Michael Emmel wrote:
> This response is acutally to RMS but since he is a "saint" I send it to the
> list
> in hopes it reaches his sacred ears.
I don't like to talk free software politics on this list because it is
usually just a way to start a flame war between people who would otherwise
get along famously. However, I'd like to respond generally to your points.
First, the term "free software" has a very specific, almost technical
meaning that has gained widespead acceptance in the hacker community. The
Free Software Foundation, the Open Source(TM) service mark holders, the
Debian GNU/Linux distribution, and so on all broadly agree on its
definition. In order to be free, software does not have to be released
under the GPL or any other particular license. But it does have to give the
user various freedoms. The Debian Free Software Guidelines ( see
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) contain these in some
detail, but in short, to be truly free software, a package must:
-- Give the end user the source code
-- Give the end user freedom to redistribute the source code
-- Give the end user the freedom to redistribute modified versions of the
source code
All of these must not be encumbered by restrictions such as the payment of
royalties to the original author or any requirement to seek permission
before exercising these freedoms. (Restrictions design to protect
trademarks are considered ok).
The term "free software" or "open source" are really used as terms of art in
the hacker community. There are other definitions that could be used, and
which might make sense, but when referring to a software license, they have
a very precise meaning. (This is analogous to how certain common terms have
very specific and sometimes non-intuitive meanings in legal documents). You
can reject this definition if you desire, but it has widespread acceptance
beyond Richard Stallman.
The proposed Jini license does not meet the definition of free software for
the reasons pointed out by Stallman. Thus he rejects it as free software.
This should not be controversial. I can understand that some people might
be motivated to use non-free software for purely utilitarian reasons. That
is certainly one legitimate viewpoint, but it doesn't change the fact that
Jini will not be free software.
My personal opinion is that this is an example of the pernicious effects of
the "open source" branding effort. The group behind that wants to push free
software for utilitarian reasons, claiming that releasing source code has
all sorts of technical benefits. It should have been obvious to anyone who
put any thought into the matter that profit maximizing corporations would
try to get the technical benefits of open source code without giving true
freedom to their end users which might cut into their profits. That is what
I think Sun is attempting to do. They want to release their source code in
order to get people on the Internet to develop enhancements and donate the
code back to Sun for free. In essence, Sun wants to turn the Internet into
their unpaid Jini development staff. But that's just my opinion.
--
Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
