On 09/05/11 11:20, Adrian Colomitchi wrote:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ben Sturmfels<b...@stumbles.id.au> wrote:
On 02/05/11 15:34, rdbr...@pacific.net.au wrote:
Diomidis D. Spinellis's latest IEEE Software column "Choosing and Using
Open Source Components" is up at his blog
http://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20110501
and may interest.
Thanks for pointing this out Rodney. Hope we see you at the upcoming
discussion group!
My apologies for the question: haven't had enough time 'til now to attend
any of the meetings. Can you please update me with date/time/location for
the next meeting?
Thurs 19 May, 6:30pm at State Library. Look forward to meeting you! :)
For dates beyond that:
http://www.softwarefreedom.com.au/free-software-melb/
It's a well written article, but does seem to be a little freedom-agnostic.
I also worry about Spinellis' slightly twisted interpretation of the GPL:
Others (licenses), like the GNU licenses, play well with other
software licensed as open source but make life difficult for
proprietary offerings. This is especially true if you want to
distribute your work to others as a shrink-wrapped package, such as
Microsoft Office, or as an embedded software product, like a set-top
box. In such cases the only GNU-licensed components you can easily
use are unmodified dynamically linked libraries licensed under the
so-called GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). You get
considerable more leeway with GNU-licensed software if you don’t
distribute a product but instead offer a service (like Google) or
simply use your system privately within your organization.
The GNU GPL says that you can't incorporate GPL licensed code into
proprietary programs.
Slight correction here: yes, you can/may, as long as you don't distribute
the result of incorporation in any kind. And I'd argue that this is *not*
outside the spirit of the free software.
The difference here is just terminology. For me, a program can't be
proprietary until it has been distributed. So I think we agree there.
I'd argue that running/providing a GPL-ed software *as a service* and asking
money in return is still in the spirit of free software and, to some extent,
beneficial for the free software that is used (exposure) and/or for the
"consumers" of such a service. Examples: heaps of hosting providers offering
LAMP (on quite low prices) - are they operating outside the spirit of free
software? Are they even "hurting" the spirit of free software?
I encourage people to provide network services using free software. I do
it myself in my business. I object to turning free software into a
network service specifically to get around the requirements of the GPL
(as the article suggests).
Are there any problems with non-free additions *specific* to the
exploitation environ? E.g. for a hosting service provider, some specific
additions to capture the usage and, based on the captured data, to interface
with their specific billing systems. Must these additions be published as
well? No matter the re-usability considerations or risks for the
users/consumers?
My point is: where do you draw the line of what is inside or outside of the
spirit of free software for a non-free/closed-source part added to a GPL-ed
software, offered as a service and never distributed?
No one is obliged to distribute software under the GPL. I don't think
we really differ in opinion here.
Perhaps networks services would be an interesting topic for the next
discussion group.
Finally, I'm more worried about the following in the blog:
<quote>Although it’s tempting, try to avoid modifying the open source code
to fit your needs; you don’t want to end up maintaining another large
component on your own.</quote>
Now, this *IS* outside the spirit of free software (at least the way I see
it). I can see the angle Spinellis is coming, but I do have huge issues with
the form he expressed it.
It is one thing to say: "If you develop your own customizations, you face
the risk of broken compatibility with future releases of the free software"
and a different thing to say: "Stay out of customizations! Believe me, you
don't want to spend anything in making the software better *even for you*
much less for anyone else".
The first is a fair warning. The second is bordering FUD of the same sort as
Microsoft's "get the facts right" campaign.
That's a good point. There is a trade-off between maintaining
customisations and having to use software that doesn't fit you.
Customising is the best solution in some situations. Perhaps Spinellis'
wording was a little off.
Ben
_______________________________________________
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
