On Tuesday 09 January 2007 01:26, Timothy Miller wrote: > On 1/8/07, Hugh Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kyle Winkler wrote: > > > We should defiantly jump on any opportunity to team up with the > > > FSF. Even if you don't agree with them 100%, they are very good > > > at getting things done, and they are after the same things we > > > are. They apparently have some monetary resources as well, as > > > they pledged $60,000 to the Free Ryzom project before it failed. > > > > I strongly disagree. > > > > When this project was started, there was a long debate about > > how 'free' / 'libre' the project was. The eventual outcome > > was that we don't care what OS gets used and that the specs > > and driver code would be available to Linux, BSD, and yes > > even Microsoft Windows. > > > > That fits the definition of 'open source' rather than 'free > > software' as promoted by the FSF. > > I discussed this privately with RMS, and his recommendation was for > us to use the X11 license for our software. If I understand him > correctly, he believes that the X11 license is a Free Software > license, despite the fact that it allows source code to be "closed > up". While he seems to prefer the GPL, the fact that X11 allows the > source to be closed up does not impact the general "Freeness" of the > software. This is a little confusing to me.
He also recommended the X11 licence be used for the Ogg Vorbis libraries. That's an interesting somewhat-parallel: these libraries are intended to be a public implementation of a public standard, and RMS agreed that the libraries should be usable in proprietary software as well, to encourage use of the open standard. The X11 licence gives anyone obtaining software under it the four freedoms. Therefore it's a Free software licence. It's that simple! It's not a copyleft licence, which means that it allows others to create derivative works and distribute them to you under a non-permissive licence, thus making this new version of the original code non-Free. That doesn't change the status of the original, which is still Free. Copyleft is entirely a strategic issue: you use a copyleft licence if you want to use the leverage that you have because someone wants to use your code to promote the creation of more Free software. That's not the goal of our project however; our goal is to have hardware that conforms to an open standard, so that Free drivers can be written. The X11 licence is fine for that purpose, and probably more practical if the code is to be ported to proprietary OSes. > RMS asserts that there are no practical differences between "Free > Software" and "Open Source." There are only motivational ones. Free > Software focuses on the ethics, while Open Source focuses on > practical issues. In my discussions with him, I was not able to come > up with an example of something that was Open Source but not also > Free Software. That is, in each case where I suggested something as > being Open but not Free, he explained how it did not fit the Open > Source definition either. Right. But if this project were practical, we could just have installed ATI and nVidias proprietary drivers and be done with. > > I'd also point out that the FSF has a reputation, deserved > > or not, for being hostile to business interests, which may > > make it harder to find OEM/etc partners. > > They don't seem to have a problem with TrollTech or MySQL. Or Red Hat. > Note that the GPL doesn't forbid you from charging for software. > Indeed, in the early days of the FSF, I believe RMS earned some money > from selling copies of GCC. Indeed. However, undeserved and based on FUD or not, I do think that the FSF has a bit of a reputation in that respect, as I would imagine any organisation promoting a customer's rights would have. If I were a company looking to do business by denying my customers the freedom to switch to a competing vendor then I wouldn't be happy with the success of the Free Software movement either. It changed a large part of the OS market from a high-value (>80% profit margins anyone) monopoly into a competitive commodity market where the customer is king and you can't make huge profits selling crappy products. No wonder some companies are peeved. What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't mind if the OHF got a similar reputation. Everyone is welcome to come play with us, but only if you play fair and stick to the rules. The playing field is fair and level, and it stays that way. If you would rather cheat then you can go play somewhere else. Lourens
pgpA5UaCLqZFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
