The royalty-free license under which Microsoft plans to make its upcoming new Office Open XML Formats widely available is incompatible with the GNU General Public License and will thus prevent many free and open-source software projects from using the formats, community officials say.
The article link is broken (has a 5 appended to the end)
The correct link is http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1829355,00.asp
If that is correct, then it should be expected.
In the past Microsoft tried to lock out other systems in a technical way, not being entirely successfull, now they are trying it the legal way.
I don’t care about their crappy plagiats, and I never paid the Microsoft tax.
Whatever business manager thinks, locking himself and his company in with Microsoft, is not my problem when their whole IT dept goes bonkers. I’ve never seen a company with good management which’s IT department wholistically relies on Microsoft crap.
Well duh… money keeps good software coming, I don’t think you can expect MS to use GPL.
people who like gpl should use their own formats
btw, since when is a xml format protected under the copyright law?
I’m going to take the slightly unpopular approach and say that perhaps this problem is not entirely caused by Microsoft, nor does it appear to be entirely intentional by Microsoft.
The GPL just doesn’t play very nicely with other licenses, such as the Apache 2 license, XFree86’s license, the CDDL, and now this. Yet somehow, in all of these cases, it was always the “other” license’s fault somehow.
Just some food for thought.
Maybe it’ll be compatible with GPL 3.
Just make a plugin for reading/writing office files under a license that is compatible with the “royalty-free license under which Microsoft plans to make its upcoming new Office Open XML Formats”, and use it in your GPL program.
Microsoft will never learn. Once again, they should be brought to trial for using their almost monopoly position to break the software of others.
OpenOffice will not be able to write / read their format, unless there’s a license fee to pay, because that’s what it comes down to.
Ok, drag them to court.
They just lost their duel with the European Community over a similar thing about their Media Player. It’s once again time to take this to the EC. Let them slap around Microsoft, again, and good this time.
“The GPL just doesn’t play very nicely with other license …”
It means that the freedom that comes with the GPL cannot be assured anymore in combination with those other licences.
You give up the freedom, you give up the GPL-ed software. Think about that.
It is a great move by Microsoft. I wish all the companies who wants to see the growth of software industry do this. GPL is a pain in the ass and too dictating. GPL is do its way or highway and highway. GPL IS VIRAL and IT SUCKS.
IBM is the biggest bunch of jerks companies. They always want to control the hardware market and to do that they don’t care even if they have to put all the software engineers out of job. Today there is innovation in software but if at all (though i don’t see that happen), GPL kind of trash become too popular, the only innovation in software we will see happen when IBM like big giant does something new in hardware.
Microsoft calls its new office file format as Open XML which is hardly open.
It means that the freedom that comes with the GPL cannot be assured anymore in combination with those other licences.
What freedom? The GPL is far stricter than most other open source licences.
It’s all in your definition of freedom.
I personally enjoy the freedom of using BSD licensed software in almost any way I please.
It’s great to have diversity!
The GPL offers complete freedom except the freedom to deny others freedom.
then someone is going to do a non gpl plugin to be used by gpl programs, or is there anything in the license to prevent that?
The GPL offers complete freedom except the freedom to deny others freedom.
That’s fine, but I still believe the BSD license offers far more freedom. To each their own.
My original point was just that perhaps the GPL is the bad guy in all of this and for once it’s not entirely Microsoft’s fault.
As has been pointed out by other posters, this isn’t as big of a deal as it is made out to be, it can be worked around by incorporating this software into a BSD/MIT licensed plug in.
So basically this amounts to a form of the *evil* advertising clause. I guess those GNU people just don’t like to have to tell people where the code they are using has come from… hooray for freedom.
I totally disagree with you. I release a lot of source code in BSD style license. I don’t make shareware software neither i sell any software.
GPL is appreciated by people who want to make sure that if they can’t money of the software they write, no one else can. BSD is appriciated by people who truly love software development and don’t want any socialistic agenda etc. They do it for fun and they don’t care if someone can use their work to earn some cash.
On philosophical side, i like BSD more because it gives industry to stand on the shoulders of university research. This in turn brings more donations to universities and thus more funding for research. Tell me how this would work in GPL?
They are very smart, this move from microsoft is really an effort to destroy GPL in favor of other more company-friendly “open source” licenses…. Something we’ve been hearing more often as commercial interest in OSS starts to grow.
That’s all this is, everything else is propaganda
I don’t remember reading any law stating that anything open must be compatible with the GPL. Instead of bitching, I would actually be grateful since we won’t be tied to read or edit Microsoft document with Microsoft software.
It seems ironic to me that some folks promoting open formats are completely close-minded when it comes to licences. They can only accept one kind of openness. It’s as contradictory as those advocating freedom of choice while bashing anything open that isn’t Linux.
You BSD trolls are becomming more and more a pain in the ass. There isnt a single article about the FSF or the GPL where the comment section isnt filled with dozens of empittered cryouts how bad this “GPL-thing” is, all written in caps, insulting, and using multiple exclamation marks.
You blather about some additional “freedoms” the BSD gives you in advance of the GPL, but nobody of you wants to name this single freedom you value so highly you have to troll news forums: To take other users exactly these freedoms. There is not a other difference between the GPL and the BSD, beside this freedom to make the code unfree. If you want to troll, just name the stumbling block: You dont like the GPL because you cant made the code covered with it not free. Confress that all this flaming is just about a single detail: making free code not free.
I think its rather poor that everything you value in free software is the possibility to make it unfree, something that contradicts the reason the software was made available under a free licence in the first place.
All I can say is: DUH! Wasn’t something like that expected? Company represents products and if you can’t trust the company…
Please answer to my post about university research…
I do not mean to be a troll, and will try to point out what others said maybe not very diplomatically.
The GPL imposes restrictions which are incompatible with pretty much any other license.
It’s not a matter of who’s holier, it’s the fact that the GPL sets itself apart.
About the only license that doesn’t raise problems with the GPL is the BSD (and then, only in favout of the GPL), because it imposes no restrictions.
Meaning that GPL apps can use BSD code, but BSD apps can’t use BSD code (so much about ‘moral fairness’).
It’s simple. Who here would like to see his/her offsprings born into slavery? The BSD fanatic wouldn’t care, as long as he or she is free. The GPL fanatic cringes at thought of his/her progeny born into shackles.
That’s fine, but I still believe the BSD license offers far more freedom. To each their own.
yes, BSD offers complete freedom INCLUDING the freedom to deny others freedom.
While BSD is more developer friendly, GPL is more END USER friendly. If something was originally intended to be open it must be open.
@Wolf
You can sell GPL without problem (even if it is not yours, and I would really like to know where did you get that opinion of yours). Except you have to provide source code and retain GPL license.
And yes, BSD does give industry to stand on the shoulders… but, … (university???) ok, universities are not the only ones that use BSD.
The only thing that BSD provides more than GPL is ability for some company to legaly *steal* code. End user does not feel even the slightest difference between GPL and BSD.
Here is the magic formula:
Views on license from devel company
GPL – free – must provide source – must retain GPL
BSD – free – can be closed after being open – can move to another license
Views on license from user company
GPL – free – doesn’t care – doesn’t care
BSD – free – doesn’t care – doesn’t care
Views from End user perspective
GPL – free – doesn’t care – doesn’t care
BSD – free – doesn’t care – doesn’t care
But, when end user or user company uses a piece of software that was proprietary and devel company goes down the drain. They’re f***ed.
So, if you’re a free devel then you don’t care.
If you own a devel company, you care because more people are working for you.
epilogue:
It is GPL fault
In that case you just said that MS wants to trade their specification, but if you say so then you can’t call this license OPEN or FREE.
btw. You can produce LGPL library and then link i to GPL product.
Thanks but you did not at all make a point or give counter argument instead of giving inflammatory comments like steal and all.
My point was about ecosystem. If industry stands on univeristy reseach shoulders, they donate back to universities. A major portion of universities funding in US is from industry and thats why US has so many good univerisities and ability to lead in research.
GPL makes sure that no one can make money from university research. This kills the whole ecosystem.
This is really cheap mentality if i develop code and license it to make sure than no one can make money from it. GPL based companies are not able to make much money, many runs in loses or break even. How will they sponsor research?
Sorry but GPL is unhealthy for software industry. Soon i am going to make a logo… Caution: GPL is injurious to software industry health. Because in my views thats the right thing to do for long term survival and growth of software industry.
The only thing that BSD provides more than GPL is ability for some company to legaly *steal* code. End user does not feel even the slightest difference between GPL and BSD.
How can you “steal” something that is given away freely? If someone gives source code away under the BSD license and that source code is then later incorporated into a commercial product, you still have access to the original code. What are you really out? Who is to say that the commercial software would have been developed at all if the original source code had been released under the GPL?
The BSD is a gift, there is no “theft” ever involved when it comes to BSD-derived software.
Who here would like to see his/her offsprings born into slavery?
Nobody. However, I hope I won’t surprise you but… code isn’t people. It’s kinda like comparing apples with moon rocks.
you guys make way to big of a deal over this, a plugin will be made and be freely downloadable, and besides… this has nothing to do with “microsoft’s monopoly”, it has to do with them being a business trying to make money, this is well within their legal limits, now if they were breaking the law to promote this office format… that’s a different story.
Microsoft is being closely watched.. they have to dot their I’s and cross their T’s
and How the Hell did we get into a BSD/GPL Flame war?
who effin cares, if you are a fan of GPL, you will use it, if you like BSD, you will use that… big fricken whoopty-doo
you’ve all obvously already made up your minds… what’s the point of arguing?
grow up people
Nobody. However, I hope I won’t surprise you but… code isn’t people. It’s kinda like comparing apples with moon rocks.
I was waiting for such a reply. You’d be surprised how many hackers/people view their works in higher esteem than humans, unfortunately. In any case, I was speaking allegorically. The moral of my comment boils down to people appreciating prosperity and posterity through their works. You need an imaginative mind when analyzing analogies.
yes, BSD offers complete freedom INCLUDING the freedom to deny others freedom.
But the original code is always open. Of course, the end user must be aware of the code behind the hoods of a closed-source program. An advertising clause could do the job. I find it fair, but not many people seem to be keen on that.
While BSD is more developer friendly, GPL is more END USER friendly. If something was originally intended to be open it must be open.
I would have no problem with the GPL if something intended to be open remains open. I have a problem that anything touching that code must automatically be open. On that aspect, I prefer the LGPL. You must give your improvements, but you can do whatever you want with your work.
“I would have no problem with the GPL if something intended to be open remains open. I have a problem that anything touching that code must automatically be open.”
Why is that a problem? It’s not as though an individual is forced to use GPL code. It only comes into effect if they do two things: 1) decide to build on top of the GPL code and 2) distribute what they’ve built.
They can also use their own code, use BSD licensed code, or make a special deal with the copyright holder of the GPL code to use it under a different license. They can even use the GPL code and provide all source on CD when they sell it to their customers.
It’s interesting to see talk of the BSD/GPL flame wars. Every time recently I’ve seen the GPL mentioned, a BSD troll soon pops up and starts a flame war. Though I suspect it’s not BSD trolls at all, rather users of certain closed operating systems who troll using BSD to cover their own genuine viewpoint.
Its all good OSS office applications will still use the format in some form.
It seems like every other story is about the GPL being incompatible with something or another. People are starting to realize how isolating the GPL really is.
You’d be surprised how many hackers/people view their works in higher esteem than humans, unfortunately. In any case, I was speaking allegorically. The moral of my comment boils down to people appreciating prosperity and posterity through their works. You need an imaginative mind when analyzing analogies.
I got the point. I just think it’s not really appropriate since it’s basically doing a call to emotion (by using an human situation).
what any code license has to do with USER DATA? Microsoft hasn’t licensed .doc format to OpenOffice developers, but somehow no lawsuits ensued (bad pun, I know). How is this new Non-Open XML format different?
Besides that, the new format will be irrelevant for quite some time in the future (and maybe never WILL become relevant), because:
1) Not many are going to upgrade to new Office anyway (IMHO Office 2000 was the last useful upgrade), therefore the ability to read files in the new format will be restricted, and people will tend to use the least common denominator, namely old binary formats;
2) There is a huge amount of legacy documents in old formats that won’t be converted.
And finally: screw Microsoft. This is ridiculous. I think it would be only fair to legislate that in the Digital Millenium, data formats MUST be open and documented. If there’s any valuable “IP” in vendor’s format (which there isn’t, most likely), it must be the vendor’s problem. Openness of data and interoperability is of greater value to society than possible economic benefits to industry from the format lock-in. They should be free to make their CODE as proprietary as they want, but in no way should they be able to effectively own others’ data.
🙂
The GPL zealots will lie any chance they can get and insist that the GPL can’t be closed source. That is a complete lie. As a copyright holder of software you can do anything you want with it, including re-licensing your GPL software under “evil microsoft proprietary license”
> On philosophical side, i like BSD more because it gives
> industry to stand on the shoulders of university research.
> This in turn brings more donations to universities and
> thus more funding for research. Tell me how this would
> work in GPL?
It would work harder with the GPL, but it wouldnt mean that companys usng the software wouldnt fund its development if it were useful for them.
Only companies whou would otherwise take the code, polish it up, and sell their letters of indulgence, called “licences”, would back off, Not all too amazing, since letters of indulgence are their means of existence, but fundamentally opposed to the principles of free software.
I think it would be only fair to legislate that in the Digital Millenium, data formats MUST be open and documented
—
I totally agree with you. I don’t like vendor lock-in tactics at all. I know sometime commercial companies do that but its lame. Instead of trying to lock in customers, they should try to produce more quality code such that customer don’t go anywhere
I agree that if someone (for example university) releases code under BSD, others (for example industry) can commercially stand on those shoulders.
You’re claiming that industry, in return, will give back. Well, maybe, in some cases, but only if there’s something in it for those companies. They might also do any number of other commercially interesting things with it that leave university out in the cold.
That having said, I think both the GPL and the BSD licenses are useful, and we should have them. Personally I prefer GPL for applications and the LGPL for libs (or their Creative Commons counterparts). If a company wants to stand on my shoulders in a way that isn’t allowed by the GPL, they can contact me. I take good care to record which code is under the copyright of whom.
Show me one successful business model around GPL. And please don’t quote Redhat, we know how its profits come up. It can earn same by just interest income…
In embedded world GPL is very very BAD. One company make a cool piece of hardware but if they use a GPL software (ahem Linux) and port it to their hardware, they will have to release Source code which will reveal all their hardware secrets and open it to latchers and competitors. They would they take the patent route to get some protection. Lame isn’t it.
Read RMS’s views and you will realize that he actually visiion a world of free (ahem his definition of free)software. He dislikes anyting which is commercial. The worst part of his mentality is that his whole concept to make GPL was not for knowledge sharing reasons at all. Sad… BSD is the best to me and forever it will be. OS X is an example how BSD feeds innovation and quality.
People don’t get it:
The only thing that BSD provides more than GPL is ability for some company to legaly *steal* code.
If X licenses CX under BSD, and Y derives from it and releases CY non-free, then:
CY is small
no big deal that CY is non-free
CX is small
not much has been ‘lost’ anyway and
it’s probably better that there’s only
one codebase to maintain
Both CX and CY are big
I can only think of Mac OS X here, and
that’s not accurate since the non-free
part of OS X isn’t derived from BSD.
It seems to me that it’s better for
everyone to have it as it is now rather
than have Apple use no BSD.
Also, if both are really big, it’s probable
that Y contributes to CX directly, besides
building CY.
So I can’t see how can code be ‘stolen’. Either it wasn’t much to begin with, or that which the ‘robber’ adds so much overshadows it that it’s ridiculous to cry ‘theft’, or that which the ‘robber’ adds is so unimportant that it’s no big deal that they don’t share it.
Come in GPL. Everything you improve on the program must be shared back. OK… ignore the original and build your own from scratch. Is that good? No! No one benefits from that.
As for making money from support, it’s an orthogonal question which has zilch to do with the freeness of the software. How much money can you make from supporting a word processor? A music-editing program? You might make money from supporting iptables… guess why.
You’re all seeing this from the POV that reckons Achilles will never catch the turtle.
The GPL zealots will lie any chance they can get and insist that the GPL can’t be closed source. That is a complete lie. As a copyright holder of software you can do anything you want with it, including re-licensing your GPL software under “evil microsoft proprietary license”
Oh please. Nobody in his right mind claims that. Dual-licensing happens all the time, QT being the standard example. We can argue about whether or not this is a `morally right’ thing to do, but it certainly is possible (and I happen to think there’s nothing at all wrong with that).
I think what the `zealots’ you mention mean (if they exist), is that if you GPL your work, no-one else can un-free it. Not even you yourself: can also release it under a commercial license, but you cannot revoke the open-source license.
I think it would be only fair to legislate that in the Digital Millenium, data formats MUST be open and documented
I concur, and in fact I think it should be top on priorities. Every single data format (whether it’s image-manipulation, word-processing, sound-sequencing, *whatever*) ***should*** be obligatorily open *and* documented. So you could be sure that app X, given competence to its programmers, could perfectly render and produce app Y’s documents. Wthout a single nanometrical glitch (again, supposing developers cut it). I think this is E X T R E M E L L Y important and should be the subject of a major crusade. Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt create anti-trust laws? Then something like this should be insisted upon.
Why is that a problem? It’s not as though an individual is forced to use GPL code. It only comes into effect if they do two things: 1) decide to build on top of the GPL code and 2) distribute what they’ve built.
I believe it would be fair if you are building a program on tons of GPL code but only a line is enough. However, if I wish to use some GPL code, even as a library, not only I am forced to open my code but I am forced to use that licence. For the second condition, you’re right, but there are many rumors stating that GPLv3 will close that loophole. We shouldn’t worry about it since it’s not out yet, but that’s something to consider in the future.
They can also use their own code, use BSD licensed code, or make a special deal with the copyright holder of the GPL code to use it under a different license.
You wouldn’t look out for code if you already wanted to write your own… BSD licenced code is a solution, but you have to take account that there isn’t a BSD alternative for every GPL licenced project. As for dealing with the copyright holder, it’s not a bad idea but I believe you would have to contact every contributor to the project… Correct me if I’m wrong.
I do understand why people use the GPL, but I am personally more confortable with the LGPL. It just seems to be more fair with the developers.
Show me one successful business model around GPL.
I do think businesses can benefit from GPL projects (i.e. an ISP deploying squirrelmail instead of some expensive product that doesn’t live up to its expectations). I don’t know if there are successful business models `around’ GPL, but really I don’t see why there should be.
In embedded world GPL is very very BAD. One company make a cool piece of hardware but if they use a GPL software (ahem Linux) and port it to their hardware, they will have to release Source code which will reveal all their hardware secrets and open it to latchers and competitors.
If your company is based on keeping your hardware details secret, the GPL might not be useful for you. If you’re just making a good product for the right price, I don’t see the problem.
@wolf
“OS X is an example how BSD feeds innovation and quality.”
What compiler does it use? What program does it use to share files with windows? What html engine does it use?
GCC, samba, Webcore. These important parts are gpl’d so GPL also feeds innovation and quality.
My point was about ecosystem. If industry stands on univeristy reseach shoulders, they donate back to universities. A major portion of universities funding in US is from industry and thats why US has so many good univerisities and ability to lead in research.
GPL makes sure that no one can make money from university research. This kills the whole ecosystem.
Well, if a company owns an university or has a contract with some university, that company can dictate the license which is chosen. So in this case, your argument does not apply.
If on the other hand a publicly funded university releases software, than there are very good reasons to choose the GPL as a license. By not allowing to derive a proprietary product from the original software, it is ensured that no single company can leech of the costly development in an unfair way, in a way which can be used to suppress other businesses. In this way, the GPL helps to ensure that taxpayer money benefits every taxpayer in an appropriate manner.
This is really cheap mentality if i develop code and license it to make sure than no one can make money from it. GPL based companies are not able to make much money, many runs in loses or break even.
This is a fallacy. First you infer from the low overall number of businesses which make much money from GPL licensed software, that GPL *ensures* that no money can be made from it. This is of course not true.
Second, in no way does the release of GPL code by an individual author restrict any other person in any way to make money from that software, compared to the situation that the software is only licensed in a “closed-source” way. That is because the licensing as GPL is always an *addition* to the closed-source licensing.
Sorry but GPL is unhealthy for software industry. Soon i am going to make a logo… Caution: GPL is injurious to software industry health. Because in my views thats the right thing to do for long term survival and growth of software industry.
Well, that might be true. If more companies would distribute their software as Free Software, the overall profits of the software industry are likely to decrease. Software will have “real” prices than, not that exorbitantly high prices which proprietary software has today. So the software industry in isolation will make less money, but the whole economy will benefit from only having to pay market prices for software.
One company make a cool piece of hardware but if they use a GPL software (ahem Linux) and port it to their hardware, they will have to release Source code which will reveal all their hardware secrets and open it to latchers and competitors.
Manufacturers of embedded components have to distribute extensive documentation of their hardware as a prerequisite for selling it. Without documentation, such a device is essentially useless. And useless stuff is not bought.
But, back to the subject: MS’s XML file format.
First of all, I think it’s really good they’re opening up the format this far. If I understand it right, though, it’d be more useful if it were opened a little further.
As far as I understand so far, the issue is this: to use the format in your program, you must go to MS and request a license. This is free, but you have to do it.
The GPL aims to be a sort of `guarantee label’: “If it’s labelled GPL, you can use it, change it, and redistribute it under the GPL terms, no (other) strings attached”. If there are strings attached, a person is prohibited from releasing this under the `GPL label’.
Now the problem with MS’s release conditions is that anyone distributing something that uses this format is required to get this (free) license from MS. This is a `string attached’, so anything that uses this format cannot be released under the GPL.
I think that’s a pretty valid compaint. Anyone know why they would require such a free license? I don’t think it’ll be just for the sake of bully-ing the GPL folks, nor for spying on what companies are using the format. But then why?
Also, the article makes a very valid point: exactly on what grounds does MS feel it can restrict the distribution of programs that use MS’s file format? Can’t be copyright, since nothing is copyrighted. Patents? I really doubt there’s anything patentable in that format. But then what?
“I don’t know if there are successful business models `around’ GPL, but really I don’t see why there should be.”
because most people don’t like to work all day for nothing and still have to beg for the money to put food on the table and clothes on their kids’ backs.
Uhm, that remark was basically aimed at someone claiming the GPL is a bad thing in general. I agree the GPL isn’t the best solution in every situation. If you’re thinking of making money off selling software, putting it under the GPL might not be a good choice.
That doesn’t mean it’s bad for me to release the code that I write in my spare time under the GPL. I don’t need a successful business model to do that
.
think what the `zealots’ you mention mean (if they exist)..
Uhh, just on this thread we get…
by . (IP: 144.80.185.—)
It’s simple. Who here would like to see his/her offsprings born into slavery? The BSD fanatic wouldn’t care, as long as he or she is free. The GPL fanatic cringes at thought of his/her progeny born into shackles.
and
by Jesse McNellis
The GPL offers complete freedom except the freedom to deny others freedom.
So once again we have the first GPL cult member talking about slavery when we’re talking about software licenses. And the second once acting like GPL “can’t deny freedom” So obiously these zealots don’t even like the fact that someone that owns copyright can re-license his code – in the second case he doesn’t even know it or is just plain lying
So, in reality there is no difference between the GPL and the BSD licenses except the developer that put his code out under a BSD license says anybody can do whatever they want with it, while the GPL author says only I have the power to re-license this under a closed source license or any other license. In any case, its about the developer. Users only have the rights that developers give them. They don’t have any right to the work of others.
This is the reason why Stallman has a problem with copyright. It gives developers power – which he hates.
Now lets move on to the second part of that comment
… no-one else can un-free it. Not even you yourself: can also release it under a commercial license
Did you mistype what you wrote there or do you actually believe that? As copyright holder you sure as hell can release it under a commercial license.
It seems to me that the file format might be covered by patents, and if that were the case, you as developer would need to get a license for them and place a notice in the about box of your application (or an other appropriate place).
But if I understand everything right, it is likely that there aren’t any patents that apply here, so that in the worst case you can take two developers, of which one reads the documentation, tells them in his own words to the other who then implements the file format.
“I think it would be only fair to legislate that in the Digital Millenium, data formats MUST be open and documented”
nice idea, but who will pay for it?
writing documentations is very expensive (ever seen the pdf-ducu?) and dont tell me that as soon as i invent a new file-type I have to write the docu so that OTHERS can easier compete with me.
Reading over the actual license it looks like to have your program ,open source or not, be able to read and write a MS Office XML Document, you just have to put in a notice that the document format is defined by Microsoft. Sort of like if you use the BSD Tcp/Ip stack you have to mention that the code was actually written by who ever wrote the Tcp/Ip stack. The only way you would get into any sort of real licensing issues is if you happen to implement Microsoft’s Patented Curved Line Draw Algorithm X (not a real patent, to my knowlage, just an example). Then you’d actually have to get Microsoft on the phone and talk about paying some cash. Otherwise, this is a non-story.
After reading the article, I got the impression that RMS was more miffed about Microsoft not GPLing Office than the actual Office XML License itself.
BSD: business, you can have OUR code
GPL: business, we’re opening YOUR code
No clear winner, use whichever benefits what you want to do.
What’s the big fuss about? Can’t you just, as someone already stated, create a plug-in or even pre-include it with OOo? Release the stuff you normally release under the GPL as GPL, the rest will stay as it is. The end user will benefit anyway. I mean don’t many other companies do that already? The GPL part of the code will be given back to the community, the rest will be kept as it is.
Come to my house and try to force me to open up my file formats and I’ll shoot you.
That’s a job for the police. Shoot them and they’ll shoot back.
“writing documentations is very expensive (ever seen the pdf-ducu?) and dont tell me that as soon as i invent a new file-type I have to write the docu so that OTHERS can easier compete with me.”
You are not stupid enough not to document the file type you are using, even for internal use only, are you ?
“think what the `zealots’ you mention mean (if they exist)..”
Uhh, just on this thread we get…
OK, I agree there are zealots, but none of those claim it is impossible to dual-license. They just say that if you don’t want it to happen, you can prevent it from happening with the GPL. Anyway, this is besides the point, i’m sorry I contaminated the discussion with that.
“no-one else can un-free it. Not even you yourself: can also release it under a commercial license”
Did you mistype what you wrote there or do you actually believe that? As copyright holder you sure as hell can release it under a commercial license.
Indeed i’m convinced that this is true – but maybe I should have worded it more clearly. Let my try again: once you have released a piece of code under the GPL, you cannot revoke that license. Recipients of the piece of code will forever be free to use/distribute it under the GPL.
However, the copyright holder can choose to also release the same code under a commercial license. (For all clarity: this right is reserved to the copyright holder (usually the author) of the work, mere recipients of GPL’ed code cannot do this)
This does not `un-free’ the code he already distributed under the GPL. The same code is merely also available under a commercial license. RMS would frown upon this from an ethical point of view, but it’s quite broadly accepted in general.
Not everyone who happens to like the GPL for some situations agrees with everything RMS thinks in every situation.
the problem is that this internal documentation is often scattered across the whole source (just as an example) and far from beeing complete and useable by someone else
as i said before: writing documentation is expensive and timeconsuming
The BSD does not protect freedom. The GPL does. That’s why in the annals of the software industry, greedy corporations have exploited the usefulness and intellectual assets of BSD software, and have given back nothing to the free software communities where these assets emanated from. The GPL, theoretically, is designed to squash that bug.
When I use a GPL license in my software, I’m implying that I want my software and derivatives of my software to remain free, hence my analogy on slavery. I create intellectual products in the hope that it will benefit mankind in general. I do not create them so that they can shackled and exploited by selfish, avaricious, money-worshiping entities.
Apparently, most free software developers feel the same. The GPL is the most used and most successful free software license to date. It’s hard to deny that almost every other free software license revolves around it.
While StarOffice will continue to support any new Office file formats, “We would prefer to see Microsoft adopt the open and broadly supported OASIS OpenDocument standard, which has been endorsed and supported by companies like Sun, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Adobe, KOffice and AbiWord,” Venkatesan said.
So let’s understand this. Microsoft subscribes to the OASIS standard, StarOffice and others don’t have to write compatibility code for Office, and the OASIS group (completely antagonistic toward Microsoft) gets to dictate the standards? I’m assuming each member gets one vote.
And what does Microsoft get out of this except being compatible with some ankle-biters that it has no interest in being compatible with? Oh, maybe Venkatesan thinks “hey microsoft if you play with us, we’ll like you” will be enough.
These people never cease to amaze me.
About your clarification of what you said about putting your copyright-held code under another license….
Everything you said is completely true about the BSD licensed code too. It can’t be unfreed once its out there, but every day we get GPL fanatical liars telling us that BSD can be unfreed.
I gave you two examples just in this thread of zealots saying this.
One of the crazies was talking about slavery.
So once BSD code is out there it can’t be made unfree no matter what these people say – unless somehow all hardrives with all the source code suddenly fail…same with GPL too though..
I have a problem that anything touching that code must automatically be open.
Except that this isn’t true – unless you specifically mean “linking” when you say “touching”…That choice of words seems unfortunate, since it make it seems as if any code that exist in the same user space as a GPL app must be GPLed, which of course isn’t true. Only static linking is a problem (just don’t redistribute your non-GPL apps while they are dynamically linked to GPL libraries, which would be pretty hard to do in the first place…)
Back on-topic, it seems that some legal experts do not believe that Microsoft has any right to make users comply with the anti-GPL provision (come on, you’ve got to admit that they only put this in to make life harder for open-source projects). So basically that doesn’t change much for anyone, until MS can prove that it holds patents that could somehow make compliance mandatory.
This, like MS’ recent attempt to cut Samba at the knees in Europe (hey BSD and Solaris fans: this affects you too!), simply tells me that MS is running out of ideas on how to fend off OSS. It reeks of desperation and that is a very good thing – it means the next step is them admitting they can’t fight OSS and therefore must learn to live with it (for real, not just to pay lip service to it…)
In embedded world GPL is very very BAD. One company make a cool piece of hardware but if they use a GPL software (ahem Linux) and port it to their hardware, they will have to release Source code which will reveal all their hardware secrets and open it to latchers and competitors. They would they take the patent route to get some protection. Lame isn’t it.
Actually, that’s quite false. GPL is great for embedded products, because these companies sell hardware, not software, and the fact that the software is free means a lower manufacturing cost. This is why Linux is one of the most popular embedded OS around.
It’s no secret that Linksys uses it in their routers – and yet they keep selling more of them. Sure, they have to publish the source to their router software – who cares! If you want to compete with them, you still have to manufacture a better, cheaper product! The source code is quite irrelevant here.
It seems your anti-GPL bias is clouding your judgement…otherwise you’d realize that Linux (and, by extension, the GPL) is taking over the embedded world.
you’re missing the point, while for the vast majority of embeded software, it is fine, it however is not fine for new hardware technologies… reason being.. the source code will reveal the inner workings of the hardware.
I am a fan of GPL, but I also realize it has it’s place….. new embeded hardware technology is not it’s place
Your insults are amusing. But what’s further amusing are the techniques you are employing to obfuscate the truth, ambiguity.
A license gives certain rights to users of a product just as a the constitution gives certain rights to its citizen. Imagine a constitution that guarantees your freedom, but not those of your offspring. That’s exactly what the BSD license translates into.
The BSD license can be transcribed as follows:
“Do what you will with my intellectual work, and if you so desire, shackle derivatives of it.”
It is similar to a father who doesn’t give a damn about the freedom on his daughters as long as he is free. The BSD is a green signal to unethical corporate whores and their cohorts with a sign saying “Exploit me!”
It is no secret that many corporations want to enslave you to their products. Oh, ma bad, I shouldn’t use the word slave, it’s politically incorrect. I guess “lock-in” is the politically correct word. With the BSD, they can achieve their sinister agenda at much lower costs.
The formula isn’t complex either. They take BSD software from the free software community, the shackle it with a proprietary license, they enhance the software a little, they patent their newly enhanced algorithms, which may be used as a weapon against the community at some later date should the heat of competition become unbearable, they sell their newly derived product to consumers at outrageously high prices and compel them by law to enter into a EULA in which the user has zero input and no freedom as to what (s)he can do with the software.
At best, the user can only use the shackled software on one machine with one processor. Oh, and the proprietary software vendor can revoke the user’s license at any time. Yeah, that’s how most BSD software end up. I’m not making this up either you don’t need to look far the see examples of this scenario happening. From freedom to shackles, that’s what most BSD software, especially their derivatives end up being. And avaricious corporate shenanigans just can’t get enough of it.
The BSD is an acknowledged free software license, heck it is even compatible with the GPL, however, it fails to protect the freedom of users as detailed above.
Except that this isn’t true – unless you specifically mean “linking” when you say “touching”…That choice of words seems unfortunate, since it make it seems as if any code that exist in the same user space as a GPL app must be GPLed, which of course isn’t true. Only static linking is a problem (just don’t redistribute your non-GPL apps while they are dynamically linked to GPL libraries, which would be pretty hard to do in the first place…)
Of course, I’m talking about linking… Otherwise, the BSDs couldn’t use gcc. However, even dynamic linking is an issue. To what I understand, you cannot build a GPL library, link your non-GPL program with it and distribute both legally even if you provide the source code of the library. Hence why I said ‘touching’. I believe that’s a matter of point of view… I don’t think it’s fair but somebody else might think otherwise.
Well, it looks like facts are VERY simple:
1) Microsoft is not required to release anything which uses GPL. Stop complaining. (If OSS people were that smart, OO would have taken over Office marketplace. That didn’t happen so just stop complaining and use OO if you don’t wanna use Office.). And yes, it’s that simple.
2) I have nothing against GPL. Beside that GPL kills businesses. Now, if you are going to release code for fun, it’s a good thing. If you plan to do build business around GPL, forget it. And, sometimes, ask yourself why Stallman and Torvalds prefer to make their livings by a “standard” paid job instead of a GPLed product. Again: if you do for fun, use GPL, if you want to run a business, forget GPL.
3) Companies are starting to realize that GPL is no good for businesses. As for innovation, Apple did in 2-3 years far better than the whole OSS community did for Linux in 10+ years. I guess that’s clear enough.
4) Please, could GPL-people avoid writing things about “freedom”? Abusing that word won’t sell your product. Could you please also stop cutting&pasting the same sentences you read on FSF website or on /.? “Freedom of denying freedom”… please, c’me on…
I bet that people interested in data exchange with Office products will be happy to have such documentation and a royalty-free license (but I’m not among them). Others can just do what they want and use Oasis for their data exchange. Where’s the problem?
There has been cases in past where emedded device companies used GPL but didn’t publish source code because they feared that other companies will steal their hardware secrets or make similar hardware and use same source code to get all the features quickly. Is this too hard to understand that this makes a company lose their competitive edge as well as their Intellecual Property.
Dude, I was a business student for many years, and whoever told you cloning hardware, or manufacturing processes, is inexpensive or synonymous to copying and pasting code is smoking rocks!
Hardware, and the manufacturing process, is what embedded businesses should guard. Software is a negligible part of the equation. In too many instances, the software reveals absolutely nothing about the production methodologies of the hardware, or the efficiency of the manufacturing/logistic process.
Heck, take CPUs, for example. They are embedded devices. For the most part, their drivers and operations are publicly documented and available. Can you tell me why Intel, AMD, SUN and IBM aren’t dead yet because the specifications, documentations and the operations of their CPUs are publicly available to their competitors?
That’s right, in hardware business, the software is totally irrelevant, with the exception of the cost to write it. The efficiency of the manufacturing process, logistics and services is what should give vendors a competitive (dis)advantage, not your bloody software that anyone with a brain can clone, even if it was proprietary.
I’m sorry, your premises are flawed on so many counts, it is baffling you bring them up as arguments. They look more like hastily generated assumptions fabricated desperately to show the GPL in negative light.
That was weak. Appart from the fact that your insults and personal attacks are belittling your credibility, you continue to spew tired and precomposed anti-GPL drivel.
You go on reiterating the rights of developers as if developers are a distinguished class above end-users. However, you fail to comprehend developers are also end-users.
Are you really trying to tell me end-users read software code, or modify it, or have any inclination to distribute it? Well, only if the end-users are developers themselves or are technically gifted, with regards to deciphering software code.
That’s right, in the real world, there’s hardly any distinction between developers and users. Developers are users of software. Why then should we elevate the rights of developers as if they are some special breed of humans? Why should a developer want to control the freedom of his clients? And most importantly, why are you trying to create an artificial distinction between developers and users when you know developers are users of software themselves?
I look forward you insulting remarks and helpless attempts to veil facts.
“Heck, take CPUs, for example. They are embedded devices. For the most part, their drivers and operations are publicly documented and available. Can you tell me why Intel, AMD, SUN and IBM aren’t dead yet because the specifications, documentations and the operations of their CPUs are publicly available to their competitors?”
you tell me that amd isn’t hurting intel pretty bad with their cpus?
and dont forget that intel and amd translate the x86 isa into an undocumented one before it gets executed.
It is simple as this:
BSD: I GIVE the code so it can be useful, regardless how you use it.
Imply(I am the best, you can not write anything better than me)
GPL: I let everybody view/use the code to see if someone come up with a better idea.
Imply( Someone always writes better code than I do, so I use GPL to get something that I couldn’t do myself).
you tell me that amd isn’t hurting intel pretty bad with their cpus?
and dont forget that intel and amd translate the x86 isa into an undocumented one before it gets executed.
I think you should look at Intel’s last quartely earnings and decide that for yourself. Intel can fabricate more chips a lot more efficiently than AMD can ever dream off. Intel also has matchless marketing capabilities in the embedded, chips and semi conductor sector.
Add to that brand recognition and loyalty, and you’ll see how stupid it is to think some no-budget company from the gutters can over throw Intel because the interfaces to the chips are open, available and well documented.
Even though AMD produce technically superior and efficient CPU chips, they’ve still been unable to wreck a marginal dent in Intel’s market share. That alone tells you that business does not thrive on technical merit alone, or the openness or closeness of interfaces/drivers/software. Heck in the embedded sector, it pays to be as open as possible especially if you want third parties to embrace your products.
I may be wrong, but I’m also getting signals from your comments that you think more competitors in the market place is horrible.
Maybe you should offer a real analysis and show that GPL people are raving hippies :-p. Or you could just offer some small conjecture about how it seems that people always side with it; probably hoping to find the part of people which doubts motives and hoping to instill a fear of those odd GPL supporters who want it their way.
The GPL is intentionally a bit incompatible. A lot of people like it because it ensures that their code will stay free: It says “you can’t use this code without making your code free too!” And that can be a great thing. Some people want to give their code away with virtually no restriction, and yet others just wanna make some dime off it.
I think document formats should be free for use though. You shouldn’t have to be gpl’ed to use a gpl programs format. I’m sure in most cases you do though.
“In embedded world GPL is very very BAD. One company make a cool piece of hardware but if they use a GPL software (ahem Linux) and port it to their hardware, they will have to release Source code which will reveal all their hardware secrets and open it to latchers and competitors. They would they take the patent route to get some protection. Lame isn’t it.”
So Nvidia and ATI have released their drivers under the GPL then? Good to hear.
They only have to release their modifications to gpl’ed programs, not the other programs they write for the gpl’ed system.
GPL is great for them actually. It says:
1.) I’ll write code y.
2.) You’ll probably take it and sell it too.
3.) You’ll probably add features I don’t have.
4.) I’ll take your features and put them into mine.
5.) Since we sell the same product we’ll have to compete by treating the customers like we don’t hate them!
Ok, it doesn’t say number 5.
Quote: “Microsoft will never learn. Once again, they should be brought to trial for using their almost monopoly position to break the software of others.
OpenOffice will not be able to write / read their format, unless there’s a license fee to pay, because that’s what it comes down to.
Ok, drag them to court.
They just lost their duel with the European Community over a similar thing about their Media Player. It’s once again time to take this to the EC. Let them slap around Microsoft, again, and good this time.”
I’m not sure why some idiot marked this for moderation, most probably some Microsoft shill! This post is right on the money. If the US DOJ could get off it’s fat corporate bribed ass and actually punish Microsoft it would be nice. But then, pigs might fly! But, it’s the US, the land of the dud lawsuite, the corrupt politicians, the bribery of the politicians, the land of no freedom (a la patriot act). What more could one expect?
I don’t care if I get modded down, i’m simply stating the truth that any non-US citizen knows and no US citizen wants to admit because of some warped sense of national pride.
Dave
You have yet to disprove my slavery analogy so it very well stands as an illustration in the flaws of the BSD license. Yes, I think software is very important. Today, technology differentiates super powers from developing nations.
I was born and raised in a developing nation (read, under developed country), so I know how software and technology in general can improve the resourcefulness and plight of developing nations.
You are naive if you think software does not possess social, economic and political ramifications on entities. It does! Especially given how every bloody technology today is controlled by software. Technology is rapidly been taken for granted as it becomes even more infused into our culture and chores. You are damn right I take software seriously. Because almost every damn appliance I own runs on an embedded computer powered by software.
Free software propenents fight for your right to do as you please with software, as well as protect its freedom. Can you tell me whose rights they are fighting for? Animal rights?
ah yes, yet another GNU/GPL/FSF bashing article Eugenia! Let’s dance around the fire naked burning RMS’s balls.
God, this site has gone to the dogs.
Dave
office didn’t sell well this year so microsoft need a new document format so that every one is forced to upgrade ?
Real reverse engineered and not Read
kept blindly putting and not blinding
Our own industry which feeds us, our families and our kids…
And yes i work for a for-profit company and our comany can’t use GPL stuff because we strongly believe that software engineers should be paid like doctors, lawyers and all other people.
I failed to get your point on the iPod. By consensus, the iPod is popular not because of the software that runs it, but because of its slick design (read: sexy form fact and hardware interface).
Afterall, there have been many portable player in the market, but none have achieved the success of the iPod, and I doubt it had anything to do with the software that runs their portable machine.
Your average sophomore computer engineering geek could write software for most portable devices, least challenging of all a music player.
“Come to my house and try to force me to open up my file formats and I’ll shoot you.”
That’s a job for the police. Shoot them and they’ll shoot back.
So, essentially, you are a coward who hides behind the police power of government to force people to conform to your desired patterns of behavior.
Yes, I don’t keep a gun in my house to shoot people who go there to demand the application of just law.
Please stay in whatever shit-hole country, where government is the answer to everything, that the “.pt” from your domain is referring to.
Please, don’t abash yourself more by pretending you even know what ‘government’ is. We haven’t been living in caves for quite a while now over here, you know.
You are a funny character. Apparently, to you, arguments disprove themselves. Thanks, that gave me a healthy laugh.
I wouldn’t want to play with my toaster’s internals. But I bet some kids in developing nations who would like to start their own toaster business will find it help if they had access to the workings on toasters including their software, if in fact it has one.
That way, they wouldn’t need to import toasters from Europe and developed nations, who could care less about the operations of toasters. That way these nations could generate income based on technology, not agricultural or other natural resources which are limited in supply. That way they have a chance of breaking out of the economic vicious circle of poverty that plagues these nations.
I’m pleased you are exposing your narrow mindedness and shortsightedness to the general public. As far as you are concerned only developers (read: you and your interests) should have access to code, only on your terms and only by your biding. And only developers (read: you and your interests) should get code for free. End-users should be left the whims and caprices of developers (read: you and your interests), which may include shackling code that was once free. I’m beginning to see why you love the BSD, and why you throw an epileptic tantrum whenever the GPL is mentioned. It gives users freedom, and you can’t stand the fact that you can’t exploit their freedom.
Ah, you remind me of why life is such a bitch.
No one can argue with you because you are Hear no evil see no evil GPL Monkey.
So, basically you can’t offer solid counter-arguments, therefore you resort to insults. Nice.
There has been cases in past where emedded device companies used GPL but didn’t publish source code because they feared that other companies will steal their hardware secrets or make similar hardware and use same source code to get all the features quickly.
“There has been cases”…well, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you’ll have to provide names and links.
If you’re referring to Linksys, they eventually complied and – guess what – their business didn’t suffer from it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
No Linux is never going to take over embedded world.
Too late, it already has. The majority of new development projects for embedded hardware now use Linux as their OS.
Renaldo, even though i hate GPL, i believe open sourcing document are necessary for our industry growth. Competion is good as long as it is healhty (By the way GPL kills competion by making thing free).
If i have documents in some format. These are my documents and i should be allowed to do what i want with them. I don’t know if i can explain it just in writing but consider a scenario where i have a document in some format but the company who used to write its reader is out of business and i can’t find the reader. If only its document format was open there was hope.
Secondly document formats only tries to do vendor lock-in. If microsoft opens document formats then whoever writes the best reader for it will win. Think of it as TCP/IP and other internet protocols. Do you think we would have had so much innovation if there were 100 different properietary protocols. Standards are needed for software industry growth. Without HTML standard, i would need 100 different browsers or what not to browse www but not its so simple. Similarly my documents are my documents and i should have capability to do what i do with them. What do you think is wrong in opening file formats? BTW microsoft has already opened them and so does most of them are.
you’re missing the point, while for the vast majority of embeded software, it is fine, it however is not fine for new hardware technologies… reason being.. the source code will reveal the inner workings of the hardware.
Again, specific examples would help. What “new hardware technologies” are you referring to? Not that this really matters, as there are quite a few other ways to reverse-engineer something even if you don’t have the source. The problem is that you’re looking at it from a wrong angle: let’s say that company A puts out new gadget X. Now company B gets its hands on gadget X. It studies it and understand how it works. If it wants to put out a knockoff (assuming there aren’t any “real” patents protecting the device, which is quite likely if it’s new technology), it still needs to design it, buy parts, set up manufacturing, etc. This represents the bulk of the cost for embedded devices.
Also, not all software used in an embedded device is likely to be GPL or BSD. Most probably, there is also proprietary code in the firmware. You can use Linux as the GPLed OS and proprietary code running on it!
I can appreciate the benefit of having open file formats. But that is a decision to be made by the vendors and consumers (with their wallets), NOT for the government to mandate with law.
Microsoft is not required to release anything which uses GPL.
True, however it may not have a legal right to make users comply with the XML document requirements as described in the article.
I have nothing against GPL. Beside that GPL kills businesses.
Name ONE business that has been “killed” by the GPL.
I wouldn’t call GPL socialist by any stretch of the imagination, I’d call it a watered down Stalinist state; you’ve forced to give back,
No you’re not. If you use the software in-house (which probably covers 90% of uses) you don’t have to give anything back.
The only people this affects are ISVs who want to profit off of other people’s work.
Now would you care to tell me a successful business model around GPL?
Linksys. Google. IBM.
And Sony has released a Linux-based media playing device, and will offer Linux pre-installed on the PS3 hard drives.
Apple uses DRM technologies in their iPod to lock their customers to their product. I’m sure you are aware that the DRM technologies have been cracked a countless number of times, even by *gasp* srival, such as folks at Real.
Every technology that I know that has tried to restrict the freedom of users has been cracked. Starting with Microsoft forcing users to activate their software to game developers obfuscating the installation process of their products to verify the authenticity of their customer’s copy of software in question.
Free software isn’t the biggest hurdle proprietary software vendors have to face, piracy is! But this goes to show you that writing and deciphering software is not magic. As computers become an ever more important part of our lifes, the skill for writing and deciphering software will become abundant, just as the skill for quantitative and communication abilities are vital for survival today.
There have been very successful businesses that have emanated from free software, and many more are joining the free software block. Red Hat is the most popular example I can give. Red Hat is a free sotware company that sells, repackages free software and provides all sorts of consultancy services for their cutomers.
There are many smaller free software companies that do not make osnews or /.’s headlines, but to deny their existence is shortsighted. These companies sustain themselves, by writing custom free software for big and small companies who have no desire to sell or redistribute software.
Companies like Apple, Novel, IBM, HP, SUN to mention but a few all use free software and GPL products to enhance their earnings.
To conclude that businesses fail because of licenses utterly laughable. Businesses fail because they are meant to fail! Business fail because of liquidity problems. Business fail because they don’t have resourceful and innovative leaders. Business fail because their product doesn’t impress customers. Businesses fail because of poor planning, poor design and poor execution. Business fail because of a washy culture or philosophy or lack of it thereof. Businesses fail because their bloody cash outflow exceeds their inflow. Businesses fail because to poor marketing.
Can you name one business in history that failed because it GPL’ed some software product?
I’m glad you’ve conceded. Hopefully, you won’t be spewing anti-GPL drivel here in the future.
You have a right to disagree with . but throwing around insults is not the right way to do it. It may get you modded and in any case it’s better to respond logically.
Personally, I think the analogy is a bit extreme. However, it is true that derivatives of BSD code can be made proprietary, while derivatives of GPL code cannot (except by the copyright holder himself).
Resorting to habitual personal attacks won’t change the facts I’ve presented and which you have failed, terribly might I add, to disprove. According to you the GPL sucks because, theoretically, you can’t shackle GPL code. Well, duh! At least, I don’t need a brain surgeon to figure that out, regardless of my insanity.
Yeah, RMS is against commercial software. That must be why he sold emacs and gcc for years.
You trolls are pathetic!