Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OSI Approves Apple, IBM Licenses

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the they're-like-tribbles dept.

Apple 202

Thought the GPL was a nice license for your software project, one that fit with your thoughts about software freedom? Perhaps the BSD license was more to your taste? Well, even if you confine yourself to the ones approved by the Open Source Initiative, you can now choose from a grand total of 23 different licenses. Two new licenses have been blessed by the OSI: IBM's Common Public License Version 0.5, and the Apple Public Source License 1.2. Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license. So here we are with at least 23, and rising.

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hi Microsoft Employee, FUD seems to be working! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#230948)

Hello paid microsoft employees, your FUD seems to be working. The slashbots seem to be agreeing with you. It's great, they don't even realize they are falling for your plan, but it's ok.

Re:On Stallman (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#230949)

He has a big beard, thus we will do as he says. Tis' the hacker way.

Re:Pigs? (2)

Roblimo (357) | more than 13 years ago | (#230950)

Link errors noted and fixed.

Thanks,

- Robin

So what? (2)

Frodo (1221) | more than 13 years ago | (#230955)

What's bad in having 23, or, for that matter, 230 licenses? So RMS doesn't hold a monopoly on determining what open source is and what it is not, big deal. If we don't need software monopoly, why do we need license monopoly?

Bad (2)

slothbait (2922) | more than 13 years ago | (#230957)

> I think RMS is just a little out of touch today anyway.

Possible.

> He's too unyeilding, and that never leads to success.

Boy, you got that right. When will people learn that revolutionaries never win? That's why Massachusetts still pays taxes to England, and Texas is still a part of Mexico.

> you DO have to balance a company wanting to make money with open source work, and the community.

No you don't.

> I'm surprised someone hasn't lambasted id/Carmack for releasing the code to their games, and yet not making it Free.

Last I checked, id's release of Quake was under the terms of the GPL. By definition, that code is free software.

--Lenny

More anti-Stallman BS... (4)

slothbait (2922) | more than 13 years ago | (#230958)

> To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

And tell me how he denies any programmers of their rights? Is he somehow denying them by not letting them redistribute his software under a license not of his choosing? No, he's *granting* them rights to his software. You can argue that BSD or Artistic licenses grant *more* privelidges, but the GPL certainly doesn't *take away* rights, it merely grants more limited rights. Don't confure less positive with a negative.

> As it is, he can be a royal pain.

Has he been calling you up and bothering you lately? Has he been threatening you personally? No, he just states his mind. People seem to think that Stallman is "out to get" other software projects, but mostly people go to him and say "do you like this non-GPL license?", to which he will say "no". Big surprise there. We wouldn't hear nearly as much out of Stallman if people weren't constantly seeking his opinion.

> But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT.

So is "free code" this amazing new concept of your's, or are you just trying dodge the phrase "free software", which was defined by Stallman himself? The gift philosophy is more or less the BSD mindset. That's great, but that's not "free software". By definition, what Stallman is pushing is "free software".

> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!

That is a blatant lie. Without the GPL you have no rights to the code. With it, you are granted limited rights. If the license was BSD, you would arguably have more rights, but the fact of the matter is that the GPL is *adding* to your rights. So, effectively, you are whining because Stallman isn't giving you all that you want out of him. You seem to want him to give you *his* software on *your* terms.

> So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.

Who, precisely, is more qualified to comment on free software than the man who created the term to begin with, and founded the Free Software Foundation?

> What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software.

No, they are dictating how you use *their* software. Sorry if it cramps your style, but the GPL grants us a whole heck of a lot of rights.

> If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts

He's not interested in gifts, he's interested in freedom. Not just freedom in the here and now, but *sustained* freedom. That is where the BSD and GPL camps really diverge. The GPL makes provisions to ensure *continued* freedom. You may feel that the provision is to onerous, but atleast understand it's purpose.

-Lenny

And of course... (1)

Moonwick (6444) | more than 13 years ago | (#230960)

...as long as we've mentioned "free" licenses, let's be sure to bring up the infamous GPL, known wide and far for the "freedom" it gives users and programmers.

Of course, the astute reader will point out that the use of the word freedom in the previous sentence is complete bullshit, and that the GPL is reality just a viral piece of socialist hogwash.

It's the *software* that's *free* not *you* !! (2)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 13 years ago | (#230962)


For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code.

Still, some people seem to have problem understanding "free software". It was never ment to mean that you could just take it and do with it as you wish (as in beer).

It's the *software* that is free, and the fact that it's freedom blocks your freedom in some areas (you can't "imprison" it in "un-free" software) seem to be the source of this annoyance.

But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

I assure you that this is complete nonsense, of cource you can do as you wish with your code. It's the code of *others* that you can't do with as you wish.


--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D7272 C3AF4F2snlbxq'|dc

Re:On Stallman (5)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 13 years ago | (#230963)

But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

People don't become maniacs simply by having ideas about property rights that differ from yours. Nor does Stallman deny authors anything. What he does is provide a model license that gives authors the option of sharing their software in a way that ensures everyone who partakes of it must also share. This is a common virtue we push in elementary schools; it only becomes anathema, apparently, when we suggest that adults might want to voluntarily be nice to their fellow adults. Of course, people have been killed for less, but what the hell.

Stallman's use of the word 'free' can be a bit counter-intuitive, but as countless thousands of people have noted, English lacks native words for all but the crudest notions of freedom and cost-free-ness.

The GPL has its place. I don't agree with Stallman's belief that all software should be GPLed, but the abuses of "free" and "open source" software by large corporations over the past couple of years clearly demonstrate that if you give an inch to greedy, unethical suits, they'll take a mile, every time. Maybe this matters in some cases, maybe it doesn't. The GPL is available for those cases when it does.

If you want truly free software in the commonly understood sense of the word, you need to prepend these words to your source code:

I, Joe Developer, hereby release this software into the public domain.

The problem is that the vast majority of the people who decry the restrictions of the GPL as unfree are seldom willing to actually go that far and make their own software absolutely free. There is a lesson to be drawn from this which will probably not sit well with rigidly doctrinaire libertarians, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader.

--

Propaganda in the GPL (1)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 13 years ago | (#230965)

I'm sure the reason many companies make their own licenses up is that there's far too much propaganda in the GPL and LGPL. If you're a company that survives by selling 'non-free' software it's rather galling to include a license that rants on about how bad it is that you should do this.

Re:On Stallman (2)

landley (9786) | more than 13 years ago | (#230966)

>But there's no way I can ever tolerate his
>distorted vision for the future of software. To
>the extent that he denies a software author the
>right to do with his code as he pleases, the man
>is a maniac.

You mean how dare I demand the same treatment from you as you got from me, I.E. the publication of any source code derived from my work?

How dare I, as a software author, attach a price tag to my work which you only have to pay if your code incorporates my own?

Nobody ever said you had to include any GPLed code in a program you write, and if that's your attitude about it I seriously hope you never do.

Rob

Re:Illegal (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 13 years ago | (#230968)

Well, if they are selling something at a loss for the purpose of fucking there competition, that price dumping and its illegal. (note that lost leaders and the like are legal)

You should contact your authorities, or if you feel compeled, just sue them yourselves.

Re:Call me nuts, but... (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 13 years ago | (#230969)

A few months back there was a post on /. about someone developing a crossplatform game developement library. He had engaged in a email conversation with RMS over some licensing issues; free libraries on top of closed libs.

One of the (possible) platforms discussed was one of the gaming consoles. RMS diddnt know what they were, and was confused at why someone would want one.

He was either being factious, or he actualy dosent know what a gaming console is. The later makes him out of touch with reality, and the former indicates that he thinks he is above the common man. Either way, not a good thing.

Re:Call me nuts, but... (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 13 years ago | (#230970)

Perhaps it was, my bad.

AS I recall there was a bit of discussion on the console issue, so his confusion was more then just off the cuff confusion. And it was email anyway. RMS diddnt know what gaming consoles were.

My point is that he is out of touch with reality. Yes he has made some significant technical contributions. But I realy couldnt see me aligning with him, even if I did think the GPL was the best license.

Incedently, I dont own a game console, and havent even playd one in years.

Re:Call me nuts, but... (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 13 years ago | (#230971)

Im sure you know that aliasing has something to do with graphics. Not even knowingwhat a gaming console is is on par with not knowing what a washing machine is. You might not have one, and you might not want to have one, but you know what one is.

Re:Semantics (1)

Romen (10819) | more than 13 years ago | (#230972)

Sadly, you don't actually know what you are talking about. For actual information on the GPL and it's legal status, I reccommend the articles linked to from this page [dyndns.org] .


Sam TH

whine, whine, whine (1)

Lx (12170) | more than 13 years ago | (#230974)

You want to see source or not? Fer chrissakes, some is better than none. Deal with the fact that releasing code under the GPL is a particularly stupid thing for a corporation who is supposed to make a profit to do. Thanks to the recent economic shakeout getting rid of the plethora of linux-oriented companies, there's not much you can point to to say "Free" software is very profitable.

-lx

Re:On Stallman (1)

Keith McClary (14340) | more than 13 years ago | (#230980)

To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.


RMS has ever said anything like that.

You can release your code under any license you want - RMS just advises users to be aware of all the restrictions and lock-ins associated with proprietary software.

Even if you release code under the GPL you still own the copyright and can do whatever you want with it including making derived works which you exclusively own and can try to sell under other licenses.

Re:I'm about half sick of licenses (1)

Wee (17189) | more than 13 years ago | (#230987)

"A poor gamer blames his video drivers."

Thanks for the witticism. Here's one of mine: "If you have to say it anonymously, it isn't worth saying."

I had high score (32-ish) on a server with like 27 people on it. I'm allowed to bitch about the latest DRI snapshot sucking when I'm high scorer. Keep the Zen platitudes to yourself.

-B

Mutual compatability and efficiency (1)

Adam J. Richter (17693) | more than 13 years ago | (#230988)

I think one of the greatest efficiencies of free software is in reducing friction in reuse of other work in ways that may not have been imagined originally. For this to occur easily enough so that this efficiency is not offset by some other inneficiency (like negiating license exceptions), mutually compatible copying conditions are necessary.

Currently, the largest set of mutually compatible free software available is the set defined by GPL compatibility. This includes the new BSD copying conditions, the "MIT style" copying conditions, public domain, and many other varieties. The GPL also covers many crucial system components, like gcc. So, for reasons of both the amount of software and the specific software covered, it is unlikely that a superior pool of mutually cominglable free software will be created in the near future that does not include some GPL'ed software.

So, currently, if you care about the network effects and efficiency benefits of Open Source, even if you don't give a hoot about Free Software, your most effective maintenance strategy is to use GPL-compatible copying conditions (not necessarily the GPL), not because you think the GPL came from heaven, but primarily because the GPL has itself become a dominant technology compatibility standard.

OSI: lacking a major resource (2)

tartarus (18264) | more than 13 years ago | (#230989)

Am I the only person who wishes that, as part of certifying a license, OSI would provide a concise explanation of what it means in practice? Obviously you still need to read the license IF you are going to use it, but in choosing a license for a brand new project it would be useful to have a summary of key features to help decide.

One of the reasons I always use GPL or MIT (depending on context) is that they are well-understood in the community, and so we don't get bogged down in legalese.

Could this be a case of diversity being harmful for the community (but, I'm sure, being beneficial to the initial developers in some way)?

Re:On Stallman (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 13 years ago | (#230990)

> To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

How does he do that?

> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!

Which perhaps explains why they call it a "license".

--

Re:APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (2)

frantzdb (22281) | more than 13 years ago | (#230994)

I havn't looked into that license but it could well be Free. There are Free Software Licenses other than the GPL. There are even Free Software licenses which are incompatable with the GPL. See the FSF's page [fsf.org] .

--Ben

Re:Illegal (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 13 years ago | (#230998)

Im afraid you're in the wrong market then. Proprietary consumer productivity software is dead as a market. There you're stuck between Microsoft on one side that will implement your programs if they're useful and bundle them with windows, opensource on another side who will implement it if anyone cares about the software and will give it away for free, the problem that this type of software becomes pretty much 'finished' on the third side, and consumer reluctance to pay for each and every little component in a system.

Id advise you go into consulting, some vertical market, entertainment markets or some market that doesnt have the same dead end mechanics built into that market.

Re:What is RMS's problem with IBM's license? (2)

Znork (31774) | more than 13 years ago | (#230999)

Well, IANAL either, and 3 minutes isnt enough to figure out a license really, but from a quick reading it seems you're right.

Looks pretty much like GPL, but with less work done on specifying problematic technical software issues like linking, and with more work gone into the disclaiming and patent parts. If you read it more carefully, you cannot change the license on binaries. You can issue a disjointed license on binaries but then it has to conform to both, and there is nothing preventing that on GPL software either (Ie, you can say "I will provide warranty for this software in the form distributed by me" in your extra license and that would be ok for both GPL and this IBM license).

Of course, the GPL deals with these issues too. So, yet another license that isnt saying anything original but which is very likely incompatible with the GPL (the license revocation clause was the first thing I thought of).

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (4)

macpeep (36699) | more than 13 years ago | (#231011)

Neither should they moderate the parent down. The parent post was a very good one. You may or may not disagree with the views of the writer but that's not a base for moderation. Moderation is about rating the quality of the post, not the content of the post.

Re:How is this +2 Informative? mod's on crack. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231025)

The metamods will get him. If you created an account you could metamod yourself (and you would always be free to click the "Post Anonymously" button if you wanted to remain an AC).

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231026)

at least 2 people mod you up but they dont think to use their points to mod the parent down. sigh. Proprietory software developers (who are the only ones who are disadvantaged by the GPL vs say, the BSD license) dont need community development software. They have venture capital and customers to pay for their development. The community however only has itself to help forward the development. By giving our code to proprietory interests we are reducing the number of people who will use any free software that competes with the proprietory product. There is a very real connection between the number of developers who would be willing to help work on free software and the number of people using that free software. By aiding people to give up their freedoms by using proprietory software we are weakening our own.

Re:APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231027)

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

Brings a tear to my eye. Seriously, this is fantastic, and I'm not just saying that because I haven't heard a useful contribution from an AC in so long :)

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231028)

The moderation is supposed to be related to how much the post contributes to the topic and I dont think openly insulting someone contributes anything.

In future... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231029)

quote your source [fsf.org] please.

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231030)

Blah. I'm the first one to bitch about the straight and narrow line of Slashdot dogma. Unfortunately it has become quite regularly one of ignorance and intellectual laziness. You're obviously a smart guy but you'll never achieve anything in life. Now I'm going to call you a Troll, say you are spreading Flamebait and are otherwise Offtopic :)

Re:On Stallman (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231031)

Why is it that someone who sums it up so neatly is more often than not rated as "Flamebait?" Who would try to flame that? You cant argue with it. It is a perfect sentiment. Step off.

APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231034)

Seems like "free software" [gnu.org] to me. So what am I missing?
  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).Yep, there are no restrictions in this license.
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).Yep, specifically stated in section 2.1.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).Would appear so, especially as related to section 2.2.
  • The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Section 4 specifically says you can do this.

Please, if I'm missing a crucial factor here hit me with it, but I'm after specific non-redundant replies, not flames.

Re:Call me nuts, but... (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231035)

The development library was Crystal Space and that was a lot longer ago than "a few months back". My mother wouldn't know what a "console" is either and even my brother (who actually does play games) would look at me strangely if I used the word "console". If you want to understand RMS's opinion on libraries you should read the warning on the LGPL [gnu.org] .

Re:Call me nuts, but... (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#231036)

read the transcript (or listen to the oog) of this story [slashdot.org] in the yro section. He seems pretty in touch with reality to me. He just doesn't care about games. If someone started talking to me about graphics programs and refered to some aliasing algorithm, I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about and I wouldn't consider it valid for them to say I was out of touch with reality. Out of touch with graphics programming maybe, but I dont think graphics programming is such an important part of life that I just must know things about it and obviously RMS doesn't think gaming is such an important part of life. Does this make him out of touch? Yer, maybe, about as much as my dad is out of touch. Hardly a reason to forsake someone's opinion.

Thanks OSI! (2)

dimator (71399) | more than 13 years ago | (#231043)

Thanks OSI for telling me exactly what to think! Oh, is IBM's license approved by you now? Then I'll consider it for my next project!

Please...

People, if you want to release a project, look at all the licenses out there. Don't go GPL because everyone else is doing it. Don't listen to OSI. Don't let anything but the licenses themselves influence your decision. Read them, choose what seems right for your needs.

You want your shit closed, you say? Think it will get you a wad of cash, or get you something else? Do it. Don't let /. or anyone else be your guide.


--

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (3)

dimator (71399) | more than 13 years ago | (#231044)

The moderation is supposed to be related to how much the post contributes to the topic

You mean how much the post reinforces the most common ideas here on slashdot, so we can all proceed to kiss our own asses, instead of stating an opinion which might be self-generated and against the status-quo?

I dont think openly insulting someone contributes anything.

"Nevertheless, he is a genius."

I wish more people would insult me that way.


--

Free & opensource software should remain synonyms (2)

apol (94049) | more than 13 years ago | (#231050)

I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).

The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:

  • "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake: free software should simply mean software which is free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF (BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself [gnu.org] . I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.

  • "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source" == good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers (go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.

The first effort to establish a definition to free software was DFSG [debian.org] . As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition [opensource.org] carries some changes). One calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.

Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)

Re:Free & opensource software should remain synony (2)

apol (94049) | more than 13 years ago | (#231051)

"open source" is now a superset of "free software"

We should not let this happen. The term "opensource" would never have been gained acceptance in our community if it was meant to be a synonym for free software. The interest of the community should be greater than the ambition and the narcisism of two individuals (ESR and RMS).

We should not let ESR decide alone what is good or bad in the name of "opensource". Finally a lot of what we do is call "opensource" by people from outside. If OSI accepts licenses that we do not like let us ask for a more representative organ, and not let it decide what it wants in the name of the rest.

Too many people have contributed for free/opensource software. I don't see why we would give two people the liberty to decide what these terms should mean. Free software shouldn't mean software with a license from FSF, or software adhering to the "free software movement started by RMS", or software that RMS likes. Opensource software shouldn't mean OSI approved.

Darwinism... (2)

Xenex (97062) | more than 13 years ago | (#231053)

Of course it's Darwinism, it's the name [apple.com] of the kernel released under Apple's ... [apple.com]

;)

Darwinism... (2)

Xenex (97062) | more than 13 years ago | (#231054)

Of course it's Darwinism, it's the name [apple.com] of the kernel released under Apple's APSL [apple.com] ...

;)

MaxOS? (2)

Xenex (97062) | more than 13 years ago | (#231055)

Why do you keep saying "MaxOS" in reference to Apple? There is already a bad Linux distro [maxos.com] called that, and it's pretty obvious where they got their name from.

If you mean "Mac OS X", type Mac OS X.

Re:Bad link... geez... (1)

cynthetik (97316) | more than 13 years ago | (#231056)

Let the pork jokes begin...

Well I would have Pork was the obvious complement to Apple source...

What is RMS's problem with IBM's license? (1)

Sun (104778) | more than 13 years ago | (#231059)

Ok, IANAL (always loved the sound of that acronym) (don't you just love it when someone uses an acronym to make things shorter, and then puts in some extra comments about the acronym which would have made not using the acronym at all so much shorter?).

The way I see it, the IBM license is, in spirit, very much like the GPL.

You have the right to:

  • remain silent
  • distribute binaries, but you must supply source for a reasonable cost.
  • distribute source, it must be under this license.

The only different I see is that you can somewhat change the license on binaries.

One more difference is that they made an heroic attempt to deal with liability, support and patent licensing issues.

Am I misunderstanding something centeral here?

Re:anti-appl-msft license? (1)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 13 years ago | (#231061)

First of all, quicktime is coded in Carbon last time I checked, so that means it's as close to linux compatibility as any other Classic Mac OS 9 application - aka not at all. Second of all, there are plenty of apps that run on linux that don't run on windows. The only difference is that there are usually similiar programs that run on one platform, but not another. So, run out and license some technology and make it only availiable on linux and wait for it to catch on... oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program.

F-bacher

Re:anti-appl-msft license? (1)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 13 years ago | (#231062)

Last time I checked they weren't licensed to only run on Linux. They're open sourced, under the GPL, and can be ported to other unixes, etc. My post makes more sense in context of the original post, not just my reply by itself.

F-bacher

Open Source != Free (5)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 13 years ago | (#231063)

"Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license."

By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).

F-bacher

23! (1)

shpoffo (114124) | more than 13 years ago | (#231064)

23 Licenses!
Hail Eris!

<goes to look for his hot dog, it being friday and all>
-shpoffo

Moores Law Anyone? (2)

boris_the_hacker (125310) | more than 13 years ago | (#231070)

I wonder if moores law applies in this situation, ie. every 18 months the number of opensource licenses doubles....
---
boris at darkrock dot co dot uk

Quake code (1)

mpinard (125537) | more than 13 years ago | (#231071)

Keep in mind that id have other games. Yes, Quake is under GPL because it's no longer their best toy in the house.

Look here:
http://www.idsoftware.com/archives/quake3arc.htm l

For example, they release game code of Quake3 to make sure that it's possible to modify as much as possible the gameplay, but they keep the 3D engine closed. The game code of Quake3 isn't GPL. I have no idea on which license they released it, but there must be something to prevent anyone to sell a game based on Quake 3 code without paying $300,000.

I think it's great the way they do it. I'm not complaining, but I would like to see Commander Keen source code!

Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.

Bad link... geez... (2)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 13 years ago | (#231072)

Open Source Intiatitive's [opensource.org] real URL is http://www.opensource.org/.

Let the pork jokes begin...

Re:why not just make it public domain? (1)

balthan (130165) | more than 13 years ago | (#231074)

Nor can you take GPL'd software and combine it with other "free" but non-GPL'd software. The FSF is not about promoting free software, it's about promoting GPL software.

ok nutcase (2)

Ur@eus (148802) | more than 13 years ago | (#231076)

Why DO you have to balance a company wanting to make money and the community? GNU/Linux & BSD was created by the community for the community not for company this or that. So if companies want to release software under non-GPL licenses being OSI approved or closed source, well nothing is stoping them since all the basic and important libraries are LGPL or BSD. But there is no need for the community applauding their actions. The community uses (L)GPL and BSD licenses and these companies can use whatever license they wish. They just have to realize that by using other licenses they make their code mostly uninteresting to the community and minimalize the chance of community involvement.

Re:I'm about half sick of licenses (2)

John Hurliman (152784) | more than 13 years ago | (#231077)

I would have to agree. Unless I'm trying to make a profit off it, I release all my new software in the public domain. "Here you go, I don't care what you do with it, I'm writing this for my own knowledge and to better the software world, not to push some agenda."

Another Discordian plot? (2)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 13 years ago | (#231080)

23 licenses to choose from? further proof that the open source movement is nothing but a front for those anarchist, anti-American Discordian bastards.

PS---this is not a troll. It is an ogre.

on Fire vs GPL (1)

wdavies (163941) | more than 13 years ago | (#231082)

Nope, it similar to the fact that if you want the protection of free speech granted by the US constitution, you have to grant other the same right...

Not decided on the issue, but leaning towards the LGPL.

Winton

Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (1)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 13 years ago | (#231083)

The post above should be moderated up. It nicely points out the flaws in the original post.

In a world that is quickly going to hell in a handbasket, I see the GNU GPL/Linux/free software movement as one of the few rays of light.
The fact that Ralph Nader (someone completely unqualifed for the job) got as many votes as he did shows that people are generally unhappy (and getting unhappier!) about the prospect of becoming a bunch of camera-watched, genetically-tested, cuecat barcoded sheep.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, what washes in America usually ends up *washing* in our country. Despite new anti-thinking laws (eg. DMCA), all is not lost.
Things like the GPL, open standards and the free flow of information are what will make our society enlightened. That is if the free software movement continues to grow, and I hope it will.
Short sighted developers come on here and whinge that GPL will make them lose their job, or somehow affect their freedoms. No one is applying screws to their fingernails forcing them to use GPL'ed software.
The fact of the matter is, over the long term, we will need more and more software developers. Most software is developed in house as it is, and this trend will continue to grow. Software can solve all sorts of problems. It is just another branch of applied mathematics. We have nowhere even come close to breaching the possibilities available to us. And if there is a short term recession, who do you think are going to be the people who lose their jobs? The guy who writes a killer open source app in his free time or some guy scratching his head working out how to connect Visual basic to an Access database? He can't concentrate, he wants to go home and study for his MCSE.

There is no shame in being idealistic. It is a sign of intelligence.

Re:On Stallman (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 13 years ago | (#231084)

The point is, though, that Stallman doesn't
care about your puny little freedom to
restrict what people do with code you distribute,
he cares about everyone else's freedom to
modify and distribute it.

In the words of Kirk and Spock, the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Letting other's use your code is the price you
pay for getting to use everyone else's. Is
this not a fair deal?

Pigs? (4)

kstantfw (187237) | more than 13 years ago | (#231087)

Is someone trying to say something by linking to the Ontario Swine Institute (osi.org)?

Re:Darwinism... (1)

TheOutlawTorn (192318) | more than 13 years ago | (#231088)

Ah yes, wouldn't be ironic if Darwin was...um..."Darwined" because of it's license?

Too much to consider at 4:00am, I'm out.

License Darwinism... (3)

TheOutlawTorn (192318) | more than 13 years ago | (#231089)

be it 23 or 2300, developers will use the license that makes the most sense to them AND lets them work with the people they want to, so I really don't see many of these licenses lasting for the long term. Watch them fade into obscurity.

Ever find it hard... (1)

Tigris666 (197729) | more than 13 years ago | (#231091)

finding [dictionary.com] out [e2.com] where [yahoo.com] all [google.com] the [debian.org] links [redhat.org] go [freshmeat.org] to [linux.org] in [slashdot.org] these [lycos.com] articles? [slashcode.com]

sorry, couldnt resist... there are sooooo many links in this one, i got confused :o)

ugh, more whining (1)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 13 years ago | (#231092)

To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code.

If you wrote the code, you can do anything you want with it. So your first premise is false.

If you didn't write the code, of course you can't do whatever you want with it. Duh. (If I invited you to dinner, would you complain if you couldn't keep my plates?)

--Mike

Call me nuts, but... (2)

bluephone (200451) | more than 13 years ago | (#231093)

I think RMS is just a little out of touch today anyway. He takes too much credit for himself, makes sure to put his ego first. Yeah, he's made good contributions, but it's not 1970 anymore. He's too unyeilding, and that never leads to success. I agree 23 licenses are a bit much, but you DO have to balance a company wanting to make money with open source work, and the community. I'm surprised someone hasn't lambasted id/Carmack for releasing the code to their games, and yet not making it Free. Sometimes Free is better than Open, and sometimes Open is better than Free.

--

troll links (5)

Segfault 11 (201269) | more than 13 years ago | (#231094)

At the moment, the links I see for both GPL and BSD point to the /. front page. It sure seems like these Perl [python.org] hackers have a hard time with HTML [w3.org] ...

Re:it's not "dumping" (1)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 13 years ago | (#231095)

This is based on some sort of idealism, not capitalism

Capitalism is idealism. It's an ideology not some law of nature. In fact, if Capitalism were a natural scientific hypothesis it would have never made into a theory, because its predictions have been proven empirically wrong over and over again.

But back to your problem. What would you suggest, then? That free distribution of software should not be allowed if it infringes someone's "Right to Make Money"? Wake up. There's no such right.

Re:anti-appl-msft license? (1)

KevinMS (209602) | more than 13 years ago | (#231098)

sorry, I mean OSX, I've got too many acronyms in my head.

Re:anti-appl-msft license? (2)

KevinMS (209602) | more than 13 years ago | (#231099)

First of all, I really doubt the actual quicktime engine/algorithms makes many api calls to the OS, whether its carbon/coco/whatever. If it did it probably couldnt be called "quicktime". I also am pretty sure that it existed before the carbon standard. Second of all, I was refering to killer apps, not the mountain of useful but sometimes hobby quality unix apps. Third of all, I was posing a question for a debate, I didnt want to make you angry, very sorry about that. Although you did reinforce my antagonistic argument by saying

"oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program." My argument was- what if opensource (for lack of better term) was more guarded with its license, would it still be such an underdog

And thank you for finally making it clear to me that much of the intelligent debate about "stuff that matters" has been ported from /. to http://www.kuro5hin.org/

Oh, and sorry for the maXOS think, I of course meant OSX, I've got too many acronyms to remember and I think some of them are starting to share the same storage in my brain.

It exists - Free World License (1)

phr1 (211689) | more than 13 years ago | (#231100)

See the Free World License [freeworldlicence.org] -- denounced by RMS, even though he approves of its goals! But unfortunately it's a click-through license, which RMS prefers to avoid.

Is there a licence that says this? (3)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 13 years ago | (#231101)

I'd like to release my code under a specific licence. Does any of the current ones say this?

  1. Its free, you can't charge for it, but you can charge for distribution, just so long as you don't charge for the code itself.
  2. If it all screws up, its not my fault. Blame someone else
  3. You're welcome to hack it about and redistributed it as you see fit but:
    1. You must release the code under the same licence as this
    2. You cannot release the code under the same name (as it won't be my "official" release) and I don't want to deal with people going "x v1.55 doesn't work!" when i'm only on 1.22 myself.
  4. No warranty etc. etc.

Is there anything like that out there? I wouldn't say my licence is restrictive, just avoids some potential headaches.

Can anyone advise?

--

Yawn (1)

samrolken (246301) | more than 13 years ago | (#231112)

Just more stuff to argue over. This is good for bringing money into opensource though. Thanks for accepting IBM and apple. cool. blah

Has he spoken? (1)

exit_1001 (263013) | more than 13 years ago | (#231114)

Has the dirty hippie spoken yet?

Ontario Swine Improvement as an Open Organization (5)

shorti9 (307602) | more than 13 years ago | (#231118)

In the original version of this story(hopefully fixed by now), Timothy had a link to the Ontario Swine Improvement site, instead of the Open Source Initiative's site.

At first I thought this was just a simple acronym mix-up, but upon further analysis, I realized it was much d eeper than that. If you check out the FAQ, the OSI is commited to helping improve Ontario's pigs in an open manner. For example, they're all about sharing source material [osi.org] , as especially noted in their pricing strategy [osi.org] -- they charge you extra if you're not sharing your source material!

In fact, they even provide some how-to in their FAQs [osi.org]

Of course, this project is merely Open, since the material can never be truly Free. They would like to be Free, but apparently their product relies on IP from an external source, and they just can't get their vendor to agree to the terms of the GPL. Something about "thou shalt not lie with a beast" or some such.

There are rumors He's open to petitions though.

Re:why not just make it public domain? (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#231119)

Free Software with conditions isn't free under any definition of the word "free."

I guess, by your reasoning, that since I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, I don't have freedom of speech.

Ryan T. Sammartino

Re:On Stallman (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#231120)

Some of my potential customers then come to me and try to get my software for practically no cost. Indirectly referring to or threatening with the "free software on the internet".

That's called "competition in a free market".

Deal with it.

Ryan T. Sammartino

Re:Free & opensource software should remain synony (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#231121)

Well, the problem is that "open source" started to be used for things that are not free, and so became more broad in scope than "free software". That's why we need to start distinguishing between the two, since "open source" is now a superset of "free software".

Ryan T. Sammartino

Re:On Stallman (3)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#231122)

I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.
  1. No freedom is absolute. You have freedom of speech, yet cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
  2. The "restrictions" are there to promote the GPL. That's the whole point.

Ryan T. Sammartino

Re:Illegal (3)

ryants (310088) | more than 13 years ago | (#231123)

This is not a free market.

Where are you... 1980s Soviet Union?

My competitors do not compete on equal terms.

Nobody ever competes on equal terms. I'm stronger than you, therefore I'll win the bench press competition. I'm smarter than you, therefore I'm going to get higher grades on the exam.

This is life. Not all are equal.

They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.

Sounds like they've figured something out that you didn't. Too bad.

It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.

Gee, that's too bad. Such is the free market: if you can't compete, you go out of business.

I cannot see how this is a good thing,

If you cannot see how lower prices + superior products are a good thing, then you need to brush up on some basic economics.

Ryan T. Sammartino

it's not "dumping" (2)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#231124)

This is not a free market. My competitors do not compete on equal terms. They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.

"Dumping" is carried out by companies and countries that want to temporarily undercut prices so that they can later have a monopoly position in the market and charge more for their own products. Free software may end up taking over a market by being cheaper, but by its nature, nobody can charge monopoly prices for it--it is and remains free. Furthermore, the users of free software pay for it, directly and efficiently, in their own contributions, avoiding the overhead of commercial software development and corporations. We call that "competition", not "dumping".

Microsoft, on the other hand, has engaged in something one might call "dumping": they have temporarily undercut competitors, swallowed the losses temporarily, and later (effectively) raised prices on their products.

It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.

And that's the way it should be. Once the development costs of a piece of software have been amortized, it costs nothing to make an additional copy. In an efficient market, the price of software should therefore go to zero. Open source software is simply one of several means by which that happens.

The fact that Microsoft and a few other players continue to make big bucks with old technology is an indication that either they aren't selling software (maybe they are selling services or something less tangible like membership in a "user community"), or that they are engaging in monopolistic practices.

Then everyone has to rely on freely developed software, without support or someone interested in the "customers".

Providing support for free software costs money, and that's why it isn't free. That's also why it is a great opportunity for consulting and for making money.

The enemies of the free market are people like you, not free software. You have unreasonable expectations of the big bucks you can make with software development, and you expect the government to protect you from cheap competition. Well, things fortunately don't work that way. Get used to it, and maybe find a more profitable market niche.

get a grip yourself (2)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#231125)

But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.

What are you complaining about? When you get GPL'ed software, you get good software, its source code, and a limited redistribution license. That's a great deal better than you get with most commercial software; Microsoft, for example, doesn't even let you redistribute their software, let alone modify its source, even though you paid them for it.

Maybe the GPL license doesn't fit your needs. In that case, you can exercise your own choice: don't use the GPL'ed code. Nobody is forcing you. If you like, you can even create your own, proprietary implementation of a GPL'ed library, an option you generally don't have with closed source software.

Re:it's not "dumping" (2)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#231126)

I still think that giving away competing products for free removes the incentives for making a business out of it. At least I have experienced that.

If someone figures out how to sell the same product as yours cheaper (free in this case), of course your incentive should go away; that's the way the free market works. That's why people who start businesses generally try to have a diversified product line and look very seriously at issues like cost of entry.

Thinking that you can drive a serious business on poeple's donation and good will of a few % of the population is just foolish.

If that's your idea of how free software gets created, you are confused. Free software isn't usually created out of "good will" or from "[charitable] donations", it is usually created by real businesses to address real needs.

For example, a lot of free software is in-house software that was created because commercial software licenses were more expensive than in-house development, or because the commercial software didn't do what the user needed. Once created, it is often economically rational for the creator of that software to share it freely (and derive benefits from community-based enhancement and support) rather than to incur the overhead of trying to build a business around it.

Free software is already at a serious disadvantage compared to commercial software: there is little support, little documentation, and no marketing. If your product can't compete with that, I think it really doesn't deserve to be around. I mean, what value are you adding?

On the other hand, if you can't beat them, join them: many companies are willing to pay handsomely for consulting, support, and documentation. Consider offering those services for the competing free software system, or freely distribute your own system and offer those services for it.

This is based on some sort of idealism, not capitalism.

The idea of free software may have been born out of idealism, but it wouldn't be succeeding in the marketplace if it wasn't economically rational for all involved.

And not everything that is free and good succeeds; for example, I predict that both TrollTech's Qt and Apple's Darwin will fail in the end as free software projects: while they may be "free" or "open source", the projects do not seem to derive significant benefits from being released that way. In different words, if a free software license makes no economic sense, it won't help the software.

why not just make it public domain? (2)

mveloso (325617) | more than 13 years ago | (#231128)

public domain = anyone can do anything with the stuff. no ownership. no rights. no protections. no warrantees. no responsibility. no restrictions. this is what "free" means: no strings attached.

Free Software with conditions isn't free under any definition of the word "free." Free means I can take the code and embed it into my $1.5m project, stamp my name on it and resell it, or whatever. Anything less isn't free, by definition. Amusing that the Free Software Foundation doesn't actually promote Free Software, it promotes zero-cost software.

If you want your code to be free, stuff it into the public domain! Let it wander off into the distance, with no hope of renumeration in the future.

Just don't call something free when it isn't.

Semantics (2)

Flying Headless Goku (411378) | more than 13 years ago | (#231129)

Which perhaps explains why they call it a "license".

In essense, a license is a waiver of prosecution. Essentially a binding statement "although what you are doing is a crime, we won't bother you about it." For example, driving a car on a public road is, by default, a criminal act, but your license makes you an exception to the rule.

The term "license agreement" has come to mean a contract granting some license, usually to copy software. To call it simply a "license" is misleading.

In particular, the so-called "General Public License" is a full-fledged contract (in theory... it may yet prove legally invalid), placing an eternal obligation on you to provide matching source code to any and all users to whom you distribute object code.

In contrast, a statement like "all are permitted to redistribute this work, in original or modified form, so long as they do not remove this notice, including the copyright notice and disclaimer" is a true public license. If someone removes the notice and redistributes it, they aren't breaking a contract, but doing something prohibited by default which they don't have permission for. There are no obligations imposed upon the distributor, it is just that the permission granted him is limited.

If the GPL was a license, it wouldn't be so restrictive. So let's not start saying licenses are restrictive by definition.

(IANAL,IAABT)
--

True enough. (2)

Flying Headless Goku (411378) | more than 13 years ago | (#231130)

People don't become maniacs simply by having ideas about property rights that differ from yours.

...no, only by making a lifelong crusade of it, using the term "The Great Satan" to refer to people who have ideas about property rights that differ from his, and writing terrible songs about it.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."
-RMS "The GNU Manifesto"

BTW, I release my code into the public domain. Many programmers have been fed a lot of lies about liability and told things like "if you don't GPL it, proprietary companies can take it for themselves," without really thinking about what things like that mean. GPL is just the default by sheer publicity, no other license (much less the public domain) has a dedicated cadre of propagandists working for it.
--

Re:On Stallman (3)

valrama (411504) | more than 13 years ago | (#231132)

You live in a Free Country. But you are not free to steal; you are not free to shoot your boss or rape his wife.

Freedom has to be defined in a context of "fairness". Your freedom to do as please is tolerated only so far it does not encroach on another person's freedom. Governments draw the line, and enforce it.

The analogy to Free Software should be obvious. RMS is doing the job of drawing the line. He is my hero for it.

I think it is /you/ who needs to get a grip of matters pertaining to GPL.

"Free" is a matter of definition (1)

stew77 (412272) | more than 13 years ago | (#231133)

I don't think it's good that the FSF insists on having the ultimate definition of free software. IMHO, the BSD license is more "free" than the GPL: The BSD license leaves you more freedom in what to do with the source, ie you may combine it with code that underlies a different license and release it without the source. The GPL doesn't allow you to do that, and therefore is IMHO less free.

--

Illegal (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231134)

Ha ha. Very funny.

This is not a free market. My competitors do not compete on equal terms. They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation. It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market. Then everyone has to rely on freely developed software, without support or someone interested in the "customers".

This is sabotage, and I believe that it is illegal to dump prices to eliminate competitors. That is in effect what is happening. I cannot see how this is a good thing, other than for highschool and college kids who want everything for free. :-(

Re:Illegal (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231135)

> ... for the purpose of fucking there competition ... That's the crux. They don't have that purpose ("just doing it for fun"), but the effect is the same.

Re:Illegal (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231136)

>Id advise you go into consulting, some vertical market, entertainment markets or some market that doesnt have the same dead end mechanics built into that market Custom-made drivers saves me.

Re:Illegal (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231137)

>Well if that freely developed software is meeting everyones needs then thats your problem, not the comsumers. If microsoft develops a copy of your product and releases it for free to get rid of the competition, that's a crime.

If Wacky Hacker develops a copy of your product and releases it for free and drives you out of the market, that's not a crime, despite that the effect is the same.

I don't see the logic.

Book rental: the libraries predates capitalism by 2-3000 years or so, so there were no "book rental" business to begin with.

Re:it's not "dumping" (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231138)

>Once the development costs of a piece of software have been amortized, it costs nothing to make an additional copy. In an efficient market, the price of software should therefore go to zero.

This is based on some sort of idealism, not capitalism. In my case, where I have about 1 customer per 2 or 3 million citizens in the industrialized world, I'll never reach the point where the cost is amoritized off if a majority of the copies are distributed freely.

Thinking that you can drive a serious business on poeple's donation and good will of a few % of the population is just foolish. That is most probably stated by people who have not tried to start a company.

>The enemies of the free market are people like you, not free software.

You seem to think that I have M$-ish ambitions. No, I just want to have my small business, have fun and make enough money to support me and my family. I still think that giving away competing products for free removes the incentives for making a business out of it. At least I have experienced that.

Re:Illegal (1)

thorman (412621) | more than 13 years ago | (#231139)

>Don't feel bad, lot's retarded business have died lately.

Thanks a lot.

I wonder... (1)

powerlinekid (442532) | more than 13 years ago | (#231140)

Now that IBM has it's own license, I wonder as an IBM employee if the ideas I create as such are my own, or still belong to ibm. And if they still belong to ibm, can i just get hold of my source and re-distribute it as my own?? hmm...

GPL not "free" (1)

Tachys (445363) | more than 13 years ago | (#231143)

Interesting I submitted a ask slashdot asking the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" and it was rejected.

Anyway the GPL is not Free it even breaks the Free Software Definition.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

Can I go to my neighbor and with a install cd and install linux on his computer? Well I also have to do one of the following

I have to also have to do one of the following

  • a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

  • b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

  • c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So I have to make extra CD for him or copy the source on to his computer.

Don't have a CD-RW not enough room on neighbor HD to fit source. Can't "give" software to neighbor.

I am going through the APSL [apple.com] and RMS say this about it.

any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published.

I can't find where in the license it says this. Even if it does so what? RMS complains about privacy, but the Free Software Definition says nothing about privacy

On deploying execute only code the APSL says this.

if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code.

That's seems alot more free then the GPL.

Too many choices (3)

Tachys (445363) | more than 13 years ago | (#231145)

What we have 23 choices? Oh no we all know how much the FSF hates choice

Oh, hell! (2)

gnovos (447128) | more than 13 years ago | (#231146)

Just great... The day that I finish writing HelloWorld.java version 1.07.3, I find 23 different licenses I can publish it under... How will I ever decide?

Re:Illegal (1)

dtosti (447364) | more than 13 years ago | (#231147)

Why whine? If a new competitor enters in your market with a product that is better than yours for some factor (price, performance, stability etc. etc.), you should change your strategy. Add to your product something that the free software developer couldn't add. Or, if you believe that this isn't a competition on equal term, look for a job and dump your prices, too :) This is the market babe. Everyone loves it.

On Stallman (4)

reposter (450888) | more than 13 years ago | (#231148)

I personally don't question the man's genius. I love Emacs, and anyone who can write a compiler (particularly one as good as gcc) is a hacker's hacker as far as I'm concerned.

But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.

I love free software; I love the quality of it. I deeply appreciate the time that the authors of it have invested. But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT. It is not an obligation. It is not more ethical than proprietary software (note that this is absolutely different from the business practices of companies and individuals, which can be positively immoral). That is not where its superiority lies. The superiority is in the code.

For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous. What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software. Of course, a software author has the right to release his code (if he does so at all) under whatever terms he wishes. But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.

Stallman needs to get a grip. If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts, he would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, he can be a royal pain.

Nevertheless, he is a genius.

Not like Apple's licence _competes_ with GPL... (1)

decathexis (451196) | more than 13 years ago | (#231149)

A lot of people are talking about it as if all the OSI-opproved licenses were there to replace GPL. I don't think this is their intention. Apple does not expect you to write something completely new and release it under their licence. Rather, Apple is releasing some code and they want to have some special rights to any derived work. (Specifically, the want to be able to "to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify or have modified (for Apple and/or its subsidiaries), sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, in any form, through multiple tiers of distribution" - without the limitations of the license, which would apply to any third-parties using your modifications).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>