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.
But the code is still GPL, so it’s free. Isn’t your company free to examine, modify and distribute the code if they wish? Try that with Microsoft software. Perhaps then you’d understand why I like the term shackled so much.
Try reading the actual blog before you spew
Mike told internetnews.com that the Free Software Foundation was still thinking about the problem posed when someone modifies GPL’d web services software and goes into business providing competing services using the modified software, but without releasing the modifications to the community. Mike was right; that’s an issue FSF expects to address in GPLv3. Richard Stallman and I have both talked about it publicly.
oops..try reading next time
But the code is still GPL, so it’s free. Isn’t your company free to examine, modify and distribute the code if they wish?
Just like BSD code. But according to your defintion its not free anymore. It’s been “shackled” by an evil, capitalist company and no longer being shared.
( my responses below are speculation from what I understand of the GPL, I’m not a lawyer )
“I’ve got a company. I employ 3 programmers. We get some GPL software and they add/modify it for some internal use”
They are each now free to distribute and release that code under the rules of the GPL. They would doubtfully do so however, lest they get fired…
“At the end of the additions/modifications I fire the 3 programmers.”
Whoops, looks like they got fired anyhow. Well, if they had considered doing so, now would be an especialy good time for one or more of them to release the code – it is under the GPL, which grants them all the rights as listed.
“They have no legal access to that GPL source code anymore.”
If they got fired before any one of them could download/upload/copy the GPL souce code, then sure – they have no access to it any longer unless they could get it from a non-fired coworker or something.
The company wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on if it hired programmers to work on GPL’d software – even if the company chose not to redistribute their changes, the company does not have any legal right to prevent their hired developers and/or users of the GPL’d software from distributing it themselves. If the company was worried about ever “loosing” its copy of modified/extended GPL’d software, then it really should not be using GPL’d software in the first place. This is a matter of simple common sense.
If FUD slingers like you didn’t exist, I wouldn’t feel the need to both enlighten you and dispell onerous falsehoods. Lets reexamine the myths spewed by you raving cohorts in this thread alone.
– GPL kills businesses
– GPL prevents competition
– GPL spells doom for the software industry
– BSD is good, because I can exploit developers and make money at the same time
– GPL kills programmers
– GPL stiffles innovation
– GPL advocates are hippies
– GPL advocates are religious fanatics
– GPL is not free
– GPL is restrictive
– You can’t make money from GPL
And many more. Admit it, it’s bloody hilarious.
“Try reading the actual blog before you spew
Mike told internetnews.com that the Free Software Foundation was still thinking about the problem posed when someone modifies GPL’d web services software and goes into business providing competing services using the modified software, but without releasing the modifications to the community. Mike was right; that’s an issue FSF expects to address in GPLv3. Richard Stallman and I have both talked about it publicly.
oops..try reading next time”
wtf man…
Could you please humor me, and explain exactly what it is that you’re pointing out?
That the GPL intends to address a known problem? They’re discussing how to solve a particular issue?
Maybe you know something I don’t know – have you seen what their proposed solution is? I’m presuming you must be under the impression that whatever it turns out to be, that it’s going to be bad.
Quote: “So I go out to buy a new power tool.”
Why should I have to ditch all my attachments? And start again? That’s just being wasteful.
Dave
oops..try reading next time
They said they will look into this, but there’s no conclusive information as to how they will address this. It seems to me you’re simply jumping to conclusions here, and acting in a flippant manner while doing so. Why don’t we wait until we actually have access to the text of GPLv3 before starting to say that the sky is falling, mmh? Until then it is nothing but pure speculation.
Enough with the FUD already.
Like i said in another post, software really isn’t any different than any other product except for the ease in duplication.
Except that this “little” difference is actual quite fundamental. In fact, it makes software drastically different from any other product (except media).
In any case, you agree that the kind of vendor lock-in you described is bad, and therefore you proved David’s point, as I indicated before.
Did you read the portion of the blog I posted. They’re going to “address” web services being used in GPL code. What do you think they are going to do if they are going to “address it”. There’s another license called Affedro(sic) or something being “sponsored” or collaborated with the FSF to address web service issues. But I’m sure you’re capable of googling on your own to find out more.
As far as your hypothetical about the company. Think again, you as an employee don’t own copyright to that code you wrote while employeed. You go ahead and distribute that and that would be a good way to get your ass sued.
But I guess the ultimate political goal in their minds justifies the lies.
You have yet to conclusively identify any of these alleged lies. And yet you act as if you’d already provided the proof.
You know, if you’re going to act in such an arrogant manner, you’d better have arguments to back it up.
Who are those bullet points addressed to? I never said or insinuated any of those. All I addressed was your continual lies about the BSD license is slavery.
What do you think they are going to do if they are going to “address it”.
We won’t know until it comes out. In the meantime, acting as if you already knew the text of the license only makes you look foolish.
I guess you’re so blind in your zealotry too, that you didn’t read the numerous re-posts of .’s lie equating BSD to slavery. Oh wait…you called it “extreme” and then went on some little rant to try and justify his words. Nice try, but no dice.
At least . comes up with original posts.
>”I’ve got a company. I employ 3 programmers. We get some GPL >software and they add/modify it for some internal use”
>
>They are each now free to distribute and release that code >under the rules of the GPL. They would doubtfully do so >however, lest they get fired…
This is false. The rights of the coders are defined by their contracts, and, as a rule, the contracts prevent them from distributing the software they developed for their employer.
Just like BSD code. But according to your defintion its not free anymore. It’s been “shackled”
Repeat after me: GPL license is “sticky”, BSD license is “ephemeral”.
GPL sticks with every copy of GPL’d software for ever, while any copy of BSD licensed software can be changed/closed at any time, by anybody.
There is a huge difference there.
Don’t get hung up on one single instance of a particular sort of circumstance: sure, a person company can take GPL’d software and withold it/keep it internal; and a person or company can change a BSD licensed copy of software and thereby essentially do the same thing — however, it is _not_ the same thing; in the case of the GPL’d software being ‘horded’, the license stays the same; while in the case of the BSD copy, the license has be changed.
The GPL remains GPL’d/free to everyone who uses it; while there’s no telling what happens to the BSD copy.
This is by design. BSD formed it’s license that way on purpose, and likewise, the GPL specified it’s license that way on purpose.
( now, before you go on about how the author of GPL’d software can re-release under a different license, remember: that’s just _one_ person, not _any_ and _every_ person who is able to do that… and secondly: it’s perfectly the author’s perogitive to change the license if he sees fit; that’s is _not_ some sort of flaw or weakness in the GPL. )
Would you say that it is more likely for a greater number of copies of BSD licensed software to become closed than for copies of GPL licensed software to become closed?
Would you say that anyone who recieves a copy of BSD licensed code is able to change and/or restrict the license and distribution of said code?
Now, would you say that the same thing could be said of GPL’d code?
Or would it be factual that the only person who can change and/or restrict the license and distribution of GPL’d software is solely the original author of said software?
You were wrong again. You said the programmers could distribute it. That is false. You can repeat previous posts about “sticky”, but the fact still remains that you were wrong about the programmers redistributing.
I guess you’re so blind in your zealotry too, that you didn’t read the numerous re-posts of .’s lie equating BSD to slavery.
You may claim that the analogy was erroneous, but that doesn’t make it a lie if . believes it. It would only be a lie if he told it but didn’t believe it to be true.
Also, he didn’t say “BSD is slavery”. That’s what we would call a strawman argument on your part. He made a colorful allegory that highlighted the risks of BSD code derivatives being made un-free.
Meanwhile, you’ve increasingly resorted to throwing insults rather than trying to come up with rational counter-arguments. Acting in such an emotional manner won’t convince anyone that your position is better.
In any case, saying that someone who disagrees with you is “lying” is incorrect, and saying that someone is a “zealot” for pointing it out is simply demonstrating your own zealotry.
For the record, as I have stated many times on this web site: I believe that both the GPL and the BSDL are good licenses. Please explain to us how that position is compatible with your accusations of zealotry with regards to my posts…
You really should try logic one of these days, it’s a very efficient debating tool.
“This is false. The rights of the coders are defined by their contracts, and, as a rule, the contracts prevent them from distributing the software they developed for their employer.”
As I said, I’m not a lawyer – and I’m not saying that I know what I’m talking about, or that you’re wrong; but I do think it would be an interesting case.
Are you certain that the contract they signed with their employer invalidates the GPL license?
I’d like to learn more about how that works.
Are you certain that the contract they signed with their employer invalidates the GPL license?
Actually, it doesn’t. The original code is still covered by the GPL license and the programmers can redistribute that. However, as Mark indicated, in the vast majority of cases the company is the copyright holder of the modified code, not the programmers who wrote it (as per their contract). It is therefore up to the company to choose whether or not the modified code should be released (though if it is released, then it would have to be under the GPL).
Also, he didn’t say “BSD is slavery”. That’s what we would call a strawman argument on your part. He made a colorful allegory that highlighted the risks of BSD code derivatives being made un-free
Do I really need to re-post his comments. Now it’s a “colorful allegory”. Nice one, but no dice. It’s amazing that you can grasp at straws like that, but that’s what zealots do.
For the record, as I have stated many times on this web site: I believe that both the GPL and the BSDL are good licenses. Please explain to us how that position is compatible with your accusations of zealotry with regards to my posts…
You really should try logic one of these days, it’s a very efficient debating tool
Your continual defense of people like . makes you a zealot. You’re worse than him because you don’t have the courage to make original posts.
It’s 4:30AM here, so as much as I’m enjoying this discussion, I should really get some sleep. Anyway, I’m sure that OSNews will post another “BSD vs. GPL” article soon… 🙂
Peace.
Evidently, interpreting analogies is not your forte. I suggest you stick to anti-GPL FUD mongering…oh…wait…nevermind.
“You were wrong again. You said the programmers could distribute it. That is false. You can repeat previous posts about “sticky”, but the fact still remains that you were wrong about the programmers redistributing.”
It is very possible and perhaps even likely that I was wrong about the programmers redistributing. ( are you so positive that they in fact _can not_ redistribute? )
However, I repeated previous posts about “sticky”, in the hopes that I could maybe help you to see where there seems to be some confusion concerning the whole “shackled” issue…
Are you going to answer those questions I posted for you? They weren’t just hypothetical.
“Peace.”
G’night!
Almost all employment contracts regarding programmers (and probably most other professional positions) stipulate that the employeer is copyright holder of all produced documentation, source code, etc….
This is standard procedure.
The whole sticky and viral, and non-free, and whatever else people can come up with has been re-hashed 240 times now. I’m already aware of all issues. I probably would’ve bailed out of the discussion hours and hours ago if . wasn’t calling the BSD license slavery.
You know, OSNews is not an open source advocacy forum, no matter how many people would want to turn it into that.
But I’ll be around to make sure that . doesn’t get off scott-free with his lies.
Do I really need to re-post his comments.
No need to. I remember the original post very well. He did NOT say that BSD was slavery, rather he said that the “BSD fanatic” would not mind if their children were born into slavery, with the analogy being made between their children and their code (both having come from them). Not being bothered by a thing doesn’t equal that thing.
Mind you, I think that’s a terrible analogy. However it is still incorrect to claim that he said that “BSD == slavery” when in fact he said “BSD fanatics do not care about the freedom of their offspring”.
Now it’s a “colorful allegory”. Nice one, but no dice.
Well, it was. Colorful and in bad taste, in my view. However, he never claimed that BSD == slavery, despite you repeatedly saying that he did.
It’s amazing that you can grasp at straws like that, but that’s what zealots do.
I’m not grasping at straws, I’m pointing out inaccuracies in your posts.
Your continual defense of people like . makes you a zealot. You’re worse than him because you don’t have the courage to make original posts.
Oh, I have made plenty of original posts in this thread and in others. However, unlike you I don’t feel the need to insult those who disagree with me. Instead, I prefer to offer logical counter-arguments. Speaking of which, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my demonstration that you were incorrect in saying that . was lying. I will take this as an admission that you were wrong.
I’m not “defending” ., I’m simply correcting your own logical errors in expressing your disagreement with him.
You know, OSNews is not an open source advocacy forum
By definition, a forum is open to all opinions, be it pro- or anti-FOSS advocacy.
But I’ll be around to make sure that . doesn’t get off scott-free with his lies.
Except that he didn’t lie. He made statements you disagree with, that we can all agree on, but if he believes in them then he is not lying.
The BSDL is open source, so in defending it you are actually indulging in Open Source Advocacy.
Unless you don’t really care about the BSDL but only pretend to in order to attack the GPL – while in fact most people who use FOSS think that both licenses are good (like me, for instance). Divide and conquer?
Almost all employment contracts regarding programmers (and probably most other professional positions) stipulate that the employeer is copyright holder of all produced documentation, source code, etc….
That makes sense.
But I’m wondering how the GPL works in the company… I’m wondering out loud here – the software would remain GPL’d, regardless of if the company or the programmers themselves were the copyright holder… so wouldn’t that mean, anyone in the company who used the company-modified GPL’d software could redistribute and modify it as per the GPL?
Maybe I’m just tired at this point, it’s almost 2am.
“I probably would’ve bailed out of the discussion hours and hours ago if . wasn’t calling the BSD license slavery.”
I’m thinking that you appear to be the only one who really thinks that he actualy said or meant such a thing.
“But I’ll be around to make sure that . doesn’t get off scott-free with his lies.”
Heheh – ok, man; you definitely just exposed yourself – that’s just too hilarious. (c8=
so wouldn’t that mean, anyone in the company who used the company-modified GPL’d software could redistribute and modify it as per the GPL?[i]
No, only the copyright holder can legally redistribute the additional code. It is still legal to distribute the original code, of course.
[i]Maybe I’m just tired at this point, it’s almost 2am.
Well, it’s almost 5AM on the east coast! I’m going as well, I’ll pick this up tomorrow afternoon (if I feel like it).
, rather he said that the “BSD fanatic” would not mind if their children were born into slavery,
So that’s not a lie? You think the BSD fanatic would not mind if their children were born into slavery?
I’m not grasping at straws, I’m pointing out inaccuracies in your posts.
No, you’re attempting (very badly at that) to soften his analogies into something “colorful”. Saying that the BSD fanatic would not mind his offspring born into slavery is not “colorful”.
Oh, I have made plenty of original posts in this thread and in others.
Did you have an original post in this thread?
However, unlike you I don’t feel the need to insult those who disagree with me. Instead, I prefer to offer logical counter-arguments.
I called him insane, which is an insult but perfectly legitimate because anybody that would make an analogy has a very bad grasp of reality.
Speaking of which, I noticed that you didn’t respond to my demonstration that you were incorrect in saying that . was lying.
Anybody that says that BSD fanatics don’t mind their children being born into slavery is lying and insane.
I’m not “defending” ., I’m simply correcting your own logical errors in expressing your disagreement with him.
Of course you’re defending him, that’s what you do in this thread and other threads. What you should be doing is chastizing your ally for making a fool of his fellow GPL advocates, but you don’t have the courage to do that.
So tired, I forgot to close the italics tag. Oh well.
“Well, it’s almost 5AM on the east coast! I’m going as well, I’ll pick this up tomorrow afternoon (if I feel like it).”
Cheers – thanks for excellent discourse!
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.
Meh, all your attempts at propagating FUD has been foiled. My job here is over. See you in the next GPL-related article. I look forward to you spewing rubbish about the GPL. So that I can be on your case all over again. My analogy about the BSD and slavery still stands, however. I’m pleased no one has disproven it, including you. No, name-calling, mud slinging and personal attacks don’t count for well-reasoned and constructive arguments.
So that’s not a lie? You think the BSD fanatic would not mind if their children were born into slavery?
It’s an allegory, a metaphor, an image. So by definition it is not a lie since it isn’t meant to be taken literally. You seem to have a problem understanding this.
Saying that the BSD fanatic would not mind his offspring born into slavery is not “colorful”.
Yes it is. It is colorful BECAUSE it is an analogy.
Did you have an original post in this thread?
I thought me bringing in DNA as information on an organic medium was pretty original. Now, did YOU have an original post in this thread?
I called him insane, which is an insult but perfectly legitimate because anybody that would make an analogy has a very bad grasp of reality.
Really? Anybody that makes an analogy is insane? Because that’s what you just wrote. I kinda understood you weren’t too interested in rational debate, but that takes the cake! lol
Anybody that says that BSD fanatics don’t mind their children being born into slavery is lying and insane.
It is not his fault if you took his analogy literally.
Of course you’re defending him, that’s what you do in this thread and other threads.
I don’t believe I’ve ever mention . in other threads (and in fact I’m getting quite annoyed at his nickname – it just looks weird in a sentence). I’ve been posting on this site for more than two years. So don’t be too quick to pass judgement on me. I’ve debated with much better adversaries than you…
What you should be doing is chastizing your ally for making a fool of his fellow GPL advocates, but you don’t have the courage to do that.
Hey, he made an analogy that was in bad taste, but you’re the one who kept bringing it up, apparently unaware of what an analogy is. Start by looking it up in the dictionary, and then we’ll continue this discussion.
As far as your comment about courage goes, I’ll just consider as yet another personal attack on your part. The more you indulge in these kinds of insults, the less credibility you have, so feel free to continue – it’s only strenghtening my own position.
And everybody is free to see your insanity. Thanks for re-iterating that your BSD and slavery analogy still stands. I’m sure anun he moos and other zealots will do their best in your defense.
Nowhere in that paragraph is there a logical equivalency between BSD and slavery (i.e. BSD == slavery). Nowhere. Read it again and you’ll see that no part of those sentences can be construed as “BSD equals slavery”.
Ain’t logic a beautiful thing?
That’s it, I’m closing the computer. Bye.
Haha! Yeah, I’m insane. Whatever! Disprove it, or have a nice night!
Hehe, he can’t get to sleep because he has to continually defend .
This is too funny. Well . stood by his analogy in his last post and I’m sure you’ll continue to defend it in even though it’s in “bad taste” according to you.
You’re so worked up in your defense of . that you just can’t bear to go to sleep.
We’ll be here all night discussing the topic so you better grab the coffee.
a nun, he moos,
Mark is simple minded. I doubt he understands what an analogy is. I think he has maxed out all his FUDing credits, so he’s just writing anything that comes to his mind regardless of how senseless the sound. What the hell does “BSD is slavery” mean, for example? Meh, Good night folks. What a productive day.
Anun he moos refuses to go to sleep because he’s defending the insanity of . pro bona.
Anun he moos is worse than . No matter how crazy the GPL zealot is, anun he moos will stay up to defend him.
“What the hell does “BSD is slavery”
HA!
That is my new slogan, right there: BSD is slavery.
Awesome.
What the hell does “BSD is slavery” mean, for example?
Here’s the example you gave:
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.
So according to . the BSD fanatic wouldn’t care if his/her offspring were born into slavery.
Another GPL crazy exposed who thought his words wouldn’t be challenged.
Those lisences are most well known in developper community, thus mostly used. When developper chooses GPL he/she chooses usually protection (no politics) to his work. None of us want to see situation where one does all work and another collects the profits.(Well actually this is what happens in capitalism everyday, most of us are wageslaves)
This protection is anyway mere illusion than real thing. Especially in object oriented languages it’s very easy to steal a class and use it in a comercial project. This happens all the time and many comppanies don’t even care to hide their traces.
Why is? m$ at war against free (as in speech) software. Simply besauce it is the only treath to its monopoly at the moment. Most traditional businesses are far more controlled today than software and operating systems. We have our own ministery for telecomunnications and networks… should we have one for operating systems and software? Yes.
Stalman is right, OS:s are fundamental part of almost any device today. Allready and even more in future they play a vital part of national security. The key issue is not about free, open or closed source software but a uncontrolled situation where software market is today.
Microsoft wants to keep his monopoly and everyone (who care) else wants to break it.
“So according to . the BSD fanatic wouldn’t care if his/her offspring were born into slavery.”
Mark, you realize he’s just telling things like they are.
Every BSD fanatic, such as yourself, that I’ve ever know, only care about their own liberty and not that of their children. This is why BSD people use the BSD license in the first place. They just don’t care about their kids.
If you want to get all upset over that simple, obvious fact – well, that’s your right I guess. But I would recommend that you come to terms with the disease that it really is.
I just can’t let Mark get away with all those lies any more. He’s lost all touch of reality. I’m just glad . and others like a nun, he moos are here at osnews keeping him from spreading more lies to people.
It’s simple. Who here would like to see his/her offsprings born into slavery? The GPL stalinist wouldn’t care, as long as he or she and her kids are marxist slaves. The BSD fanatic cringes at thought of his/her progeny born into shackles.
how easy it is to be a troll.
Well, I’ve had my fill; thanks for some good laughs Mark – I know that you’re having a great time there, grinning into the monitor; enjoying every moment someone submits another comment to one of your posts.
At any rate, I’m outta here – see ya folks! It’s been real.
The article is about software company choosing not to have its data formats to be compatible with one particular license.
Proponents of that license love to scream how free is everyone to follow or not to follow the license in question, so if people don’t like it- they are free not to use it.
Suddenly, like a pack of wild dogs, they jump on a company and critisize it for doing exactly that.
What, a “monopolist” excuse? Well, does it mean that any company once labelled as a monopolist is not free to choose license it works under, but only must choose GPL? Interesting.
GPL zealots, you can not have it both ways.
Microsoft: “GPL has become a disease, a cancer of this planet and we are the cure.”
I have read most of this thread (and most of it is off topic) and though I generally don’t intervene in BSD/GPL wars, I’ll do it this time. I’ll tend to support the BSD guys in this discussion, not that they have better rethoric skills, but because their arguments are a lot more logical than those of the pro-GPL guys. Those little gems for example speaks for themselves :
The original BSD code is still free. But now we also have a shackled version of a formerly free code
Is it free, or formerly free ? It can’t be one, and the other. If it is free, then it hasn’t been put in shackles (btw, the frivolous analogy with slavery really sucks).
Someone asks the following question :
Umm, please explain how people who freely release their code to the public, without making any demands on whose who use it, can be exploited.
And the answer is :
Easy, by denying people the same cordiality they have been accorded
How do they do that ? They released their code to the public, and doing so they deny the same cordiality they have been accorded ? What cordiality have they been accorded, save the cordiality to release their code under the license of their choice (which is I would say, not a cordiality at all, but a right). And how are they denying that same cordiality to anybody ?
Now, the poster may mean that those who have released a proprietary software integrating the code are denying people the same cordiality that has been accorded to them. Yes. So what ? Since they have the blessing of the owner of the code, why should it be a problem ?
There are many other gems like that, and I won’t bother to adress them all. But there is one thing I would like, and it is an amendment to Godwin’s law, saying that whoever use BSD and slavery or any synonym in relation with each other has lost the argument. This is absolutely ridiculous. And, as a descendant of slaves myself, I even think it’s offensive.
Well, whatever. It doesn’t really matter anyway, since I won’t intervene again in any discussion about licensing. After all, I’m just a user, and don’t code at all, so to me it boils down to : how much is it ? And don(t come with the argument that I can be left in the water with proprietary software, I have already seen open source projects abandonned (and as I say, since I don’t code, I have no interest with having the source).
Proponents of that license love to scream how free is everyone to follow or not to follow the license in question, so if people don’t like it- they are free not to use it.
Suddenly, like a pack of wild dogs, they jump on a company and critisize it for doing exactly that.
That Copyright holders are allowed to choose any license they like for their software is a fact. This can and will be stated by GPL proponents or GPL adverse people all alike. In no way does this mean that one can not criticize a company for not-choosing the GPL license for their software. You might find such a critic wrong, but it is not contrary to stating that no one is required to choose the GPL.
GPL zealots, you can not have it both ways.
As stated above, this is just nonsense. If GPL people could dictate which license one has to choose, it would make sense, but not with the current state of affairs.
Depending on the circumstances and the goals of the project, the choice of one licence over another may be more reasonable.
I like the GPL, LGPL, BSD, X11, and other licences with similar goals that include opening the source.
All of these licences are complementary and have a purpose, even if they are not always compatable. This is by design and is not an accident. Unfortunately, this does cause frustration for a limited number of projects, though the conflicts are usually resolved with some careful thought.
Anyone who promotes one style of licence (say BSD or GPL) and rejects the other outright is being dogmatic. Please do not fall for this trap.
The patent license, http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp, looks like it’s incompatible with other open source licenses. The clause “You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights” arguably makes it incompatible with the BSD license too.
They wouldn’t do such a thing, hehe.
I am not an expert in license matter but BSD license can not prevent developer from being abused by some people who wants to take free-ride.
But GPL assures that it will be open continuously.
So if you can not pretect the freedom of share, than that freedom is worthless.
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.
That’s totally false. Linux isn’t even close to being the most popular embedded OS.
Microsoft Now Leads in PDA, Embedded OS
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3435501
1. Microsoft
2. Wind River Systems
3. Symbian
4. Palm
5. QNX
6. Enea Data
7. Green Hills Software
8. LynuxWorks
9. MontaVista Software
10. Accelerated Technology (Mentor Graphics)
There’s a very good reason for this. Hardware manufacturers are in the business of building hardware. They want excellent software support — and they get a great packaged solution from the vendors listed above. They don’t have to do this work, themselves, nor do they want to deal with the annoying GPL nonsense like Cisco did recently.
Hehe, he can’t get to sleep because he has to continually defend .
No, I had to continually defend myself from your immature accusations of zealotry.
Wasn’t this an article about file formats?
First, I’m not talking about the PDA business, I’m talking about embedded devices in general. Second, the fact that MS is the leading vendor of embedded OSes doesn’t mean squat, as the vast majority of hardware manufacturers do not in fact buy their OS, but either program it themselves or (more probably) adapt a free software solution.
The reason for this is simple: profit margins. Competition is so fierce in the embedded device world that a difference of a few dollars in the price can mean the difference between profits and loss. In this context, paying for OS licenses on a per-device basis makes no economic sense.
Now, since Linux is free (no-per device license costs), this is a very strong draw for hardware manufacturers. However, because it isn’t bought, it doesn’t appear on studies by Gartner and others who only focus on actual OS sales. So, instead of being “totally false” my post was right on the money. It seems you were hoodwinked by Gartner’s very incomplete representation of the embedded OS “market”.
Meanwhile, here’s a poll that shows that Linux (of the homegrown variety) is actually the leading OS for embedded devices. Even with a considerable margin of error, it’s still clear that Linux leads the way.
Oh, and why would a phone or router-maker care if he had to release the source code? It’s not as if their device did anything new…
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4036830962.html
OK, I did say that I wouldn’t intervene anymore, but I have to answer to this blatant misconception.
To the contrary of what many people pretend here, BSDL code cannot be made proprietary anymore than GPL code. The owner of the code can do whatever he wants and change the license whenever he wants, whether the code is GPL or BSDL. But even the owner cannot “unfree” what has been free.
When BSDL code is incorporated in a proprietary product, it doesn’t vanish as free code, it isn’t transformed in proprietary code. It is still free (and the number of copy, as has been writen somewhere, doesn’t change anything to that : the free code is still free) and will be forever.
Now, you can’t incorporate GPL code in a proprietary product. If distributed, the software including GPL code must be GPL (or just compatible ?). But if not distributed, if used “in house”, no one has the obligation to publish the code or make it available. Has the original GPL code vanished ? No. It’s still there, still GPL, and will be forever.
It is really unfortunate that so many people cannot grasp that simple concept : free code is free code and always will be free code, and being BSDL or GPL or Artistic or whatever free license doesn’t change that simple fact.
And please guys, stop saying developpers who release their code with the BSDL are exploited : they give you the code freely and knowingly for you to do what you want with it, without pretending, as someone said here, that their code is highly superior to any other code.
It’s simple. Who here would like to see his/her offsprings born into slavery? The GPL stalinist wouldn’t care, as long as he or she and her kids are marxist slaves. The BSD fanatic cringes at thought of his/her progeny born into shackles.
Funny.
Promoting BSD licenses for everything as the answer to all the prayers of freedom is slavery. Basically a project can have their code lifted by a third-party, commercial entity and have them pass it off as their own. Do you honestly think that’s fair or sustainable into the long-term? With the GPL, that third-party is compelled to pay in return by contributing their changes back.
You can call it Marxist, communist and God knows what until you’re blue (well, you’re probably purple by now), but the GPL works. The proof? Look at the quality and popularity of the Linux and Samba (GPL projects) and then have a look at the BSD or commercially licensed alternatives.
Ends here.
“When BSDL code is incorporated in a proprietary product, it doesn’t vanish as free code, it isn’t transformed in proprietary code. It is still free (and the number of copy, as has been writen somewhere, doesn’t change anything to that : the free code is still free) and will be forever.”
There seems to be confusion between a work of code, under whatever free license, and copies of that same said code.
The first instance refers to the particular code on a larger collective level — on that frame, then correct: BSD licensed code will remain free, regardless of what happens to any particular copy of that code… disregarding the impossible happenstance that somehow _every_ single copy of that code ever created was relicensed and restricted/closed.
On that level, both the GPL and BSDL are functionaly equivalent: freed code will remain free – thanks to all those copies floating around.
However, the difference ( that I’ve been trying so unsuccessfully to point out apparently ) – is that any particular copy of what was originaly BSDL’d code, could at any moment, on anybody’s whim, if they so choose, to be relicensed under a non-free and/or closed/propriety restrictive license.
Whereas, with GPL’d code – any and all copies of that GPL’d code will remain GPL’d for ever… no one other than the original author(s) can change the license, and only then, _only_ to the original code and/or original copies of that code.
So to say that “BSDL’d code will always remain free” is confusing and misleading, because that statement requires further clarification as to the scope or instance of the code is being referred to. When people say that BSDL’d code will always remain free – they’re specifically talking on the collective level of that code; to say that “all copies of any BSDL’d code will always remain free” would be a false statement… but because of the somewhat subtle distinction, it is not necessarily false to say that “BSDL’d code will always remain free.”.
Again:
BSD: weak/ephemeral – the license won’t necessarily last with any given copy
GPL: viral/sticky – the license _will_ last with every given copy
It appears to me that Both Richard Stallman and Bill Gates want to continue the GENUINELY cancerous perminant “Intellectual Property” system in copyright that is sapping the health of the software and other copyright based industries, each for their own reason.
Richard Stallman wants to keep the perminant “Intellectual Property” sistem out of a short sighted view that his GPL will have perminant “teeth” grom it to keep software “Free”.
Bill Gates wants to keep the perminant “Intellectual Property” system so that he can keep his monopoly over Windows and prevent OS/2 or other “obsolete” OSs or other software that contain “obsolete” microsoft code from ever being opened by their majority owners.
In my view they are BOTH wrong and both contributing to the stagnation and eventual death of the software industry. If we want our industries to be healthy again we HAVE to restore the idea of the Constitutional contract of copyright and patent to place works in the public domain in return for a LIMITED SPACIFIC period of time to profit from first sale rights.
Invention AND Innovation proceeds virtually fully from updating and improving the obsolete work of others once it enters the public domain without copyright, patent and EULA restrictions of any kind. In order to cure the software industry’s ills a growing public domain system and strictly limited copyright and patent (Yes I would even accept software PATENTS under the system I’m about to propose because they would NOT be the 20 year weapons against compteition they are now.) that reflect the fast “obsolecense” in the computer and software industries. I would say that software copyrights and patents should be limited to a 5 year maximum period or the marketplace lifetime of the copurighted or patented version of the software/computer product in question whichever expires first.
XML was designed to do things like that, and using it, as an office document file format is obvious to people in the trade.
I am not a lawyer, but doubt any Microsoft patent would hold up in court, exept perhaps if sombody actually have signed the licence (Remember the old SCO trick of sueing their ownd customers). As for copyrights, much of the file conversions will look quite different depending on what you convert from, so that will probably not be a problem.
Even if Microsoft somehow would manage to get through with this, there is no business value in upgrading to new versions of office anymore, and few will do it. This means that Microsoft will need to stay compatible with older versions for quite some time.
Finally a post that points to the “real” software coding problem (not the first, but too much license bashing going on in this thread).
IMHO the problem isn’t the license you choose (and thank _insert your higher Being here_ for that option), it’s the copyright and patent issues that really hold back the use of “invention and innovation”.
Thanks
Quote: “nor do they want to deal with the annoying GPL nonsense like Cisco did recently.”
Cisco broke the licensing agreement. Period. If Cisco didn’t want to comply with the license, then it shouldn’t have used the GPL’d software. Period. Don’t blame the GPL for Cisco’s inability to comply with the license, and ultimately, the law. They broke the license agreement, they deserve what they get. Cisco would be a great lover of BSD applications, because they can take, bastardise it, make a shitload of money out of it and never have to give back to the community. I have no pity for Cisco, nor any other business that uses GPL’d software and doesn’t comply with the license. Your argument is that Cisco, being a large company, shouldn’t have to fiddle with licenses like the GPL, or comply to them. What a load of hogwash. Businesses should not, and should never, have any additional rights over individuals. Democracy is already dying as it is, without giving businesses free rule.
Dave
Wolf, first off…I’m not a GPL or BSD fanatic. I appreciate both licences and similar open source ones when they are appropriate; often both could be used, sometimes one or the other is superior, and sometimes neither are a good fit.
That said, some comments;
“Someone said about [Quality] so here are my thoughts about that:
gcc is good enough but not highest quality, all result show Intel compilers are better but when we see perf/price ration gcc is above due to 0 $ price. How the hell can someone compete with 0$ software unless quality bar is so high that using free cost you more (like the Munich example).”
I don’t know about GCC vs. Intel quality, I’ll leave that to someone else. GCC does suffer from producing slower binaries, though it is the most portable. Intel’s isn’t portable. Why deal with additional ifdefs and other changes when it’s not necessary?
“So yes with quality we can compete but sir price matters a lot. Example is the success of windows vs apple. My whole problem with GPL is that it promotes the trend where software that i develop in my leisure time harms actual software business…that business on which i depend to earn bread for my family.”
I’m going to be harsh…please take this to heart.
Stop fighting the demise of the buggy whip industry.
Meaning: GPL or BSD or not, many categories of software have been commoditized and other categories are being added to the list frequently. The only ones that aren’t either have legacy tie-ins and brand recognition or — and this is the big one — are for customized deployments (contracts).
I don’t know about you, but every software project I’ve been on since the early 90s has been for non-shrink-wrapped, customized — often from scratch — software. Lately, the projects I’ve worked on have been more modular and have used large parts of other programs (web services, as one unavoidable part).
This reuse along with code availablilty increases quality for everyone and does not require the good graces of any one specific company. BSD or GPL, this is a good thing.
Getting back on topic…
I’m very glad that OpenDocument is gaining multiple open source implementations. Currently these are GPLed, though the back end engine should be under a BSD licence for optimal use. In either case, it is forcing Microsoft to open — even if partially — the data format they have done such a poor job of documenting in the past. While I think most of it is for show and to keep contracts with governments, having open source of any type for the implementation is a very very good thing. I’d like to be able to use my documents and government documents in 100 years and not have them lost to obscurity.
Dare Obasanjo:
“There are two points I’d like to make here. The first is that “being GPL compatible” isn’t a definition of ‘open’ that I’ve ever heard anyone make. It isn’t even the definition of Open Source or Free Software (as in speech). Heck, even the GNU website has a long list of Open Source licenses that are incompatible with the GPL. You’ll notice that this list includes the original BSD license, the Apache license, the Zope license, and the Mozilla public license. I doubt that EWeek will be writing articles about how Apache and Mozilla are not ‘open’ because they aren’t GPL compatible.”
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e0b4c2c4-ed5e…
I think most people should redefine what ‘expensive software’ means. Office is sold for less than 200€ in my country – and it is the best in its kind – even OpenOffice fans will have to admit it (they’re trying to do the same…).
Of course, producing software like Office or even OpenOffice is an enourmos amount of work, effort and organization.
I can assure you that small businesses that are so common in my area will happily save a few hundred/thousand Euros installn OO instead of Office. They will then spend the money to buy new tyres for their ‘business’ car or spend then in beer.
Now please, I hope not to see zealots whining more about ‘expensive’ software ty
For me, this is good enough. I can extract data and create
compatibile documents. RMS can do moralising, preaching and philosophy somewhere else.
I am not Microsoft fan, and I said many bitter and harsh
words about them, some even in this forum, but I think that they are taking more reasonable approach recently.
I can’t say the same about Stallman.
DG