Re: newsforge story
I personally checked Tina's NewsForge story before publication. She did not use any of the personal attacks that have appeared on this discussion list, but quouted only comments and questions about the licensing process itself and how it might be improved. > I agree. I wish they had, rather than using a single quote from the > mailing list, use the list as a guide for the people to whom they > should direct questions, and what questions to ask. That would be nice, but we don't have 100+ people (or deep pockets) like Salon or the New York Times. Tina already works 60+ hours per week. I can't ask her to do more than she does. In my opinion (as her boss) Tina is doing an excellent job of reporting, considering our limited resources. Dudget aside, think how that NewsForge story would have turned out if it had been written by a "mainstream" reporter unfamiliar with the often argumentative process at the heart of most open source decision-making instead of by someone sympatheic to "the cause." Tina is in a position similar to that of a sportswriter at a local newspaper. Sure, she roots openly (sourcely?) for the home team, but when there is dissension in the clubhouse she is obligated to report on it even if it doesn't put the team in the best possible light. Naturally, the team owners and managers immediately claim the reporting wasn't as accurate as it should have been. Writing about "in-group" matters for an "outsider" audience may be the hardest journalistic task there is. No matter how delicately you handle your subject matter, someone will go away unhappy. This is why so many journalists seem to spend their days rewriting press releases instead of doing real reporting; it's not only easier than going out and digging for stories, but it's a lot safer. Like it or not, open source licensing is going to become a hot topic, not only for NewsForge's tech-hip audience, but for the entire business world. Tina is probably covering this area more closely than any other reporter in the world right now. I urge you to work with her and make sure she is as well-informed as possible so that she can write the most accurate and interesting stories possible. BTW, NewsForge happily accepts "outside" opinion pieces. If you want to get *your* point of view across, we'll happily help you do it. Before you write, you may want to send a query to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to make sure we don't have a similar story in the works already or haven't already run a piece similar to the one you would like to write. Now I need to reply to an article request from a major (US) national newspaper. Imagine trying to explain open source and free software licensing to a readership that thinks the world begins and ends with Windows! There are days when I wish I could stomach "celebrity journalism," which is easier (and pays a lot better) than dealing with the complex personal, technical and legal issues that surround leading-edge software development... :) - Robin "Roblimo" Miller Editor in Chief, OSDN http://www.osdn.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Spirit of OSD - was[Fails OSD #1.]
> Recognizing the weaknesses (and strengths) of speaking in symbolic terms. > Is there anything _else_ that you feel helps define the 'spirit' of the OSD? I would love to have a commentary piece for Linux.com and/or NewsForge.com on how the spirit of the OSD may be different from its practical application. Anyone up for this? Bruce? Anyone else? - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Copyright
Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll, whoever owns the code? If I buy a GPL program, I own it. It is mine. I can install it on any computer I own. I can also sell you a copy if you're willing to pay for it, as long as the original authors get credited correctly and I pass the source code to you as part of the deal. Or I can give you that program for free. If you want to bring your computer to Elkridge, Maryland, I will happily install Mandrake Linux on it for you -- either free or for a fee, depending on what deal you and I make. While you're here, maybe you'll want to buy a 1995 Chevrolet Cavalier I own and I'm thinking about selling. I own the car. I own my copy of Mandrake Linux. I can do whatever I want with them -- and manuals are included with both. But somewhere on a shelf around here there is an old Windows 98 CD gathering dust, and if I sell or give it to you, I am breaking the license agreement under which it was distributed. Note that I say "distributed," not sold. As far as I'm concerned, if I OWN something I should be free to SELL it, and most proprietary software licenses prohibit sale of used programs. Chevrolet can't stop me from reselling my Chevrolet car, and if you buy a copy of my book (came out last week), and later decide to sell that copy used, you're free to do so. Do you own all the software on your computer? I own all the software on mine. :) - Robin "Roblimo" Miller Editor in Chief, OSDN (Linux.com, Slashdot, freshmeat, and other Open Source Web sites) Personal site: http://roblimo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: click-wrap is legally supportable?
> > > >>Have you agreed to every license which was clicked past on your machine? >> > >Why don't I just hire the 16 year old kid next door to install all my >software? > Is that sort of like having a staff member's relative sign up for Lindows' "insider" program (which had/has a burdensome NDA attached to it) so said staff member could "borrow" access and review Lindows long before anyone else did? I would never stoop to that sort of license-defeating ploy, would I? (Well, maybe...) - Robin "Roblimo" Miller Editor in Chief, OSDN (Linux.com, Slashdot, freshmeat, and other Open Source Web sites) Personal site: http://roblimo.com > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The OSD and commercial use
But the user still wants to be able to treat all products the same. It may be irrational, but that's the way it is. One of the attributes of Free and Open Source Software is that the user can ideed treat software like a chair, and not get sued for doing so. It is totally rational from the user's viewpoint. My neighbor Mac spent his working years as a soldier and a policeman. "Mr. Law and Order," you could call him, but he's also a generous guy. Mac gives a fair amount of (Windows) software to other senior citizens around here. Tell him he's doing something wrong and he'll laugh at you. He bought that software and paid for it, so it's his to do with as he likes. Sharing it is just... neighborly. Mac has been playing with Linux out of curiosity, but so far he sees no reason to switch from Windows. He has a large collection of Windows software (bought or traded for) he hates to give up. - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)
Of course, everyone should decide for themselves what use of their work is acceptable and what use is not. One thing that people can not do is stay on the sidelines on the issue. One way or the other, either you're allowing use of your work to kill or you're not. And there is also the point that using your software to *prevent* killing is good, and sometimes wars are just, and so on. Here is an interview I did that started out technical, veered into the political, and got so strong on the political side that -- with the interviewee's permission -- I only ran the political portion: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/02/25/195228&mode=nested&tid=4 I was at an Open Source convention in Amman, Jordan, in December, and there were debates over using KDE -- because some KDE developers live in Israel. Miguel di Icaza supports the Palestinian cause, so presumably Gnome is okay. But since I'm Jewish, maybe I shouldn't use Gnome? And then, what about all the Germans who work on KDE? And Mandrake... Why, just look at how those French obstruct American foreign policy! Can't talk to Alan Cox because the Brits once burned the U.S. Capitol... Can't let Russians or Chinese use anything because of how they treat their conquered peoples... Red Hat is evil because they removed the Taiwan flag from their distro to placate the Commie Chinese... This gets out of hand. I happen to think Khaled, a major Linux junkie (and devout Muslim) in Saudi Arabia, is a pretty neat guy. I use Mandrake and KDE. I like Miguel and Alan a lot. Most of the people I met in Jordan were decent. And I have plenty of friends in the U.S. military, and I was in the Army myself, years ago. Reality = you can do what you want with your software. But limiting its use keeps it from being Open Source just as surely as Khaled's code wouldn't be Open Source if he didn't allow its use by Israelis. - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
I don't know of a single IT vendor, save perhaps Microsoft (and even that's in question) who isn't selling a hardware or software product that at some point incorporates software licensed under an Open Source license. Microsoft sells GPL software. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/overview/default.asp - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that people who are above "money" sell. Linux is a business product. It makes money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc. Linux salesman are capitalists, not philanthropists. I don't see a difference, nor do I think it is objectionable. Nor do I. Industry consortiums and standards-setting bodies are entirely legitimate. In a commercial sense, I see Linux as an industry standard not unlike the SAE's fastener specifications. Naturally, a company that wants to make bolts or screws that only work with its own proprietary nuts, washers, and tightening tools is going to decry the standards used by other companies in its industry, and if that company is an industry-dominating one, there are going to be conflicts. Think railroad tracks or, as Bob Lefkowitz wrote last year about time standards, railroad schedules and clocks. Railroads all had their own time standards in the 19th century until a standards body called "the U.S. government" set up uniform times and time zones. The reason we have standardization in screw threads, rail gauges, and clock settings is not philanthropy, but as an aid to commerce and invention. And it is cheaper for many companies to get together and develop a single industry-wide standard in association with academics and government partners than for each company to develop its own. I consider Linux and vertical open source packages (GPL or not) in this same light. There is nothing evil about this. Companies that decide not to follow the standards tend to go away in the long run. And there is nothing evil about this, either. We call it "capitalism" and rather like the idea of corporate innovation and evolution here in my country, the U.S.A. Aside from all that, you were at the conference when Bruce Perens conceded that the GPL has commercial limitations. *NEWS FLASH* - GPL has commercial limitations! Ken, I advise you and your employers not to release any software you write under the GPL. Instead, use a *BSD-style license or perhaps a dual licensing scheme. I think you will be much happier. And developers who prefer the GPL will use it to license their software, and we will all be happy. Here in the US of A creators of new works get to choose for themselves the terms under which they distribute their creations. We Americans like this kind of freedom. And if you don't like the terms under which Linux is licensed, don't use Linux. Simple as that. Just because I own and like my Jeep Cherokee doesn't mean I want to force you to buy one. I fully support your right not to use Linux or other GPL-licensed software. Robin 'Roblimo' Miller (waving large flag in bright Florida morning sunshine) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
I'm Will Rodger, and I'm director of public policy at the Open Source and Industry Alliance. We're a project of the Computer & Communications Industry Association here in Washington DC. I have a question for y'all. This is not a troll or a hostile person. Will called me (and others) about the idea of adding some sort of reciprocal non-assertion pact to the licensing language for some previously proprietary code a company that is a member of his trade group is talking about releasing as open source. I told Will he should submit the idea here and see what other interested parties thought of it. I rather like it myself, since it might encourage more companies to open their code -- and might even prevent some future SCO-type incidents. But that's just me, and I'm an observer rather than an expert. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Editor & Reporter, NewsForge, Slashdot, etc. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? I'm meeting some IBM people at LinuxWorld next week. I'll ask them. :) - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
Ken Brown wrote: Well, if everything else is a derivative...then how can anyone claim to be the original owner? I mean how many original owners can you have? There can only be one, whether the license says you can transfer it to 10,000 people...right? Why can't there be more than one? Why can't there be 10 or 10,000? I've collaborated with others on both fiction and non-fiction works. In many cases there is no single, original owner for a program, story or musical work. Who "owns" a piece of improvisational jazz created live by a group of five or six (or 20 or 50) musicians? So help me understand your earlier point. To charge that someone has violated a copyright, doesn't the original owner have to make the charge? Otherwise, we don't know where the true property rights started right? I have trouble with this endless emphasis on "true property rights" and attempts to squeeze every possible penny out of every transaction. I create original articles and stories -- what some would call "intellectual property" -- for a living (and make a pretty decent living at it), but I am old enough to remember the days when Selfishness and Greed were considered sins -- and mortal ones, at that. God and I still believe they are. We are obviously out of step with the times, aren't we? - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
F. In an effort to track usage and maintain accurate records of the Subject Software, each Recipient, upon receipt of the Subject Software, is requested to register with NASA by visiting the following website: __. Note that each recipient is requested to register, not merely each recipient who downloads the software directly from NASA. If this were a requirement rather than a request, then I think the license would not be OSD-compliant. I have no personal problem with this. I'm sure NASA's reasons for gathering user information are totally benign, and that if their people can show that many individuals and companies benefit from thei work, it will help them get scarce budget dollars from Congress. But I don't think this really belongs in the license itself, any more than a request for all users of your software to (voluntarily) smile at their neighbor once a day, even though it certainly would be nice if we all smiled at each other a little more. I like licenses to be as simple and clear as possible. Therefore, I ask NASA, please, to consider removing the "tracking" clause from the license itself and make the request elsewhere. Another person thought it should be in the "readme" file. I agree. The documentation is probably the best place for this request. On the indemnification clause... Isn't a simple "no warrenty" disclaimer of liability enough? I'll defer to Larry and the other lawyers as to whether or not this clause has anything to do with the license's OSI-worthiness, but in the interests of simplification I would personally rather see it removed. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller U.S. Taxpayer -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: "open-source" x "free software"
When you mean freely accessible, does it means that we can't charge for downloads? No, you can charge all you want, but since your customers can freely redistribute your code, you'd better offer offer your paid users something extra so they want to give you money. Suggestions: - Support services - Installation help - Private servers that get new releases faster than free mirrors - Voluntary, shareware-style registration - Sell documention Some companies also produce "side by side" open source and commercial products. OpenOffice is free and freely redistributable, but StarOffice costs money and is not freely redistributable even though it's based on OO code. StarOffice comes with support, documention, and several features OO lacks -- and plenty of companies and at least a few individuals seem to be buying it. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller professional troublemaker -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: KDE violates IBM patent
I wrote a fast, rather tongue-in-cheek story about this. The few quotes used were with permission: http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/179255 Thanks, everyone. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Editor in Chief, OSDN -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
[License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article
Tentative title: Are 69 Open Source Licenses Enough? My questions: Do we really need that many open source licenses? Is there any way to consolidate some of them, which would make life simpler for a whole lot of people? Or does each one of these licenses serve an essential purpose for someone (or some company)? License-Discuss list traffic has died down a lot over the last two - three year. Why? You can answer me off-list or we can set up a time to talk between Tuesday and Friday. The article will run at: http://olex.openlogic.com/wazi/ Thanks in advance, - - Robin -- Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Bradenton Florida USA <>___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article
On 12/19/2011 11:57 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: Fedora is tracking 300+ different FOSS licenses. I got my list here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical A note: this is not an article with a "slant." I'm asking questions, and your answers (hopefully by private email, hint hint, or by phone) will drive it. Maybe the world needs 7 billion open source licenses, and maybe there should only be 15, with varients. If Fedora is tracking 300+ open source licenses, and the OSI has approved ~70, what's up with that? See how asking questions leads to more questions? :) -- Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Bradenton Florida USA <>___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
