Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Jan 2008 21:17 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Thread beginning with comment 296951
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: "Antithetical to the spirit of open source"
by Buck on Sun 20th Jan 2008 11:05
in reply to "RE[3]: "Antithetical to the spirit of open source""
Therefore, I think it would make more sense if they changed their actions rather than complaining about the outcome of their actions.
Just what I wanted to say. Actually that sums it all perfectly. There should be less whining about some imaginary 'spirit of open source' and more concious decisions in choosing software licenses. Adam's abusing his position as one of the authors of dtrace but actually that gives him no more authority to speak up on the licensing issues than, say Thom has the authority to speak on the same.
Therefore it's really a non-issue.




Member since:
2006-01-29
Nonsense. I'm an avid supporter of unconditional free speech - does this mean I cannot complain about the many people abusing this right to spread systematic hate against certain parts of the population?
"
I don't think the free speech analogy is really meaningful in this case. Even though "free speech" and "free software" sound similar, they are very different concepts. (In fact, because of this reason, I am not very fond of the term "free software". It is confusing because people associate different meanings with the word "free".)
Free speech considered a basic universal human right and a constitutional right in most jurisdictions. Thus most people in the world are free to say whatever they want. The analogous issue for software would be whether most people are free to write and publish any software they want. (This brings up a whole lot of issues, mostly patents, but I don't think it is directly relevant to this discussion.)
On the other hand, free software only refers to a limited section of software. In general, software is protected by copyright, and you are not allowed to redistribute software that you have bought or received.
In free/open source software, the authors voluntarily allow (thus encourage) other people to modify and redistribute their software product under specific terms. These terms are chosen by the original authors of the software at their will (i.e., the authors are free to choose whatever terms of use they consider suitable).
Of course, Adam (one of the original authors of DTrace, employed by Sun) is (technically) free to complain (free speech). However, by doing so, he is contradicting his own (or his employer's) actions.
By releasing DTrace under the CDDL, they explicitly encouraged other parties (including Apple) to make use of their code in whatever way the license terms allow. Sun was/is free to distribute DTrace under different terms if they think the way Apple uses their code is undesirable.
Therefore, I think it would make more sense if they changed their actions rather than complaining about the outcome of their actions.