Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago? you mean http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html ? Yes, that's what I meant. Except the specific FAQ entry I am missing is the one explaining the Apache view on BSD style licenses vs [other popular open source licenses]. And I can't seem to find that page browsing the site. It doesn't have an obvious link from http://www.apache.org/foundation/ or from the FAQ page. - ask -- http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ - http://develooper.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: The GPL nuts have taken over the word free, just like certain political views are using the words free and freedom to mean the way we like it. What happened to the license FAQ there was talk about a while ago? My bad - I got about 80% through with a draft = but am finding that with code, that the last 20% is really the bit which takes time; and I got mired in the details. And quite frankly lost track of the overall picture. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 13/05/2003 22.24: ... In 1992, when GNU was nearly complete, Linus Torvalds released a free program that fit the last major gap. You'd think that Stallman's ego wouldn't require him to marginalize Torvald's work to boost his own. And given what he thinks about the publicity cause in the Apache License, that makes it incompatible with GNU, it's really amusing. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:13 AM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And given what he thinks about the publicity cause in the Apache License, that makes it incompatible with GNU, it's really amusing. At an academic workshop I was at last weekend on open source, someone brought up the 'statistic' that 70-80% of open source projects use GNU GPL for their license. (No idea where that came from, or how accurate it is - lies, damn lies, and statistics.) What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hackathon at OSCON?
I'm not entirely sure party@ is the place for this since it's not quite a 'party,' but I've heard a rumor (from Duncan) that O'Reilly is hoping to provide space at OSCON for interested parties to hold a hackathon for two days (Sunday and Monday) before the actual conference in July. I don't believe you're going to have to be registered at the conference to attend a Hackathon, so you could just show up in Portland on Sunday and Monday, I guess. So, is there any interest in holding an ASF hackathon at OSCON? No idea if we've already passed an expiration of the offer though. Hopefully, we'll be having an ApacheCon again soon. *kick RoUS* -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
David N. Welton wrote: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people. The appeal thing here is questionable. I was in a meeting yesterday with the CTO of a very very large system integration group and we were discussing open source. The CTO in question had lots of positive things to say about open source along with two problems: 1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers because this means they loose budget - it is simply better to place an order for 200k or 800k for a product with support because if and when the shit hits the fan, it is transferable, and your department maintains its budget 2. on the pragmatic front - open-source means you have to have the resources to be able to continue independently (technically and legally) irrespective of the direction taken by the majority. And this is where the crucial aspect comes in - if I have to maintain a product that has open source dependencies - and if the open source base changes in a manner incompatible with by usage, I have to continue to maintain the base independently of the OS community - this means a fork with all of the comensurate technical overhead - not to mention the potential legal consequences - legal consequence means problems - problems mean expenses and internal escalation - i.e. - back to the question - is it better to go with a commercial solution (a.k.a. problem transference) or take responsibility (a.k.a. internal responsibility)? Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: How BSD hurts OpenSource
From: David N. Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:35 AM Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people. From the other side of things, GPL'ed libraries have also been a Free Software Business success story (for example: sleepycat, Qt). SleepyCat?? http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/sleepycat/license.html That's no GPL. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Uhh, Licensing discussion breaks out on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Film at Eleven. Everything in this article is old news, rehashed many times to death in public places like LKML or /. There is not a single new word in it. So please let it rest. It is IMHO freedom when every software author can choose the license that he wants for the code that he wrote. If people want GPL, fine. If they want BSD, fine with me, too. If they want to make money from their closed source stuff, well, go ahead. We all must eat. Put please keep this out of lists like this. I'd say that most people are sick and tired to hear the same old arguments rehashed over and over again by people with too much emotions and ideology and no idea that all their arguments have been discussed over and over again since at least ten years. I'm still waiting for the day when anyone will throw a _new_ angle into this discussion. The last somewhat new angle that I percepted was the table dancing license from Microsoft AKA shared source (You can watch it but you must not touch it. Unless you bring a big wad of cash). Regards Henning On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 20:12, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: http://www.freewebs.com/sepero/index.html The author says: Notice: Please do not waste your time reading this if you care nothing about the promotion of OSS and it's community! This document is for the advancement of OSS, not just the contribution to it. If after reading this, you still consider BSD more beneficial to OSS than GNU, please have at least READ their software licenses before contacting me. *sigh* -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: How BSD hurts OpenSource
On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 22:24, Noel J. Bergman wrote: What is certainly somewhat 'amusing' to us, in the same way Iraq's minister of information's statements were 'amusing', aren't exactly veiled in mystery. Well now ... that's certainly a unique view of Richard Stallman. :-) Comical Dick? Maybe we can get a talking puppet of this, too. SCNR (I'll go back to my dark corner now...) Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 09:35, David N. Welton wrote: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people. From the other side of things, GPL'ed libraries have also been a Free Software Business success story (for example: sleepycat, Qt). Nah. Sleepycat is BSD-like. The key to success here (just as with e.g. MySQL) is dual-licensing which is something you can do if you have some sort of organization that holds the sole copyright of a work. This isn't very practical if you have e.g. the Linux Kernel with hundreds of copyright owners. If you really want an in-depth view on the compatibilities of the various licensing models, look at the Linux kernel module loader and the tainting mechanism of the kernel depending on the license of a module. If you feel sick now, stick with another OS. ;-) Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From the other side of things, GPL'ed libraries have also been a Free Software Business success story (for example: sleepycat, Qt). SleepyCat?? http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/sleepycat/license.html That's no GPL. No, but the effect is similar: * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on *how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any *accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code *must either be included in the distribution or be available for no *more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be *freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an *executable file, complete source code means the source code for all *modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or *files that typically accompany the major components of the operating *system on which the executable file runs. They even talk about it here: http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/102901.html These are, effectively, the same terms as the GPL. We didn't use the GPL for historical reasons -- carrying the BSD license and copyrights from 1.85 would not have been possible under a straight GPL. However, the license was designed to work exactly the way the GPL does. -- David N. Welton Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/ Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/ Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Hi, On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen McConnell wrote: 1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers because this means they loose budget Fair comment up to a point - but there are vendors of open source software out there, so there are ways around this (although admittedly, not nearly enough vendors yet). 2. on the pragmatic front - open-source means you have to have the resources to be able to continue independently [...] back to the question - is it better to go with a commercial solution (a.k.a. problem transference) or take responsibility (a.k.a. internal responsibility)? The fallacy in this argument is assuming that commercial software will never go in a direction that's incompatible with your requirements, and that the commercial company will always be around to support your needs. In fact, what often happens is that the commercial company (or 'proprietary software vendor') tends to release bug fixes labelled as upgraded software, stuffed with irrelevant new 'features' to entice you to buy. This software often heads in a direction you don't want to go in, but you are forced to upgrade by the need to ensure continual support (and the previous product is rapidly dropped from the commercial company's list of supported products). It's a catch-22 situation. The only difference is that the proprietary / commercial solutions tend to be wrapped up and sugar-coated in management friendly 'upgrade/new feature' lingo. I'd opt for internal responsbility every time, but I'm a massochist ;-) Andrew. -- Andrew SavoryEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135 This is not an official statement or order.Web:www.luminas.co.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
David N. Welton wrote, On 14/05/2003 9.35: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people. From what I've seen, many projects do not read the GPL in full, and just know that it prevents companies from freely getting money for their work. Which is not true of course, but it follows this reasonong: 1- companies distribute closed source 2- with GPL they cannot close the source 3- they will not use my product inside theirs' The LGPL becomes: they can use it but cannot make money on my work only, but only if used as a library. The reasonong is the same of the above. What surprises me is that AFAIK the GPL prevents closing the source not to prevent profitability, which instead is the main aim AFAIK of many that now choose GPL. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Andrew Savory wrote: Hi, On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen McConnell wrote: 1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers because this means they loose budget Fair comment up to a point - but there are vendors of open source software out there, so there are ways around this (although admittedly, not nearly enough vendors yet). 2. on the pragmatic front - open-source means you have to have the resources to be able to continue independently [...] back to the question - is it better to go with a commercial solution (a.k.a. problem transference) or take responsibility (a.k.a. internal responsibility)? The fallacy in this argument is assuming that commercial software will never go in a direction that's incompatible with your requirements, and that the commercial company will always be around to support your needs. In fact, what often happens is that the commercial company (or 'proprietary software vendor') tends to release bug fixes labelled as upgraded software, stuffed with irrelevant new 'features' to entice you to buy. This software often heads in a direction you don't want to go in, but you are forced to upgrade by the need to ensure continual support (and the previous product is rapidly dropped from the commercial company's list of supported products). It's a catch-22 situation. The only difference is that the proprietary / commercial solutions tend to be wrapped up and sugar-coated in management friendly 'upgrade/new feature' lingo. I'd opt for internal responsbility every time, but I'm a massochist ;-) Me too! :-) So what are the things that strengthen the OS proposition: 1. lowering the barrier to engagement 2. reducing the risk (technically and legally) I think the Apache license is doing the right thing in lowering the risk legally - simply because it enables liberty in usage (irrespective of any underlying agenda). Reducing technical risk is a community issue - all of the usual stuff concerning roadmaps, release management and so on. Lowering the technical barrier is something I figure we have a long we to go on. But again, Apache is well positioned top address this via the infrastructure team together with new developments in packaging and service management - but that's another topic! Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Bingo. Herd mentality. Not to diss the GPL itself for that reason. I would diss the GPL for being hard for people to determine exactly what they can do with GPL-licensed stuff. Among normal people, debates have been going on for years about whether GPL-ed stuff can be used in one way or another. Does the GPL mean what rms says it means or what a high-priced lawyer thinks a court of law would say it means? If you can't pay a lawyer, are you safe sticking with the more amenable of (a) what the software author currently says she wants it to mean or (b) what rms says it means? Given that, how could all of the authors/contributers of GPL-ed stuff have deliberately chosen that license? Meanwhile, the legalese in the ASF license avoids clouding the big picture. No long-running disagreements about what you can do with such stuff. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2003, Martin van den Bemt wrote: I just mailed him that he shouldn't waste my time.. What a major idiot.. That is a bit rash I think. The guy makes a valid point; and one which resonates unbelivably well with managers, policy makers, politicians and lobbyist. And there is a warped, but tempting/contagious, stink in his key argument: No BSD code can compete with Proprietary code based on BSD code. As it is BSD and then some. And therefore better. In reality this does not playout that well (due to maintenance, integration and other biz./reality costs) But once you have to explain that - you've lost the oneline argument/debate. And the above sticks terribly well with people who are not that familiar with actual software engineering processes. True. But still a wrong oneliner. We can debunk it with another oneliner/simplification: Is Netscape 7 more popular than Mozilla? I don't think so. Most of the times, community evolution will prevent Propietary+BSD/Apache/Mozilla code keeping pace. There are windows of opportunity, but they close fast. Much like when a Spanish writer in last century could read English and imitated the works of a true original English novelist (or the other way round, no cultural preference expressed). It is matter of time and communication until people notices something going wrong and go for the original. And we are getting plenty of communication those days :-) Still, translation of works does add value (I mean here for software vertical markets or different environments), as do illustrated editions, commented works, etc. for literary works. For all these kinds of mob/darwinistic software[1], GPL licenses get on the way, forcing you to think and take care about how the software could be used in the future, while Apache, BSD or Artistic licenses make the hacker-painter-writer[2] wholy free (not like in free beer, but like in free thinking). ;-) [1]: http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/6/ [2]: http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html (This will be copied verbatim in my English Blog, as soon as I manage to set it up using Stefano's stuff ;-) -- Santiago Gala High Sierra Technology, S.L. (http://hisitech.com) http://memojo.com?page=SantiagoGalaBlog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
No BSD code can compete with Proprietary code based on BSD code. As it is BSD and then some. And therefore better. In reality this does not playout that well (due to maintenance, integration and other biz./reality costs) But once you have to explain that - you've lost the oneline argument/debate. And the above sticks terribly well with people who are not that familiar with actual software engineering processes. True. But still a wrong oneliner. We can debunk it with another oneliner/simplification: Is Netscape 7 more popular than Mozilla? I don't think so. Most of the times, community evolution will prevent Propietary+BSD/Apache/Mozilla code keeping pace. There are windows of opportunity, but they close fast. Or 'Should I get this motercycle from the shop on the corner (for free) or I should buy this motercycle from the guy in the garage next door.' Lets buy it from the guy next door - because he has 'modified' it so it must be better. Honest gov. Much like when a Spanish writer in last century could read English and imitated the works of a true original English novelist (or the other way round, no cultural preference expressed). It is matter of time and communication until people notices something going wrong and go for the original. And we are getting plenty of communication those days :-) Still, translation of works does add value (I mean here for software vertical markets or different environments), as do illustrated editions, commented works, etc. for literary works. For all these kinds of mob/darwinistic software[1], GPL licenses get on the way, forcing you to think and take care about how the software could be used in the future, while Apache, BSD or Artistic licenses make the hacker-painter-writer[2] wholy free (not like in free beer, but like in free thinking). ;-) Right - but at the same time; the analogy with a writer makes me think of a carpenter; should the nail he hammers in at your house be 'owned' by him from there on. Should I just license his service and that thing he did. Just because software is easier to replicate than a nail hammer in does not make it that special as to warrant special rules for 'my baby, my precious'. Especially if the carpenter/programmer can turn out another utility just like the previous one by writing it again. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
