that
take the source code and embed it in (their own) code.'
Eh? Huh? I'm an Australian and have written code which is licensed under the
GPL. I had no idea U.S. now has some kind of special rights in that code. The
man is being really silly...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 10 2005 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
On the pacific highway north out of Sydney you drive past the Sun offices. They
have a large steel sculpture of the Sun logo and it all looks very impressive.
Apart from the 'for lease' sign.
I think that sums Sun microsystems up very nicely. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mscibing on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
Do remember SUN started by taking BSD code and making it their
own. Ah, I did not know that.
SUN
highlighted the problem with the BSD lisense and are now complaining that the
problem has been dealt with.
Tough,
...
Yeah. Welcome to the free market Sun. Pity that
Schwartz can't bring himself to admit that he just doesn't like competition,
instead of spewing nonsense about it.
I generally wouldn't mind licensing
my modifications back to a company on code they've donated to open-source (say
by dual-licensing it with the GPL as one of the licenses). But companies that do
this are generally smart enough not to trash-talk my culture. Schwartz's Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde performances are a real turn-off.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
Oh well, just another suit trying to "monitize" open source. In the
R&D world, open source is open exchange of ideas. We all benefit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
| I'm not saying don't do it, if you don't care, but most people do care. If
companies can get a lot of people to sign on to work for absolutely nothing, who
am I to complain? But I bet in the long run the results won't hold a candle to
GPL code. The quality is built in to the license. Humans are born with an innate
sense of justice, so don't call it "Open Source" if the whole point of the
license is to close off the results.
You know this irks me...the license
has zip to do with the quality of the code or project. Its a backhanded slap on
all the non-GPL open source projects out there in addition to Open Solaris. The
BSDs may not be as popular as linux but the quality and capability is comparable
and "holds a candle" to GPL code.
This is true in nearly every segment of Open
Source...not just OS's. Database, webservers etc. The exception might be in
office suites...though OO is dual licensed so its a wash.
-V [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
| I'm not saying don't do it, if you don't care, but most people do care. If
companies can get a lot of people to sign on to work for absolutely nothing, who
am I to complain? But I bet in the long run the results won't hold a candle to
GPL code. The quality is built in to the license. Humans are born with an innate
sense of justice, so don't call it "Open Source" if the whole point of the
license is to close off the results.
You know this irks me...the license
has zip to do with the quality of the code or project. Its a backhanded slap on
all the non-GPL open source projects out there in addition to Open
Solaris.
The BSDs may not be as popular as linux but the quality and
capability is comparable and "holds a candle" to GPL code.
This is true in
nearly every segment of Open Source...not just OS's. Database, webservers etc.
The exception might be in office suites...though OO is dual licensed so its a
wash.
-V
Ignore above version with no paragraphs. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
... can also buy GPL'ed software from the authors. There is nothing about
releasing software under the GPL which would keep the author from selling a
separate license, free of any GPL restrictions to any given company -- say Sun
-- for cold hard cash.
Of course, this would involve the company -- say Sun -- actually parting with
their money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
With summer coming I guess it is time for another GPL remedial class.
Be sure to keep a seat for Darl and Jonathan.
---
I do not suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
