OSI Approves Apple, IBM Licenses 202
Thought the GPL was a nice license for your software project, one that fit with your thoughts about software freedom? Perhaps the BSD license was more to your taste? Well, even if you confine yourself to the ones approved by the Open Source Initiative, you can now choose from a grand total of 23 different licenses. Two new licenses have been blessed by the OSI: IBM's Common Public License Version 0.5, and the Apple Public Source License 1.2. Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license. So here we are with at least 23, and rising.
Re:Pigs? (Score:2)
Thanks,
- Robin
The GPL is *NOT* a contract (Score:2)
The example you gave -- "all are permitted to redistribute this work, in original or modified form, so long as they do not remove this notice, including the copyright notice and disclaimer" -- is no different. It also offers rights beyond what would normally be available to others under copyright law, conditioned on certain actions (preserving the notice). It's just that the conditions are somewhat different.
Re:APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (Score:2)
And, in the APSL commentary section - http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html [fsf.org]:
Re:I'm not opposed to RMS but.... (Score:2)
You don't have the right to impose terms on other people's software, anyway. People can distribute whatever they like in patch form, no matter how the original source is licensed.
This was tossed around a bit when Minix still had a non-free license and people were pondering how to make it into a useful system instead of just an academic toy. The idea was, you'd buy a specific release of Minix (it came with source code) and then apply a huge patch. Of course, then Linux came along and BSD freed itself of its encumberances, so Minix was just left by the wayside and it became a moot point.
Likewise, no one can change the terms of your software unless you specifically assign rights to them. That's why the BSD folks say: But, the original source is always there! Just because someone released a proprietary version based on BSD code does not make the original BSD code proprietary as well.
It sounds like you're asking for the BSD license.
So what? (Score:2)
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
I guess the USA isn't a free country. I can't freely go around killing people! :( Does a free country have no laws? Free doesn't mean you can do anything you want. Can you use it? FREE! Can you base another software program on it as well? FREE! Stallman only asks one thing of you and that is you can't undermind his copyright. If he allows you to use the code you can't take that away from others.
Course you want to be able to use someone else software to lock up the code. To not release the source. To make it un-free. You think that it's unfair that you can't take his code an take it away from him. Your just another BSD troll saying the GPL is viral. The BSD license makes restrictions as well.
Bad (Score:2)
Possible.
> He's too unyeilding, and that never leads to success.
Boy, you got that right. When will people learn that revolutionaries never win? That's why Massachusetts still pays taxes to England, and Texas is still a part of Mexico.
> you DO have to balance a company wanting to make money with open source work, and the community.
No you don't.
> I'm surprised someone hasn't lambasted id/Carmack for releasing the code to their games, and yet not making it Free.
Last I checked, id's release of Quake was under the terms of the GPL. By definition, that code is free software.
--Lenny
More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:4)
And tell me how he denies any programmers of their rights? Is he somehow denying them by not letting them redistribute his software under a license not of his choosing? No, he's *granting* them rights to his software. You can argue that BSD or Artistic licenses grant *more* privelidges, but the GPL certainly doesn't *take away* rights, it merely grants more limited rights. Don't confure less positive with a negative.
> As it is, he can be a royal pain.
Has he been calling you up and bothering you lately? Has he been threatening you personally? No, he just states his mind. People seem to think that Stallman is "out to get" other software projects, but mostly people go to him and say "do you like this non-GPL license?", to which he will say "no". Big surprise there. We wouldn't hear nearly as much out of Stallman if people weren't constantly seeking his opinion.
> But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT.
So is "free code" this amazing new concept of your's, or are you just trying dodge the phrase "free software", which was defined by Stallman himself? The gift philosophy is more or less the BSD mindset. That's great, but that's not "free software". By definition, what Stallman is pushing is "free software".
> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!
That is a blatant lie. Without the GPL you have no rights to the code. With it, you are granted limited rights. If the license was BSD, you would arguably have more rights, but the fact of the matter is that the GPL is *adding* to your rights. So, effectively, you are whining because Stallman isn't giving you all that you want out of him. You seem to want him to give you *his* software on *your* terms.
> So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.
Who, precisely, is more qualified to comment on free software than the man who created the term to begin with, and founded the Free Software Foundation?
> What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software.
No, they are dictating how you use *their* software. Sorry if it cramps your style, but the GPL grants us a whole heck of a lot of rights.
> If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts
He's not interested in gifts, he's interested in freedom. Not just freedom in the here and now, but *sustained* freedom. That is where the BSD and GPL camps really diverge. The GPL makes provisions to ensure *continued* freedom. You may feel that the provision is to onerous, but atleast understand it's purpose.
-Lenny
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
Sexism is endemic to most of human society, and there's no reason to think this community is any better . . . or any worse. As an anonymous coward pointed out, in your responce, you made the assumption that a person being raped must be female, another sexist view.
It's the *software* that's *free* not *you* !! (Score:2)
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code.
Still, some people seem to have problem understanding "free software". It was never ment to mean that you could just take it and do with it as you wish (as in beer).
It's the *software* that is free, and the fact that it's freedom blocks your freedom in some areas (you can't "imprison" it in "un-free" software) seem to be the source of this annoyance.
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I assure you that this is complete nonsense, of cource you can do as you wish with your code. It's the code of *others* that you can't do with as you wish.
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
Re:On Stallman (Score:5)
People don't become maniacs simply by having ideas about property rights that differ from yours. Nor does Stallman deny authors anything. What he does is provide a model license that gives authors the option of sharing their software in a way that ensures everyone who partakes of it must also share. This is a common virtue we push in elementary schools; it only becomes anathema, apparently, when we suggest that adults might want to voluntarily be nice to their fellow adults. Of course, people have been killed for less, but what the hell.
Stallman's use of the word 'free' can be a bit counter-intuitive, but as countless thousands of people have noted, English lacks native words for all but the crudest notions of freedom and cost-free-ness.
The GPL has its place. I don't agree with Stallman's belief that all software should be GPLed, but the abuses of "free" and "open source" software by large corporations over the past couple of years clearly demonstrate that if you give an inch to greedy, unethical suits, they'll take a mile, every time. Maybe this matters in some cases, maybe it doesn't. The GPL is available for those cases when it does.
If you want truly free software in the commonly understood sense of the word, you need to prepend these words to your source code:
The problem is that the vast majority of the people who decry the restrictions of the GPL as unfree are seldom willing to actually go that far and make their own software absolutely free. There is a lesson to be drawn from this which will probably not sit well with rigidly doctrinaire libertarians, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader.
--
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
>distorted vision for the future of software. To
>the extent that he denies a software author the
>right to do with his code as he pleases, the man
>is a maniac.
You mean how dare I demand the same treatment from you as you got from me, I.E. the publication of any source code derived from my work?
How dare I, as a software author, attach a price tag to my work which you only have to pay if your code incorporates my own?
Nobody ever said you had to include any GPLed code in a program you write, and if that's your attitude about it I seriously hope you never do.
Rob
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
>his software 'free', but as you well point out,
>it comes with a price tag. I am not arguing
>whether or not it this price tag is reasonable -
>I agree that if you give me something, you should
>be able to attach any conditions you wish to it.
Yes, and in a truly "free" society murder wouldn't be a crime, would it? Otherwise, you'd be free to commit it.
I believe that's called "anarchy". If you stop and think about it, the bill of rights is just a list of behaviors that are prevented. (Can't censor people. Can't take people's guns away. Can't stop people from getting together in large groups...) What a totalitarian document.
What is your point? (Score:2)
The argument that GPL is only necessary because of intellectual property laws is misleading and fallacious. Firstly, if this is true, then BSD-style licenses work just as well. Secondly, there is nothing in a IP-free world that mandates the opening of source code (never mind the production of it) by derivative works.
Brain fart (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. Where is that written? Even if it is, who says every word the man writes is his honest intention? Maybe he really does want to have his cake and eat it too. He wants intellectual property to protect his right to make things just so, in his own view, but not for others. Even if you accept this silly theory, Stallman is saying one thing and doing another. You can't honestly say man has no right to own an idea, yet assume ownership of your own (and others) ideas by commanding others to do a little dance for him. While you may assert this is just a means to an end, it still hypocritical, not to mention unsubstantiated.
Get real (Score:2)
He IS saying one thing and DOING another, even if he thinks the ENDS justifies the MEANS. It's like saying murder is absolutely unethical, then murdering a murder. Some people choose to take the higher road.
What's more, if he truely believes his "free" philosophy creates better software, he should put his money where his mouth is. If pure GPL software consistently produces better software (from any and all perspectives), who is going to spend time and money buying propreitary software? Even if closed source companies "steal" open source, surely they have nothing to add, right? It'd just be a cheap immitation of the real thing, right? If one truely believes this, then BSD-ish license would be the way to go. In other words, he could still turn the world on his head (if he believes in the absolute superiority) without ANY IP protection.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:3)
As far as the GPL itself goes, the GPL does, as a matter of fact, put certain burdens on consumers of GPL source code that do not exist in other licenses and schemes. Now you can call that "less positive", or anything you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it does impinge on my right to take GPL source code, modify it, and do whatever I want with it. However, that is not to say that RMS and others should not be entitled to do so. Quite the contrary, the same exact argument can, and should, be made for proprietary software. The producers/coders/developers of the product make it, they should be free to do whatever they want with their code, even if that means imposing certain legal fictions, because, when you boil the issue it down to its fundamental, it's just an option, not something that is imposed on you. Options are a good thing, so long as they don't fundamentally TAKE from others.
I suppose the fundamental difference between Stallman and some other people, is that Stallman basically takes the approach that the mere existing of anything other than his approach is harmful and evil, whereas others are far more permissive of other approaches. I, for instance, think we are better off having options. If you want software that is "free" you can have it. If you want software that does what you, as the consumer, want, you can have that too, most likely it'll come from propreitary software. By and large, the two co-exist and put little burden on each other. They fill seperate needs. They are largely developed differently. They don't generally compete for the same resources. If anything, their relationship is more symbiotic, the existence of the other bolsters their unique strengths. Let the better option prevail, this is the true spirit of capitalism.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
But they do have that right. They just don't have the right to continue
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
How to make money on GPL games (Score:2)
2) Write a game client
3) GPL the client
4) Charge to hook into the server.
That's sort of bare bones, but the principle should be clear.
OTOH, it might be difficult to prevent cheating.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Illegal (Score:2)
I know that there is a lot of flag waving and pontification about the virtues of a free market, but the people who do it the most have a government subsidy check in their pocket and lots of nice laws custom made to suit their needs.
Do not expect a power structure to create a level playing field. That is not, and never has been, their goal. (There may exist brief [1 ruler long] exceptions, but that has not been proved to my satisfaction.)
The first purpose of an organization is to survive. If it doesn't do that, then you will never hear about it. This is an always true.
So don't be surprised if the world looks like that. Recognize rhetoric, and don't invest belief in it.
I am commonly called a cynic, so you don't need to believe this, but you probably look like an unfair competitor too. (I can practically guarantee this, if I am allowed to choose the viewpoint character.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Open Source != Free (Score:2)
What is the maximum value of N that would qualify the product as free? If 10^10 is acceptable, then all software is free, no matter what the laws say.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I'm not opposed to RMS but.... (Score:2)
I'm not opposed to RMS but I want to release my software without some of the impositions that GPL has. LGPL might be closer, or maybe the modified BSD licence or the Apache license.
The way I want to have my restrictions work is that if any recipient of my software (or any modification of my software), merges in their own modifications, they are not obligated to release the source code of their modifications. They will also not be obligated to distribute my original source code. If they do choose to release their source code integrated with my code, they must distribute that under the same terms (but if they distribute separate, e.g. my code and their patch, they may use any license terms they wish for their part). I want to prevent the terms of my software from being changed, but I do not want to impose any terms on anyone else's software.
And yes, I realize that means Microsoft could use my software, not distribute any source, not acknowledge it, and never even tell me about it, all legally.
Suggestions?
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
What about the most famous, or at least the most visible/talked about here on
--
OSI: lacking a major resource (Score:2)
One of the reasons I always use GPL or MIT (depending on context) is that they are well-understood in the community, and so we don't get bogged down in legalese.
Could this be a case of diversity being harmful for the community (but, I'm sure, being beneficial to the initial developers in some way)?
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
How does he do that?
> For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom!
Which perhaps explains why they call it a "license".
--
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
Completely off-topic, I know, but I just love the way sexism is endemic to this community - the guy writing that post didnt deliberately make a sexist comment, but what he said came out very much like raping the boss's wife was just another way of being nasty to the boss.
What it should have been, of course, is:
You live in a Free Country. But you are not free to steal; you are not free to shoot your boss or rape her.
Re:APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (Score:2)
--Ben
Re:Open Source != Free (Score:2)
Where's that definition?
There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit.
And neither is it wrong with free software companies using free software for profit. There are also a lot of free software companies today selling free software for profit. So I don't understand what you're arguing.
And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
There has always been a need for free software. That's why we have GNU/Linux today, and lots of companies selling free GNU/Linux distributions.
Oh, and in case you haven't got the point yet, "free" in this context was never about price, it's about freedom. This was what was mentioned in the article, and what you completely failed to realize. I'd recommend reading up a bit on the the definition of free software [fsf.org]. There you have a definition.
Re:Open Source != Free (Score:2)
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
Depends on your definition of free. For example, the OSI definitions of Open Source software explicitly state that an OSI licensed work cannot be charged for:
From www.opensource.org:
Simon
Re:Illegal (Score:2)
Id advise you go into consulting, some vertical market, entertainment markets or some market that doesnt have the same dead end mechanics built into that market.
Re:What is RMS's problem with IBM's license? (Score:2)
Looks pretty much like GPL, but with less work done on specifying problematic technical software issues like linking, and with more work gone into the disclaiming and patent parts. If you read it more carefully, you cannot change the license on binaries. You can issue a disjointed license on binaries but then it has to conform to both, and there is nothing preventing that on GPL software either (Ie, you can say "I will provide warranty for this software in the form distributed by me" in your extra license and that would be ok for both GPL and this IBM license).
Of course, the GPL deals with these issues too. So, yet another license that isnt saying anything original but which is very likely incompatible with the GPL (the license revocation clause was the first thing I thought of).
Re:Illegal (Score:2)
Correct
despite that the effect is the same.
The effect is not the same. In the dumping example once the competition is forced out of the market prices will go up, in the free software example this does not happen.
I don't see the logic.
The point is to efficiently utilise resources in providing goods and services to the consumer, not to protect the capitalist. The profit is an incentive to the capitalist to provide things the consumer wants. If the consumer can get those things from elsewhere for less cost, or no cost, then they will and the capitalist loses but that's okay because it's the consumer that the system is intended to benefit (and we're all consumers, though not necessarily of this particular product).
Dumping is only a problem because it allows someone to distort the market in the short term against the interests of the consumer in the long run. Free software does not do this, the consumer gets software that they are happy with for the price, if they are willing to pay more for something better then they can do so, if they are not then they've got what they want.
There is no difference between this and if the rival software was being sold at a much lower price than yours but on a long term sustainable basis.
If consumers would rather have the competing software for nothing than your software at the price you are charging for it then you will go out of business. This is a unfortunate for you personally but it is exactly the outcome that the market is supposed to produce.
Arguably not. (Score:2)
-russ
Re:The GPL is *NOT* a contract (Score:2)
-russ
Re:it's not "dumping" (Score:2)
-russ
p.s. and yes Microsoft does it too, and no, I don't agree with the author of the parent of the parent of this article.
Re:OSI: lacking a major resource (Score:2)
-russ
Re:So what? (Score:2)
-russ
Re:It's the *software* that's *free* not *you* !! (Score:2)
Yup. It's as if the software was sentient, and owned itself. We don't permit people to sell themselves into slavery, and we don't permit GPL'ed software to sell itself into slavery. Arguably, this is sometimes needed to survive (both for people and software), but those circumstances are not present in most of the world today. Slavery survives in the world, but it is probably not voluntary, compensated slavery.
-russ
As far as I am concerned, they are synonymous. (Score:3)
-russ
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:4)
Re:True enough. (Score:2)
The genious of stallman was to turn the concept of intellectual property back on itself. He truly does believe that all software should be in the public domain and no soaftware should be hidden from anyone. He of course realized that this goal might take generations to achieve. In the mean time he invented the concept of a copyleft and the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure a huge codebase can never be hidden from the public and he put in the viral clause to make sure the this pool of software could grow. Until IP laws are abolished he has a tool to fight it. Once the IP laws are gone so is the utility of the GPL. Of course since the GPL is dependent on IP laws it will not disappear until IP does.
It's just freaking brilliant. He says in effect "Hi I have just planted this big ugly onorous anti-business GPL in your midst, I have made sure it will grow till it gets in your way, all you have to do to make it go away is to take away my right to own my own code". Of course once his right to own code goes away so does everybody elses.
Re:What is your point? (Score:2)
He is hoping the world will say to him "you have no right to dictate how your code is used by others once you have written it it's not yours anymore". Nothing would make him happier.
The way to take away the power or the GPL is to destroy the IP laws as they exist today. Quite brilliant I think.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
You are right. MS does not have to let you use their software for free. They can make you pay for it if they want. They are being nice to you by granting the right to use this piece of software. You have no inherent right to use other peoples software.
By the exact same token RMS is granting you the right to use his software. Except he goes further then MS and not only lets you use it but it lets you see the code and modify it. He even let's you redistribute the the code or the binaries (which MS does not) if you are willing to do one simple thing and that is make sure you distribute the code with the binary.
you seem confused by the word restrict. You have no right to other peoples code. No right to use other peoples software, no right to see other peoples code, no right to sell or redistribute other peoples software. MS gives you very limited rights if you give them a bunch of money. RMS gives you a whole lot more rights for free but limits you ability to redistribute (not to modify for your own uses). Public domain software gives you unfettered access to do whatever you want.
All of these licenses GIVE you something not take something away from you because as long as IP laws exists you have ZERO rights ot other peoples labors.
BTW I have never heard RMS whine about anything. People ask him questions and he answers, people attack him and he defends himself. If I was him I would be shooting people who still confused open source with free software which despite the billions of words written on the subject every single MS employee and reporter in the world is still confused about.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
For people like me the GPL is only vehicle this guarantees this. Of course I could make up my own license but the GPL does what I want and the FSF is commited to defending it. If I made own license it's effectiveness is only as good as my ability to defend it court which is ZERO.
Luckily for both of us we still have a choice. You could continue coding for companies that don't pay you and I could continue coding for everybody else that does not pay me.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
I object to other people making obcene profit off of my code. I want them to use it, I want them to extend it, I want them to debug it (if they want) but I don't want them to ungodly profit off of it. I realize that the GPL does not really forbid profits but it does discourage price gauging and overcharging.
Like I said I would never volunteer to clean any companies toilets for free no matter if they are big or small. By the same token I don't want the provide programming either. There is pleanty of other code out there they can steal and use any way they want. They are also paying big bucks to programmers and should demand that those people produce good quality code for them.
They do nothing for me and I do nothing for them. See it works our wonderfully.
The GPL does pretty close to what I want and it's backed by a well organized if underfunded organization. By using that license (or even better by turning my code over to the FSF) the license can be defended better. If I made own no commercial license I would be laughed out of court the instant the judge found out what my bank account balance was.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
In the end most businesses don't give a shit about right and wrong they just want money. They will steal any code they think they can, they will do anything they think they can get away with in order to provide shareholder value. For some corporations this means killing people for others it means fraud and theft, for most it means sleeping with a guilty conscience because you spent the entire day lying to everybody you spoke with and screwed over half of your customers. I don't want to be associated with cretins like that in any way whatsoever.
Re:Brain fart (Score:2)
Stallman is NOT saying one thing and doing another. He has found a way to poison the IP well using IP itself. It's recursive not hypocritical.
Re:Get real (Score:2)
Originally GPL was called copyleft. He has said many times that the idea of copyleft and GPL is use IP laws against itself. GNU is a recusive acronym, and the GPL is a recursive license. I guess we should expect that from a person whose favorite language is lisp.
Neither I nor He gives a flying fuck what you find it hard to believe but everybody admits the man is on a crusade. People who don't believe passionately don't devote their lives to causes. Stallman wakes up and works like a dog every day even at the age of 60 in order to make this world more like what he thinks it ought to be. Most people like me go to work, do our 9 to 5 and sit in front of the tube. He is a believer and I (and the other 95% of the world) are users.
So Many To CHoose From..... (Score:2)
APSL Seems Pretty Free To Me (Score:2)
Please, if I'm missing a crucial factor here hit me with it, but I'm after specific non-redundant replies, not flames.
Re:Call me nuts, but... (Score:2)
Re:Call me nuts, but... (Score:2)
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:3)
The GPL was geared more-or-less toward these people, and because of the GPL, these people are now free software / open source developers, and these people felt pretty generous.
The idea behind the GPL is "I've been generous by giving you this code, and I expect the same level of generosity from you."
I really wish these GPL vs BSDL/PD wars would end. People involved in them usually believe that all OSS developers have the samegoals and interests, which is clearly false. There are legitimate reasons to use either of the BSDL/PD and the GPL, and I wish people from both camps would accept that.
------
Re: (Score:2)
Re:True enough. (Score:2)
Congratulations. I hope you'll permit me the right to control my code the way that I want to. And if I want to release my code under the terms that you're allowed to use it if and only if you don't proprietize it, what's wrong with that?
I get a kick out of people who proclaim that anyone who uses GPL or believes the tenets of the GPL is somehow restricting other people's rights. My use of the GPL does not prevent you from using any license on your software, or releasing it to the public domain. But because I prevent you from using my software under conditions that I don't approve of, you think I'm the zealot? You're trying to take my code, use it, and not contribute back. You're trying to take the work of others and proclaim it for yourself. And I'm the one impinging on your rights?
You live in a strange world.
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
I, personally, and (I think) many other people are drawn to the GPL for mostly pragmatic reasons ... in most cases it can be better, cheaper, faster than commercial software, and still be commercially viable in some way. That, aside from the fact that insisting people be 'free' is ethically perilous.
However, if the GPL doesn't work in some cases, it shouldn't be used. I think, for example, it would be very difficult to make money writing GPL'd games. And you have to make money to do things ... you can't rely on the spare time of geniuses (as linux did in the early days, and still does now) to write all your software.
Re:How to make money on GPL games (Score:2)
However, not *all* games can be both open source and money-making. Pretty much any game you don't want to play online is unlikely to be a big money maker.
Also, having the source available for the client makes it easier to make an open source dupe of the server ... and one thing the OS game dev community can do is make clones of existing products :)
Thanks OSI! (Score:2)
Please...
People, if you want to release a project, look at all the licenses out there. Don't go GPL because everyone else is doing it. Don't listen to OSI. Don't let anything but the licenses themselves influence your decision. Read them, choose what seems right for your needs.
You want your shit closed, you say? Think it will get you a wad of cash, or get you something else? Do it. Don't let
--
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:3)
You mean how much the post reinforces the most common ideas here on slashdot, so we can all proceed to kiss our own asses, instead of stating an opinion which might be self-generated and against the status-quo?
I dont think openly insulting someone contributes anything.
"Nevertheless, he is a genius."
I wish more people would insult me that way.
--
Free & opensource software should remain synonyms (Score:2)
Eric Raymond used the term opensource as a synonym for free software. As he said, the single reason for adopting this term was that it would be more easily accepted by the business world. It was meant to be a synonym and I see no interest of changing that (except by enemies of opensource/free software).
The reasons I see why people tend to see a difference between these two terms are:
- "free software" == "software using a license from FSF". Mistake:
free software should simply mean software which is
free. And software using licenses other than those from FSF
(BSD, artistic, NPL, etc) are called "free" by RMS himself [gnu.org].
I fully disagree the idea that we should make a distinction between those terms. For me it is a conceptual and strategical mistake. free software should not mean GPL'd software or software using a FSF license. Not even RMS restricts the word "free" to the licenses from FSF.
- "free software" == good software for RMS, "open source"
== good software for ESR. Mistake: disputes such the
one involing the license used by Apple should not be a ground
for splitting those concepts. If you take two people from FSF and ask if you
can do something with GPL, you will often get two different answers
(go check gnu.misc.discuss). Licenses are a tricky subject. RMS and ESR do disagree on some issues, but we should not "make" them disagree more than they actually do... and not extend this disagrement to basic concepts like free or opensource software.
The first effort to establish a definition to free software was DFSG [debian.org]. As far as I know both RMS and ESR fully agree with DSFG (though OSI definition [opensource.org] carries some changes). One calls it "free software" the other "open source". We should call it the way we prefer and not try to extract two different concepts out of them.Just say no to Intelectual Property! I hope the author of this sig doesn't mind...:-)
Re:Free & opensource software should remain synony (Score:2)
We should not let this happen. The term "opensource" would never have been gained acceptance in our community if it was meant to be a synonym for free software. The interest of the community should be greater than the ambition and the narcisism of two individuals (ESR and RMS).
We should not let ESR decide alone what is good or bad in the name of "opensource". Finally a lot of what we do is call "opensource" by people from outside. If OSI accepts licenses that we do not like let us ask for a more representative organ, and not let it decide what it wants in the name of the rest.
Too many people have contributed for free/opensource software. I don't see why we would give two people the liberty to decide what these terms should mean. Free software shouldn't mean software with a license from FSF, or software adhering to the "free software movement started by RMS", or software that RMS likes. Opensource software shouldn't mean OSI approved.
Darwinism... (Score:2)
Darwinism... (Score:2)
MaxOS? (Score:2)
If you mean "Mac OS X", type Mac OS X.
Re:Is there a licence that says this? (Score:2)
Rich...
Re:More anti-Stallman BS... (Score:2)
If you do not want corporations to benefit from your work, but do want others to be able to, it seems to me that a different license (some form of "anti-corporate" license) would better fulfill your intent. Of course, discriminating against corporations as such might not accomplish your ends either. Some individuals incorporate, and there are corporations out there that are "good guys."
--Brett Glass
Open Source != Free (Score:5)
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
F-bacher
Moores Law Anyone? (Score:2)
---
boris at darkrock dot co dot uk
Bad link... geez... (Score:2)
Let the pork jokes begin...
Re:Is there a licence that says this? (Score:2)
I don't think any of those licenses have the combination of restrictions you have. GPL is close, except for the "cannot release code under the same name". But you could easily just say "This code is released under the terms of the GPL, with the additional restriction that any modified versions must be released under a different name.
Also, when you refer to "code", are you talking about executables, object code, or source code (or all of the above)? GPL says nothing about what people can charge for the binaries, but requires that source code be made available at no additional charge to anyone to whom you distribute binaries.
-- Kris
ok nutcase (Score:2)
Re:I'm about half sick of licenses (Score:2)
Another Discordian plot? (Score:2)
23 licenses to choose from? further proof that the open source movement is nothing but a front for those anarchist, anti-American Discordian bastards.
PS---this is not a troll. It is an ogre.
Pigs? (Score:4)
License Darwinism... (Score:3)
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
Oh yes I can - if the theatre is on fire!
Call me nuts, but... (Score:2)
--
troll links (Score:5)
Re:anti-appl-msft license? (Score:2)
"oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program." My argument was- what if opensource (for lack of better term) was more guarded with its license, would it still be such an underdog
And thank you for finally making it clear to me that much of the intelligent debate about "stuff that matters" has been ported from
Oh, and sorry for the maXOS think, I of course meant OSX, I've got too many acronyms to remember and I think some of them are starting to share the same storage in my brain.
Is there a licence that says this? (Score:3)
Is there anything like that out there? I wouldn't say my licence is restrictive, just avoids some potential headaches.
Can anyone advise?
--
Variety in OSS Licenses (Score:2)
Everything microsoft sells under it's developer license is actually Open Source right? Sure... But that's OK because we all know that (in the bill gates universe) Open Source is Bad [slashdot.org]. But in all seriousness, the BSD license is more 'free' and less 'Open Source' than the GPL. It is far more conducive to centralized corporate development of a product where the company seeks to solicit the 'assistance' of the OSS comunity. One of the nice things about the GPL is that it's stringent requirements for distribution, have the effect of reducing code forking (which whas one of the big MS objections to OSS) by forcing a closer colaboration of the developmwnt comunity. Part of the beauty of the GPL is that it is as much a social contract as a legal one. It's legal provisions foster comunity growth, through it's code distribution and attribution requirements.
--CTH
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
RMS outdated? (Score:2)
Ontario Swine Improvement as an Open Organization (Score:5)
At first I thought this was just a simple acronym mix-up, but upon further analysis, I realized it was much d eeper than that. If you check out the FAQ, the OSI is commited to helping improve Ontario's pigs in an open manner. For example, they're all about sharing source material [osi.org], as especially noted in their pricing strategy [osi.org] -- they charge you extra if you're not sharing your source material!
In fact, they even provide some how-to in their FAQs [osi.org]
Of course, this project is merely Open, since the material can never be truly Free. They would like to be Free, but apparently their product relies on IP from an external source, and they just can't get their vendor to agree to the terms of the GPL. Something about "thou shalt not lie with a beast" or some such.
There are rumors He's open to petitions though.
Re:why not just make it public domain? (Score:2)
I guess, by your reasoning, that since I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, I don't have freedom of speech.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:On Stallman (Score:2)
That's called "competition in a free market".
Deal with it.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Free & opensource software should remain synony (Score:2)
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:On Stallman (Score:3)
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Illegal (Score:3)
Where are you... 1980s Soviet Union?
My competitors do not compete on equal terms.
Nobody ever competes on equal terms. I'm stronger than you, therefore I'll win the bench press competition. I'm smarter than you, therefore I'm going to get higher grades on the exam.
This is life. Not all are equal.
They have salaries coming from elsewhere (another company, government, unemployed, studying) and can afford to dump the prices without risking their financial situation.
Sounds like they've figured something out that you didn't. Too bad.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
Gee, that's too bad. Such is the free market: if you can't compete, you go out of business.
I cannot see how this is a good thing,
If you cannot see how lower prices + superior products are a good thing, then you need to brush up on some basic economics.
Ryan T. Sammartino
it's not "dumping" (Score:2)
"Dumping" is carried out by companies and countries that want to temporarily undercut prices so that they can later have a monopoly position in the market and charge more for their own products. Free software may end up taking over a market by being cheaper, but by its nature, nobody can charge monopoly prices for it--it is and remains free. Furthermore, the users of free software pay for it, directly and efficiently, in their own contributions, avoiding the overhead of commercial software development and corporations. We call that "competition", not "dumping".
Microsoft, on the other hand, has engaged in something one might call "dumping": they have temporarily undercut competitors, swallowed the losses temporarily, and later (effectively) raised prices on their products.
It is impossible to compete with people on those terms, driving all commerical vendors out of a given market.
And that's the way it should be. Once the development costs of a piece of software have been amortized, it costs nothing to make an additional copy. In an efficient market, the price of software should therefore go to zero. Open source software is simply one of several means by which that happens.
The fact that Microsoft and a few other players continue to make big bucks with old technology is an indication that either they aren't selling software (maybe they are selling services or something less tangible like membership in a "user community"), or that they are engaging in monopolistic practices.
Then everyone has to rely on freely developed software, without support or someone interested in the "customers".
Providing support for free software costs money, and that's why it isn't free. That's also why it is a great opportunity for consulting and for making money.
The enemies of the free market are people like you, not free software. You have unreasonable expectations of the big bucks you can make with software development, and you expect the government to protect you from cheap competition. Well, things fortunately don't work that way. Get used to it, and maybe find a more profitable market niche.
get a grip yourself (Score:2)
What are you complaining about? When you get GPL'ed software, you get good software, its source code, and a limited redistribution license. That's a great deal better than you get with most commercial software; Microsoft, for example, doesn't even let you redistribute their software, let alone modify its source, even though you paid them for it.
Maybe the GPL license doesn't fit your needs. In that case, you can exercise your own choice: don't use the GPL'ed code. Nobody is forcing you. If you like, you can even create your own, proprietary implementation of a GPL'ed library, an option you generally don't have with closed source software.
Re:it's not "dumping" (Score:2)
If someone figures out how to sell the same product as yours cheaper (free in this case), of course your incentive should go away; that's the way the free market works. That's why people who start businesses generally try to have a diversified product line and look very seriously at issues like cost of entry.
Thinking that you can drive a serious business on poeple's donation and good will of a few % of the population is just foolish.
If that's your idea of how free software gets created, you are confused. Free software isn't usually created out of "good will" or from "[charitable] donations", it is usually created by real businesses to address real needs.
For example, a lot of free software is in-house software that was created because commercial software licenses were more expensive than in-house development, or because the commercial software didn't do what the user needed. Once created, it is often economically rational for the creator of that software to share it freely (and derive benefits from community-based enhancement and support) rather than to incur the overhead of trying to build a business around it.
Free software is already at a serious disadvantage compared to commercial software: there is little support, little documentation, and no marketing. If your product can't compete with that, I think it really doesn't deserve to be around. I mean, what value are you adding?
On the other hand, if you can't beat them, join them: many companies are willing to pay handsomely for consulting, support, and documentation. Consider offering those services for the competing free software system, or freely distribute your own system and offer those services for it.
This is based on some sort of idealism, not capitalism.
The idea of free software may have been born out of idealism, but it wouldn't be succeeding in the marketplace if it wasn't economically rational for all involved.
And not everything that is free and good succeeds; for example, I predict that both TrollTech's Qt and Apple's Darwin will fail in the end as free software projects: while they may be "free" or "open source", the projects do not seem to derive significant benefits from being released that way. In different words, if a free software license makes no economic sense, it won't help the software.
Re:it's not "dumping" (Score:2)
Quite true: free software has costs. And your potential customers determine, rationally, whether the costs of free software are larger or smaller than the costs of your product. If your potential customers conclude that the costs associated with free software are smaller than what you charge, they will choose free software unless you lower your prices. If you can't lower your prices and stay in business, you are not an efficient participant in the market and you should go out of business. The free market does not guarantee that you get an honest wage for an honest day's worth of programming: if you produce the wrong product or if you work inefficiently, your labor is worthless. That's the way the free market works and that's how the free market eliminates inefficient players.
why not just make it public domain? (Score:2)
Free Software with conditions isn't free under any definition of the word "free." Free means I can take the code and embed it into my $1.5m project, stamp my name on it and resell it, or whatever. Anything less isn't free, by definition. Amusing that the Free Software Foundation doesn't actually promote Free Software, it promotes zero-cost software.
If you want your code to be free, stuff it into the public domain! Let it wander off into the distance, with no hope of renumeration in the future.
Just don't call something free when it isn't.
Semantics (Score:2)
In essense, a license is a waiver of prosecution. Essentially a binding statement "although what you are doing is a crime, we won't bother you about it." For example, driving a car on a public road is, by default, a criminal act, but your license makes you an exception to the rule.
The term "license agreement" has come to mean a contract granting some license, usually to copy software. To call it simply a "license" is misleading.
In particular, the so-called "General Public License" is a full-fledged contract (in theory... it may yet prove legally invalid), placing an eternal obligation on you to provide matching source code to any and all users to whom you distribute object code.
In contrast, a statement like "all are permitted to redistribute this work, in original or modified form, so long as they do not remove this notice, including the copyright notice and disclaimer" is a true public license. If someone removes the notice and redistributes it, they aren't breaking a contract, but doing something prohibited by default which they don't have permission for. There are no obligations imposed upon the distributor, it is just that the permission granted him is limited.
If the GPL was a license, it wouldn't be so restrictive. So let's not start saying licenses are restrictive by definition.
(IANAL,IAABT)
--
Re:On Stallman (Score:3)
Freedom has to be defined in a context of "fairness". Your freedom to do as please is tolerated only so far it does not encroach on another person's freedom. Governments draw the line, and enforce it.
The analogy to Free Software should be obvious. RMS is doing the job of drawing the line. He is my hero for it.
I think it is
Too many choices (Score:3)
On Stallman (Score:4)
But there's no way I can ever tolerate his distorted vision for the future of software. To the extent that he denies a software author the right to do with his code as he pleases, the man is a maniac.
I love free software; I love the quality of it. I deeply appreciate the time that the authors of it have invested. But the bottom line is that free code is a GIFT. It is not an obligation. It is not more ethical than proprietary software (note that this is absolutely different from the business practices of companies and individuals, which can be positively immoral). That is not where its superiority lies. The superiority is in the code.
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous. What he really means is that he (or the FSF) should dictate how we use software. Of course, a software author has the right to release his code (if he does so at all) under whatever terms he wishes. But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free. It is "mostly" free (yes, I can distinguish between free beer and free speech). I can't do just anything I wish with it.
Stallman needs to get a grip. If he would change his focus from one of religious zealotry to one wherein he encourages developers to give gifts, he would be a lot more tolerable. As it is, he can be a royal pain.
Nevertheless, he is a genius.