Joe Greco wrote:
I don't agree. You seem to think that the main benefit of releasing open source is that people can tinker with it. By this logic, open source software should never be used for mission-critical operations. I understand that this is a worry for many people, but I think it is a very misguided worry.Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you ever written code for something like a medical monitor? ForMaking the code available and allowing unqualified people to tinker
numerous reasons, you don't want that code available to the public. You
don't need some not-smart-enough hospital techie trying to make changes
to it, figuring out how to override the safeguards and then installing it
on your equipment, and then suddenly having liability issues.
with live medical equipment are two separate issues. You're getting
confused now.
I don't know. I've been in a position where it's been a concern. Have
you?
For such a device, making the code available allows what had formerly been a big black box to be tampered with a heck of a lot more easily.
This isn't a problem for things like the Linksys router which someone has loaded Asterisk onto. Wonderful. Kudos. It probably voids the warranty, but doesn't have any real unexpected consequences.
The biggest benefit of open source is that it opens up the code to a large process of peer review and suggested improvements. Of course this must be done by working on building community as well.
Again, I understand the worry, but I think this is a false worry which has a simpler solution: Don't overstaff your tech department so they have better things to do ;-)However, the electronics shop staff at many larger hospital facilities are sharp cookies. The possibilities for "well let's just do..." are quite extensive. These people are not automatically qualified to go changing the code on these devices just because they've got it and they're able to read C, but providing the code would be unnecessary temptation. They lack the background on the hardware, and more importantly the resulting product isn't certified, so now you have an unknown.
I think the larger issue is that one has a compelling argument of liability (regardless of software license) if you can sue a single company for a loss of life or health, esp. if the patient who sues has not agreed to any limitation of liability. With open source, community maintained software, this becomes a larger issue. Who is responsible? The software vendor? The hospital? IANAL, though. I can see this being an issue with medical liability such as it is. But I don't think it is so much an issue of open source as it is community maintenance (i.e. if you only use official builds of MySQL from MySQL AB then this problem does not exist, but once you modify it, it becomes a really muddy situation).
The obvious answer is: don't distribute the source, which is merely an attractive nuisance.
You may be a bit confused if you've never had to deal with such issues. I assure you that I am not confused, as I have dealt with them.
The issues, I believe, are more perceptual than real. IANAL, though.
That's what we did. Along the way, where we could have made someThat is your right. :-) You have the right to charge $40 for a pint of water too if anyone will buy it ;-)
significant contributions to several GPL'd projects, we *didn't*,
because we were busy writing our own code.
Open source is a business and economic model. You can choose to participate or not as you choose. I do think though that it is proving competitive in most areas given time, and will probably either force you to play along or go elsewhere.
That's a loss for those projects, because they could have received
something along the lines of a man-year worth of development effort
towards improvements that would have been contributed back. That's
an immense amount of benefit to an open source effort. Instead, we
spent maybe twice that hammering on things from a new direction. No benefit to the open source community at all.
In that situation, everyone loses. Especially the GPL'd project(s).
See here is the thing--
BSD licenses do allow contribution from proprietary projects, and there *is* an incentive to contribute material back. Many very successful projects (BIND, Apache, OpenSSH) use this style of license hand have achieved market dominance to the point where proprietary spinoffs are unlikely to be able to compete. Those who feel that GPL is the only way to go are either blind or deliberately discounting the number of very successful infrastructure-level projects which use this sort of license.
I don't buy this rhetoric of software freedom either (i.e. software code wants to be free-- software code doesn't want anything).That's (close to) real world. In reality, we had a somewhat largerIf you haven't realised the point of open source software and software
example (plus some other miscellaneous examples) of something that would
have been nice to use, and which would have benefitted from returned
changes, had they not been licensed under GPL. We did, in fact, make
great use of X11, contributed various code fixes and other things back
to that project, though the driver I wrote for the propietary touchscreen
stuff was not sent back to MIT... what would the point have been?
freedom by now then I can't really see the benefit in explaining it to
you again. Perhaps you should apply for a job at Microsoft or Apple.
Sorry, I don't believe in "software freedom". It's a ridiculous concept, at least up until the technology is sentient, wakes up, and says "I desire freedom." We don't extend the right of freedom even to other living creatures. We don't extend the right of freedom to our cars, our computers, or our cell phones. Let's be real.
However, I do think that there is substantial benefit to licensing almost any block of code under open source license. You have to understand that the point is that it is a more efficient model of software development and maintenance. Regarding the touchscreen driver-- unless you want to offer this as a barrier to competition, there is no point in not releasing the source.
Stallman's rhetoric of Free Software (not what you or I are objecting to, btw) is ok as far as it goes, but what gives the development its power is that has tangible economic benefits, not that it is somehow morally right. I will note, however, that freedom and the flexibility it offers is such an economic benefit.
As I said-- you have the right to participate in this community-driven model or not at your option. In the end, I have a hard time imagining proprietary software holding on except in a few niche markets (thinking 10-20 years in the future).I do believe in allowing people the freedom to receive source, modify it, and distribute it, all at their option. That's free software. The GPL restricts one of those freedoms, and as such, is less free than something like the BSD license.
I disagree with both of you on some points. The BSD license provides a framework for freely sharing ideas and code, while the GPL exchanges code for certain conditions regarding derivative works. I used to argue that Linux would not have taken off were it not for the GPL, but now I am not sure how much of it was due to the GPL and how much was due to Linus's skill at building community.Exactly. The BSD would allow this sort of thing to continue legally.Theft? Lock-up? No. That's what happens when someone actually breaks aAt least the GPL would have protected the project from an even worse situation - wholesale code theft and lock-up.
license.
The GPL would not, and purposefully prevents open source software from
being closed.
Huh? No. The BSD license does not allow that sort of thing.
The instant someone applies the BSD license to a bit of code and someone else accepts it, it becomes a gift. When you give someone a gift, they are not stealing it from you. By definition.
Giving away code under the GPL could be construed as a gift as well, but it is more like "Indian giver" (apologies to Indians everywhere) in that the giver has attached strings to it. I don't know about you, but when I give out gifts at Christmas, I don't say "oh and if you improve this then you have to give it back to me" (or something like that).
... JG
There is an incentive to contribute code back to a BSD project-- this means that the code is more likely to be reviewed, and eventually community maintained, eventually freeing up some labor which might otherwise have had to go to ensuring that the code is compatible with the latest release. It also provides a way to hurt ones competition by releasing free components that competition is keeping proprietary and thus devaluing their products. The GPL's version of this tactic is also quite available and is more of an "area denial" effect. Both systems are roughly equal here.
I usually use the GPL for my source releases. But I can see using the BSD license if that helps me build community. Also the GPL can be abused (MySQL client libs being GPL for example, essentially requiring a source license for other OSS licenses).
THe license is less important ot me than the community. With a strong community, nobody can compete with an oss project.
As a side note, I have been on this list for some time, and I have noticed a *strong* development of community here especially as the push stated to release 1.0 some time ago. Well done folks :-)
Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
