Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:23 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it should be popularized. OpenBSD is free as in air. Unfortunately, Richard Stallman beat you to this one by about 24 years. He never popularized it, but this was one of the phrases he used in the first posts announcing the GNU project. -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On Saturday 16 June 2007, Aaron Hsu wrote: The BSD-type licenses say that you can redistribute and modify the code and maybe distribute the software in only binary form, but that the software and its derivatives must still be licensed under the BSD license, right? No. You've got it wrong. If the original work is under a BSD license, your derivative work may be licensed in any way that you want. The one thing you can not do is remove the original copyright statement and license from the source files. With legal stuff, I find the easiest way to understand it is to look at the intended goals and then get a well trained contract lawyer to look over the document to make sure the legal wording and clauses match the intended goals. Even if the very best lawyers crafted the legal document, and they only used the most commonly accepted clauses and wording according to case law, nothing is ever certain in the world of law, so the legal standing of the document/contract/license can still be challenged in court, albeit with some difficulty. Works in the Public Domain are not copyrighted or licensed, since the Public Domain is owned by the public. Anyone can use or modify a Public Domain work in any way that they want. This means you can legally replace the name of the original author with your own name on a Public Domain work and try to take credit for the work. You can also modify the original Public Domain work (i.e. make a derivative work), and then copyright/license your modified version without giving any credit to the original author. It is considered extremely rude to not give proper attribution to the original author of a Public Domain work but unfortunately, it happens. Another problem with works in the Public Domain is it can be difficult to legally prove a work is really in the Public Domain and this alone can cause countless headaches. Worse yet, when combined with the fact that the author can be unknown, or even replaced, the legal standing of a Public Domain work can easily be questioned. Sadly, there is no library or registry of Public Domain works, so there is no easy way to look up the legal standing of works. And yes, still worse, since March 1, 1989 here in the US (in the style of the Bern Convention) all works are copyrighted by default, and due to this idiocy, you must be able to prove a work is in the Public Domain. As Theo stated earlier, he wants to exert his legal right to be known as the original author. By using copyright and a very free license, Theo and all of the developers prevent jerks from taking their work (from the Public Domain) and fraudulently trying to claim it as their own. His approach not only gives credit where it's due, but also prevents the idiocy of needing to prove works are in the Public Domain as well as thwarting patent trolls who would steal and seal all of the good ideas from their code. Though using a copyright statement and the BSD license certainly does prevent some legal problems, the thing we need to realize is this approach is still a sad hack for a broken system. We need to fix the system itself. -JCR
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 2007-06-15 10:07:36 -0500, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to prove a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for Public Domain Software (i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the most truly Free software possible? I believe that there is a difference from Public Domain and BSD type licenses. Public Domain is indeed the most unencumbered license, but I think that the BSD does place useful restrictions on the software. To my understanding, anyone who designs a piece of work under the BSD license is required to permit redistribution of this changed product, am I wrong? This is something I've never quite understood. The BSD-type licenses say that you can redistribute and modify the code and maybe distribute the software in only binary form, but that the software and its derivatives must still be licensed under the BSD license, right? This makes it useful for commercial applications, wherein companies can bundle binary only products which use the source code, and not worry about their secrets go, but if someone were to grab the binaries off of say, an embedded device or a small form factor router, they would still be allowed to redistribute this software, right, because the modified software must have the same license? Is this the correct interpretation or not? -- Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. - Edmund Burke
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 6/16/07, Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Is this the correct interpretation or not? So far off base, it seems like you haven't even read it. DS
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 2007-06-16 19:00:23 -0500, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 6/16/07, Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Is this the correct interpretation or not? So far off base, it seems like you haven't even read it. Alright, I guess I must be really misunderstanding what I read. Here I'm quoting from the ISC license in /usr/src/share/misc/license.template. /* * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ I'm reading this permission notice above as referring to the Permission to use... paragraph and the disclaimer after it. Wouldn't this seem a natural reference? Are you saying that it actually refers only to the disclaimer part of the notice? -- Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. - Edmund Burke
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 2007/06/16 17:00, Darren Spruell wrote: On 6/16/07, Aaron Hsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Is this the correct interpretation or not? So far off base, it seems like you haven't even read it. normal style for OpenBSD code is Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. I think this hinges on definition of copies (binary? source? modified?) and, not being versed in lawyer-speak, I'm not sure if this is absolutely clear.
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On Thursday 14 June 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than others': 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it should be popularized. OpenBSD is free as in air. There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is NOT free as in air. Instead, it is free as in hangovers. Whatever the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear free as in beer. There is nothing inherently wrong with a license which is designed to be contagious and force the release of source code (GPL) or other derivative works (CreativeCommons share-alike or more accurately forced-release) but calling it anything other than what it actually is should be considered nothing more than a lie. Trying to manipulate the terms Free and Open is blatant dishonesty. Unfortunately, the majority of licenses and projects are intellectually dishonest and they try to manipulate these terms to make their sneaky, underhanded goals seem more acceptable to the general population. If you want a far more clear and accurate phrase, as well as be more confrontational, the phrase Honestly Free Software is a good alternative. Free as in Honestly Free will put the hammer down on all projects and licenses which are manipulative excuses for being something other than actually free. When you see a dishonest person saying Free as in Speech or Free as in Blobs call them a liar in the most loud and public manner possible. If you cannot trust a license or the people who use it to be honest, you have a good reason to not trust them at all. Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to prove a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for Public Domain Software (i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the most truly Free software possible? The wooshing sound I hear is probably a fast approaching clue stick. ;-) -JCR
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to prove a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? We wish to retain the legal right to be known as the author, and not have our names taken off the files. With public domain, that stuff at the top of the file is taken away first, before anything else is done. Don't you read what's left at the top of the files? Just that bit; nothing else.
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
Theo de Raadt wrote: OpenBSD is free as in air. Considering that climate change concerns might even make the usage of air in anyway you like, less viable, OpenBSD might even be more free than air ;) Jaap
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
How about The GPL is free as in Gonhorrhea? Strange how that didn't catch on. J.C. Roberts wrote: On Thursday 14 June 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than others': 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it should be popularized. OpenBSD is free as in air. There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is NOT free as in air. Instead, it is free as in hangovers. Whatever the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear free as in beer. There is nothing inherently wrong with a license which is designed to be contagious and force the release of source code (GPL) or other derivative works (CreativeCommons share-alike or more accurately forced-release) but calling it anything other than what it actually is should be considered nothing more than a lie. Trying to manipulate the terms Free and Open is blatant dishonesty. Unfortunately, the majority of licenses and projects are intellectually dishonest and they try to manipulate these terms to make their sneaky, underhanded goals seem more acceptable to the general population. If you want a far more clear and accurate phrase, as well as be more confrontational, the phrase Honestly Free Software is a good alternative. Free as in Honestly Free will put the hammer down on all projects and licenses which are manipulative excuses for being something other than actually free. When you see a dishonest person saying Free as in Speech or Free as in Blobs call them a liar in the most loud and public manner possible. If you cannot trust a license or the people who use it to be honest, you have a good reason to not trust them at all. Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to prove a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for Public Domain Software (i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the most truly Free software possible? The wooshing sound I hear is probably a fast approaching clue stick. ;-) -JCR
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
Theo de Raadt wrote: On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would point out the thread here. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. ...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can. - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. Noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label then Open and Free when they are not in fact so. You know, phrases like 'free as in beer / free as in speech' have oversimplified and diluted open and free principles to the point that it is now equivalent to 'cheap and easy'. Complaining that OpenBSD has 'more stringent goals and policies than others' stems from this laziness. Free and open goals and principles have taken a back seat to easy solutions for cheapskates and greedy corporations. A sincere belief that something is open and free is held higher than having a factually verifiable open and free license. Sincerity should never overshadow fact in the realm of software. Sincerity is an emotional response where a factual response is most appropriate. Principles have taken a back seat to cheap and easy thinking. I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than others': 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' Society is failing to produce quality because it is acceptable, and in many cases preferable, to be sincere rather than factual. All these projects which don't understand OpenBSD's uncompromising policies are suffering from sincerity syndrome. They think that they can just feel like their projects are free and open and then say that they are. We live in a society of bullshitters, and the bullshitters have infiltrated open and free software. We have an uphill battle to fight because bullshitting has become generally accepted behaviour. Most people are bullshitters. We need to stop tolerating it in ourselves and in others. Breeno
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than others': 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it should be popularized. OpenBSD is free as in air. There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is NOT free as in air. Instead, it is free as in hangovers. Whatever the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear free as in beer. Society is failing to produce quality because it is acceptable, and in many cases preferable, to be sincere rather than factual. All these projects which don't understand OpenBSD's uncompromising policies are suffering from sincerity syndrome. They think that they can just feel like their projects are free and open and then say that they are. We live in a society of bullshitters, and the bullshitters have infiltrated open and free software. We have an uphill battle to fight because bullshitting has become generally accepted behaviour. Most people are bullshitters. We need to stop tolerating it in ourselves and in others. Well, you won't fix any of that, and neither really will we. We'll stick to our principles for reasons entirely dissasociated from those problems, and noone will ever really understand. Probably not even you will really ever fully understand ;)
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
OpenBSD is free as in air. We'll stick to our principles for reasons entirely dissasociated from those problems, and noone will ever really understand. Because you can. Because it's there. Most mortals dare not even attempt.
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would point out the thread here. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. ...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can. - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. DS
Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD?
On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would point out the thread here. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. ...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can. - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401tstart=0 It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. Noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label then Open and Free when they are not in fact so.
