Almost two years ago, the FSF started work on the first update of the GNU GPL in over a decade. A last-minute hitch, though, is keeping the license from appearing. According to Peter Brown, the FSF’s executive director, “We continue to work on the details of the GPLv3 as it relates to the situation presented by the Novell and Microsoft deal. We are researching issues related to potential unintended consequences of the language we plan to adopt. As soon as we are satisfied with the results of our research we plan to bring forward the next draft.”
I’m starting to get kind of sick at the retaliation Novell is taking from some elements of the open-source community. Doesn’t “freedom” also include the freedom to use your software any way you like?
Edited 2007-03-20 22:32
What is kind of sick is that you can’t read an article.
“Richard Stallman, explained at a GPL meeting in Tokyo in November 2006: “What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent license that is rather limited to Novell’s customers alone.” Stallman went on to say that “perhaps it’s a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it’s not too late and we’re going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals.”
Its half the article…do you even know what the Novell thing is about. This is not an attack on Novell. Nobody has attacked Novell *you* are the first poster.
Edited 2007-03-20 22:46
Whats really kind of sick is what isn’t mentioned in the article:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedo…
Yay RMS, freedom for all… puke…
Edited 2007-03-21 01:28
Stallman, your dear leader, advocates ideological limits on software freedom, which you defend.
Stallman openly supports man-boy love ‘freedom’ and his followers bury the truth. I guess he doesn’t have certain limits. Note he supports this less than 90 days before the speech you quoted.
I don’t think freedom means what you think it means.
Maybe you want the more direct link to his blog:
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June~*~…)
Yeah, pretty sick. Don’t limit his freedom, he’ll just limit yours.
I have despised Stallman a lot before, now even more.
DG
Someone has to shed light on this mans world views.
It is pretty sad that so many readers at OSNews are compelled to censor the truth (his own words on his own site). Probably a good social experiment concerning what freedom means to people interested in these discussions!
I don’t care if I get modded down for frank honesty.
He is not that unusual. He is typical power thirsty and power envy left wing activists. He passionately hates everyone who actual has power and influence. I know a couple of similar characters myself. They are all alike, like twins.
DG
He is not that unusual. He is typical power thirsty and power envy left wing activists. He passionately hates everyone who actual has power and influence. I know a couple of similar characters myself. They are all alike, like twins.
That’s even funnier than the post I previously marked out as funny post of the week! Well done!
Glad you like it.
Novell’s idea of freedom is to suggest that it’s only safe to get your open source software from Novell, for money, and to never, ever make any improvements to it and redistribute the improvements, because otherwise Microsoft might sue you. For some reason, this upsets some of the people who wrote the software Novell is selling.
For some reason, this upsets some of the people who wrote the software Novell is selling.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
The point is that Microsoft *does* indeed own many software patents, and it is very likely that they do apply to Linux, and it is very probable that without a license for those patents you are using illegal software.
Within those bounds, a Customer should feel more confident buying from Novell.
Don’t like the truth? Then fix the blasted patent system. That is the real problem here.
That if you believe in SW patents … like patenting FAT32.
SW patents are not matter of belief. They exist in many legal systems, and under different names and forms. What you do or don’t believe is not relevant at all.
DG
OK then, Name one MS patent that Linux/OSS impinges.
I was not talking about MS patents and Linux specificaly. I just said that patent are not matter of beliefs, they are current legal practise. I didn’t say that I support patents.
But, if you are interested, you can take a look at this article (it’s long), maybe you can find something there:
http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/microsoft/index.en.html
DG
The point is that Microsoft *does* indeed own many software patents, and it is very likely that they do apply to Linux, and it is very probable that without a license for those patents you are using illegal software.
It is also very possible that a proper investigation of the nature of those patents – i.e. one based on knowing what those patents are, and one of the kind of which the USPTO won’t provide – will find that many of those patents are invalid, because they are “nonobvious” or violate some other requirement of a patent according to US law. Unfortunately MS has the ability to bury most litigants six feet under before such a ruling is made.
Within those bounds, a Customer should feel more confident buying from Novell.
Actually, I would argue they should feel less confident buying from Novell. Why? Because they are quite happy to see their agents/partners dick around with people using a patent system that everyone (including yourself) agrees is broken. You can’t trust that kind of company – which, in a rather circular proof of argument, is exactly why they want to lock you in.
It has been said so many times, so I’ll repeat it again.
The moment any patents/copyright issues get disclosed by MS, the OSS community will expunge it from all the major distributions/software. We are waiting patiently for MS to actually get off their arses and prove that they’re not another SCO.
That’s the unfortunate, broken thing about the current patent system. For a company to protect its patents, public disclosure of specifics is not usually allowed. If the Linux community wants full, open disclosure, they need to get people to fix the patent system that threatens them first. In the meantime, they will continue to suffer under a cloud of doubt.
If software is going to be “free” you have to be willing to take the good with the bad. Something about free will and what not.
Its freedom with laws in place that protect users (people) and idealogy.
…sort of like real life society.
“its freedom with laws” isn’t freedom anymore, it’s nonsense. Real freedom is freedom without any tradeoff and it’s based on common sense. Real freedom needs courage, courage to actually live freedom and yes you have to bear the possible consequences but that’s life. This “FSF freedom” is a mockery of every principle of humanity. Read some of the great philosopheres, not some bearded zealot! Call this open-source dictatorship, but don’t befoul the memento of people who died for the real meaning of this precious freedom. It’s sick to talk of “free as in freedom” in terms of mere software.
You can of course call me a zealot because of this rant of mine, but remember RMS is the one who is picky about the “true meaning of words” and therefore he fails.
It’s open-source. Period.
“”its freedom with laws” isn’t freedom anymore, it’s nonsense. Real freedom is freedom without any tradeoff and it’s based on common sense.”
Magna Carta
I’m not sure I agree, but laws to protect freedom. Is a valid idea.
I provide this link because its off topic but a good read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
Edited 2007-03-21 01:41
You bring up a good point. And is something that is most often overlooked: Open Source isn’t about the freedoms of the users. It’s about freedoms of the source code.
Freedom for the users (devs) is at the BSD/MIT camp.
“Freedom for the users (devs) is at the BSD/MIT camp.
”
I believe you have not been keeping up to date with the Beryl team are scummbags for using that very same freedom, by relicensing their code under GPL.
please tell me how BSD code used in a binary application increases my freedom.
I believe you have not been keeping up to date with the Beryl team are scummbags for using that very same freedom, by relicensing their code under GPL.
Beryl team are scumbags? The Beryl team can do what they want. The Compiz team knew of the consequences of their actions when they licensed some of their source code under a more liberal license (MIT).
please tell me how BSD code used in a binary application increases my freedom.
If you want to sell a closed a closed source version of X Windows Server and Compiz with extra features? There are no restrictive licenses (GPL, Shared Source) to get in your way.
Now if another uses BSD code that is free/unrestricted and makes a profit selling it as a binary. Why does it matter to you? That person never cheated you nor ever stole from you. How can you feel cheated?
“Beryl team are scumbags? The Beryl team can do what they want. The Compiz team knew of the consequences of their actions when they licensed some of their source code under a more liberal license (MIT). ”
I agree unfortunately the compiz devs don’t, and many of there user don’t…and are very vocal on the subject, and yet the compiz devs chose the license.
“If you want to sell a closed a closed source version of X Windows Server and Compiz with extra features? There are no restrictive licenses (GPL, Shared Source) to get in your way.
Now if another uses BSD code that is free/unrestricted and makes a profit selling it as a binary. Why does it matter to you? That person never cheated you nor ever stole from you. How can you feel cheated?”
so when you bolded the word user you actually meant to delete it. show me *my* freedom from a binary package.
Edited 2007-03-21 01:34
I agree unfortunately the compiz devs don’t, and many of there user don’t…and are very vocal on the subject, and yet the compiz devs chose the license.
Someone took something that had a certain freedom and did a lock-in into a copyleft license. They’ll have to accept that reality if they didn’t already.
so when you bolded the word user you actually meant to delete it. show me *my* freedom from a binary package.
The bolded word was meant as part of my sentence.
I already did show you your freedom. The source code is under a non-restrictive license so there are more ways to do deliver a final product to the user. Taking advantage of that freedom is up to you. That additional freedom isn’t available to GPL/LGPL source code users. Only BSD/MIT source code provide this freedom to the users.
My original post stands.
If you want to sell a closed a closed source version of X Windows Server and Compiz with extra features? There are no restrictive licenses (GPL, Shared Source) to get in your way.
The source code is under a non-restrictive license so there are more ways to do deliver a final product … Only BSD/MIT source code provide this freedom to the users.
Freedom for the users (devs) is at the BSD/MIT camp.
By ‘users’ you obviously mean developers (you say so in fact). It’s doing my head in since most people take ‘users’ to mean the end users.
Sure one can say BSD gives more freedom to developers. They can take things other people wrote and include them in proprietary products and sell them.
Users on the other hand, the people who receive this software, find their freedom to make further changes impaired.
Anyway, I think we all know the differences between GPL and BSD. I’m mostly just posting to ask you to stop saying ‘users’ when you mean developers. Yeah, developers ‘use’ code (and often they use the final product they created) but ‘users’ almost always means something else: the people who download or buy or receive preloaded copies of the software.
>>Freedom for the users (devs) is at the BSD/MIT camp.
By ‘users’ you obviously mean developers (you say so in fact). It’s doing my head in since most people take ‘users’ to mean the end users.
Sure one can say BSD gives more freedom to developers. They can take things other people wrote and include them in proprietary products and sell them.
… and there’s the rub, of course. The only people who care about the freedom of code are developers, and not users.
A “user” as per your definition couldn’t care a hoot about whether or not he has the “freedom” to change the software to his hearts content. He cares only about functionality and quality, and whether or not he has the right(or license) to run the program. Who produced or owns the program, and even to an extent, whether or not the user had to pay for a license, does not overtly affect the user.
Developers are what the GPL is all about. Back in the early days, programmers just shared their code and ideas with one another freely. RMS was part of that.
Then companies came along with their “proprietary keep it secret” approach, and despite their repeated vehement claims that “IT is not a differentiator in business” they started making oodles of boodle from other people’s ideas. Telling the developer that his ideas are somehow the “intellectual property of the company” because he was [under]paid as a developer for the company is, in my opinion, the root of all of this trouble.
It is also, in my mind, blatant theft.
An idea produced by the intellect of an individual is and remains the attributable intellectual property of that individual- in every demonstrable industry other than software development. The individual should retain the right to exercise his own ideas as often as circumstance warrants without restraint. How that idea mysteriously becomes property of the company, and thus becomes patentable (by the company) and subsequently restricted is beyond me.
That is why RMS is against proprietary software development. Not because he doesn’t want developers to be paid, but because he does not believe that the ideas produced by developers should automatically become property of his employer.
Tomas Edison invented the light bulb, so they say; The concept and idea of the light bulb will, rightly or wrongly forever be attributed to that individual.
It is that basic freedom – the freedom to share ideas and code between developers – which I believe RMS wants to re-capture and preserve. Freedom from restrictions such as patents and copyright, and in this I support and laud his efforts.
Whether or not his methods are entirely condoned by everyone (myself included) is an academic question and largely immaterial (certainly I doubt RMS loses any sleep over it); no-one acts completely without risk of acting in error, and everyone is fallible.
At least he acts, and with enviable courage
By ‘users’ you obviously mean developers (you say so in fact). It’s doing my head in since most people take ‘users’ to mean the end users.
I was explicitly specified so on my first post. The context was between source code and developpers. You bring in the end users.
Sure one can say BSD gives more freedom to developers. They can take things other people wrote and include them in proprietary products and sell them.
Yes and that’s good.
Users on the other hand, the people who receive this software, find their freedom to make further changes impaired.
No. Nintendo GameCube users (end users) don’t pretty much care that BSD-licensed uPnP code is used each time they play multiplayer GameCube games.
Anyway, I think we all know the differences between GPL and BSD. I’m mostly just posting to ask you to stop saying ‘users’ when you mean developers. Yeah, developers ‘use’ code (and often they use the final product they created) but ‘users’ almost always means something else: the people who download or buy or receive preloaded copies of the software.
No. lol
No. Nintendo GameCube users (end users) don’t pretty much care that BSD-licensed uPnP code is used each time they play multiplayer GameCube games.
Though console users may not be the best example, that’s very true, and most users of proprietary computer software that includes BSD code don’t care either. Their freedom is still impinged though, even if they don’t care about it.
re: please say users when you mean users:
No. lol
I assumed maybe you were not a native speaker and unaware of what you were doing. Purposely saying users when you mean developers is just deliberate obfuscation of your meaning, and only makes sense in the context of spreading misinformation.
Now that’s not entirely fair of me, it’s a muddled situation. The only users who care about retaining the freedom to make further changes by the act of making changes become developers themselves. Saying if users are developers, developers are users would carry a bit more weight than “no lol” but I guess it saved you time
By ‘users’ you obviously mean developers (you say so in fact). It’s doing my head in since most people take ‘users’ to mean the end users.
developers can also be end users. In fact for many things whwre ther difference between GPL and BSD is significant, like for example libraries, developers are the only end users.
As an end user of a photo editing app it makes little practical difference to me if that app is under the GPL or BSD. As the end user of a gui toolkit the difference between GPL and BSD is huge.
Freedom doesn’t mean free beer/apps, sorry. If the BSD binary was result of modification of some open code licensed under BSD you can take the very same source and do almost whatever you want.
“Freedom doesn’t mean free beer/apps, sorry. If the BSD binary was result of modification of some open code licensed under BSD you can take the very same source and do almost whatever you want.”
No you can’t. That the point. I objected to the word users and now I will go further. I object to the word developers. The word is *companies*
BSD/MIT license allows a *company* to use the source BSD Licensed code in their propriety applications without *giving* anything back to the original code. It even allows them to *patent* changes in that code. In fact you cannot actually have access to their additions; bugfixes etc. Thats the point.
Do companies who don’t want to open source(sic) there applications prefer this…absolutely, but please don’t try and dress it up as freedom.
I’ve meant the source as it was before the changes without sharing. Allowing such a commercial use is the point, closed code has it’s place in the market, think of it as real alternative to software patents
“Doesn’t “freedom” also include the freedom to use your software any way you like?”
Yes, and it also included the freedom to criticize anyone or anything you want.
I’m starting to get kind of sick at the retaliation Novell is taking from some elements of the open-source community. Doesn’t “freedom” also include the freedom to use your software any way you like?
What is the alternative? Do a Microsoft, join a committee like OASIS, then turn around complaining that when something has been ratified, their ‘views’ weren’t included, even though they did very little to make their opinion known on the matter as to whether the standard was lacking in some way.
For me, I’d sooner have Novell come out *now* along with other players, over their concerns which people have with GPL3, then them coming out of the woodwork a few months down the track, claiming that they need to create a licence of their own – and yet, did very little at the time to make their concerns known.
I’m starting to get kind of sick at the retaliation Novell is taking from some elements of the open-source community. Doesn’t “freedom” also include the freedom to use your software any way you like?
Indeed it does. Question is why you make it sound like proprietary software in general, or Microsoft in particular, gives it to you.
It was always going to take a long time. What is not explained and I think is interesting is this.
“At least two important open-source companies, Sun and MySQL, are also seriously considering using the GPLv3.”
When Sun was talking about dual-licensing and MySQL was talking about going GPL2-only.
Is there something I *don’t* know
No, you are correct. Mysql actually updated the license on all of their released code to explicit gplv2 only.
Linus Torvalds still has some serious beef with the gplv2 and many other kernel developers will not re-license their code to gplv3. The fact is that Linus is ok with Tivo using the Linux kernel.
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS9176416288.html
It is looking like some projects might actually fork once gpl3 is released. It is sad that the FSF is taking their religious mission to the extreme of changing things by changing the license so many people trust. A lot of people (including myself) have lost a good bunch of faith in the FSF for this.
They have went to promoting free software to promoting their own ideological ideals and fanaticism.
why is Novell the only Linux distributer to do engage in such an odd patent deal, that only applies to Novell and Microsoft customers—rather than how all other companies licensed patents to all GPL distributers–in an attempt to find a loophole in the GPLv2 then? You’d think Red Hat would want a GPL3 because then Microsoft wouldn’t be making money (from SUSE royalties and coupons) off code they contributed. I don’t believe other companies contributed GPL’d code in the hope of that either.
So I don’t see this as the FSF doing anything “fanatic” other than trying to hold the four freedoms that, funnily enough, seem to have made business sense as well. Why else would they be consulting with lawyers from so many different companies, an open draft proceess, etc?
Edited 2007-03-20 22:59
I object to the word religious esp after seeing this interesting quote.
“I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorist .. I strongly believe that if September 11 showed us anything, it was that zealots”, Rob Enderle
unlike reputable(sic) influential technology analysts. I have a soul.
the only word that you could use is fanatic..and thats only becuase it comes from fan. You can say FSF is “political” and “GPL” is a political license because they are…and have always said so.
How would you respond if a seemingly innocent buisness transaction turned out to inflict wide-spread collateral damage?
Edited 2007-03-20 23:10
How would you respond if things like coreutils and influential gnu projects in the OSS world fork because of the gpl3 (making it easy for Microsoft to spread FUD)?
The gpl3 has very grave consequences. It has the potential (or not) to fracture critical parts of the open source stack. Many people don’t seem to realize just how ugly this could turn out.
The gpl3 has very grave consequences. It has the potential (or not) to fracture critical parts of the open source stack. Many people don’t seem to realize just how ugly this could turn out.
Maybe, but it’s inevitable and they may as well get it over with. Linux needed GNU to develop, and GNU needed Linux for relevance. It’s clear they’re moving in different directions, the split in development philosophies is only going to grow.
It boils down to a divide that either views Linux Inc. as driving massive commercial investment that benefits the community for free, or as draining free community investment for beneficial commercial gain. The hardliners are polar in their viewpoints, everyone else is somewhere in between but leaning one way or the other, and perhaps it’s time for people to decide and commit.
It’s tantamount to a couple on the verge of divorce staying together for the sake of the children, not realizing that the children have already moved out of the house and are ready to get on with their lives.
I agree v3 has consequences, but I think the consequences are more to the FSF than linux or even FLOSS in general. Linux Inc. and the billions behind it is what brought both Linux and GNU from being interesting grassroots projects to their current level of achievement. If v3 threatens Linux Inc. in any way when it’s released, Linux Inc. will split from the fold. They have the resources and development power to survive a fork. I suspect the FSF doesn’t. Of course they’ll possibly have openSolaris soon, if Sun follows through, and then it can become a v3 vs CDDL battle instead, and becomes Sun Inc.’s headache instead.
OSS will survive. FLOSS will survive. Linux will certainly survive. The community will maybe fracture, but ultimately survive. This really only boils down to a test of the community’s resolve for libre idealism and the extent to which resource-rich corporate contributors (the Inc. in Linux Inc.) will play along, and ultimately relevance for the FSF’s vision going forward.
Only time will tell how it all shakes out, the one thing that is certain is that not everyone will be happy or satisfied with the results.
and now that people start seeing the damages/consequences like I have said mnay times before, wouldn’t it be a brilliant idea to try to limit the damage?
The “community split” already has taken place, and we all have our ideas how that happened and which parties benefit the most from it.
It all started with the MS/Novell deal and if people now first take their pills and wait until the biling blood is over, we might analyze the stuff better.
In the netherlands, the patent deal is sweet paper filling and of exaclty 0% value. It’s all between Novell and MS.
Secondly, signs are that there are people trying to at least get interoperability. Given the GPL, most of it will be given back to the community so the community benefits. Novell in the past has done this already *before* the MS deal.
Now, it seems that the perfectly legal stuff is now being ended by having a new GPL version that tries to let (partially) good things to happen.
It’s like someone is drowning and someone else tries to keep me from resueing the poor soul in the water. That really is a bad thing.
It’s exactly the reason why the forks *will* happen and it could be stopped if more sensible people start working on the GPLv3 instead of the semi-zealotry that happens because people simply don’t want the things to mature and go forward.
Limit the damages, tell FSF they are just as wrong…
Discrediting the FSF is not what I am trying to do nor do I have anything to gain if I do. If you are an absolute diehard fanatic towards anything including religion, software, cars, etc, you are a zealot.
RMS believes that there should be 0 proprietary software in the world and that you are *wrong* if you write proprietary software. I asked him at his recent talk at the University of Southern California. I believe that software developers have families they need to feed and that if they get paid to write proprietary software, that is ok.
If you object to my wording, I am sorry, but it is what it is and that is zealotry.
“diehard fanatic towards anything including religion, software, cars, etc, you are a zealot.”
No if your a “diehard fanatic” your probably at best a diehard fanatic.
“RMS believes that there should be 0 proprietary software in the world and that you are *wrong* if you write proprietary software.”
wow and you have a different opinion, does that make you a zealot. I’m confused.
“I believe that software developers have families they need to feed and that if they get paid to write proprietary software, that is ok.”
I notice you haven’t actually used his reply, although I am confused as to why a company like IBM has invested 2Billion in Linux…and counting. I believe Red Hat make the occasional bit of cash. etc etc. Although I’m more interested in his reply which you have *omitted*
…and yes I object to language very much its offensive.
Edited 2007-03-20 23:49
“Discrediting the FSF is not what I am trying to do nor do I have anything to gain if I do. If you are an absolute diehard fanatic towards anything including religion, software, cars, etc, you are a zealot.
RMS believes that there should be 0 proprietary software in the world and that you are *wrong* if you write proprietary software. I asked him at his recent talk at the University of Southern California. I believe that software developers have families they need to feed and that if they get paid to write proprietary software, that is ok.
If you object to my wording, I am sorry, but it is what it is and that is zealotry.”
What I liked best about this post is SEJeff’s Bio
“Bio: Unix/Linux Systems Administrator. SLES 9 and 10, RHEL 3 and 4, HP-UX (Unix) 11i, Solaris 9, and a wee bit of oldschool AIX.”
I find it odd that you are calling anyone a zealot, when *YOU* make money from proving a service for free software. I have never seen such hypocrisy. Points for the irony here.
Edited 2007-03-20 23:57
You can try to discredit me all you want but I’m not here to play childish games.
Again, I apologize for offending you, but will not retract my words. Linux is my love, life, and passion. I write open source and release it for free such as this:
http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/scripts/
If someone wants to make money from proprietary software, that is their choice. It is not inherently wrong. I prefer to make a living working with open source, helping other people less experienced than myself, and making it better in general. This helps the world as a whole. Until you can say you’ve done something productive to help the open source community, please don’t attack those of us that actually have.
Summary:
Open source isn’t going away. Proprietary software is not evil. People that think you are a bad person for writing proprietary software to feed your family have issues and are zealots. Every time you argue about gpl3, god kills a kitten.
I’m not playing childish games I’m *openly* calling you a hypocrite.
You make *money* from free software.
Summary
You have a difference of *opinion* so you call the other side religious and a fanatic or a zealot. Be honest its just an insult not an *objective* argument or a point its just namecalling. Its done to discredit the other side. I see the same thing over console wars, or HD-DVD and its a bit sad really.
I make points. I don’t call names
No, I make money from open source software. The fact that it is free is a side effect. Richard Stallman openly said that you are wrong for writing proprietary software at the USC talk he gave a week or so ago. I disagree with that in that he has no right to tell me I can (or can’t) write proprietary software any more than I can tell him what car he must drive.
Me saying you are *wrong* for doing anything that doesn’t hurt me doesn’t make much sence. You are free to openly critisize and do whatever you want to me. That is ok.
I am sticking to my guns that proprietary software is ok if it is the best tool for the job. In 95% of the places I work, OSS is the best tool for the job. In places where it isn’t such as virtualization and VMWare’s ESX server with VMotion, we use proprietary software. Zealotry is about being close-minded. Sorry, but being close minded doesn’t fly that well with me.
Open source (or free software if you must call it so) is the best tool for what I do. That doesn’t mean it is the right tool for what you or anyone else does.
So please explain how I am a hypocrite in saying it is not evil to write proprietary software. All of the software I write is Open source and most of the software I use or encourage others to use is also OSS.
Are you saying RMS is right and that anyone who writes proprietary software is evil and hurts society? I put that directly in line with the thought that abortion clinics should all be bombed. The only difference is the level of violence. The thoughts are the same.
“I put that directly in line with the thought that abortion clinics should all be bombed. The only difference is the level of violence.”
Thats the rub, I find that kind of talk difficult to stomach. I find it appalling, and your analogy ironic.
“So please explain how I am a hypocrite in saying it is not evil to write proprietary software”
*I don’t* thats a *different statement* I was more interested in your statement involving people starving when clearly your not, you are part of providing a *service* talked about in the GNU manifesto, and I’ll say it again your a hypocrite.
Thats the rub, I find that kind of talk difficult to stomach. I
find it appalling, and your analogy ironic.
Difficult to stomach doesn’t mean it is any less radical or true.
Again, I apologize for offending you personally as it is not my
intentions.
And I am *NOT* a software developer… I am a systems administrator.
If you don’t understand the difference, you need to. When speaking
about software developers and feeding their families, I have a friend
who was in that situation. He was hired by IBM to work on lotus. That
isn’t evil.
You are free to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to
agree with it. As a matter of fact
http://digitalprognosis.com/album/pictures.php?pic=63, I joined the
military believing it would help me defend the rights of others to say
whatever they want. (We would probably agree on thoughts of the Iraq’s
justification and I was there for a year).
Like Linus Torvalds, I am not inline with RMS, the GNU manifesto, or
free software in general. Open source software is one of the best
forms of software development (over time) there is. I believe it
empowers the consumer instead of the producer unlike proprietary
software. In the end, OSS will overcome proprietary software and I am
here to make sure that happens. In the meantime, proprietary software
will stay alive and quite healthy.
So, since you continue to be closed minded and totally ignore what I
say, I will be the big man and end this thread. Maybe you are confused
that I am talking about opensource software and you are talking about
free software. This thread has nothing helpful to the rest of the
OSNews readers and is a pointless rant where you are a bit irritated
at what I said. If you do something helpful to further the open source
community, that is great.
I don’t really care what you think.
Clearly I would like it if you made your mind up as to being a developer or not
The reality is I am not irritated. I’m offended, and feel pity for you.
I’m aware of Linus Torvalds political views, and that of Richard Stallmans. The fact that you talk about you beliving in open source(sic) and me believing in free software. Your responses only show the *influence* of Linus. Personally I would rather Linus focus on *promoting* Linux as an alternative to proprietary
software rather than, sullying others names.
I’m glad you talked about the “development model” becuase if thats what matters that *should* have been what you talked about instead of “Iraq” and “Abortion Clinics” and other emotional comments; Zealoty, Religion etc etc.
Linus comments are for all to see as are Richard Stallmans. Choosing the simple topic of what I will headline *compromise*. Anyone who wants to develop for the Tivo; Wants AIGLX on an AMD Card; has a R200 based AMD card; Chose to use Bitkeeper. Understands that compromise is not always a good thing. Although anyone who wants to play a Movie; View Flash; knows that this is not always right for *them*.
I’ve pointed out negatives of both approaches. The truth is that from the development of Linux as a whole. Compromise only offers *short* term benefits, and is harmful in the *long* term. This has been shown time and time again. If there was a *benevolent dictator* which there isn’t, the right choices *may* be made, but the Bitkeeper fiasco showed us that this is actually hard to do.
The argument between Open source(sic) and free software is hard, and I *believe* that there are not two sides, its more complicated than that. The whole argument is very grey, and that reflects *most* peoples computer usage.
but more than any of this I believe quite strongly that calling names as a substitute for real objective arguments, is what people do when they have no *real* arguments, and I think that is the case with you. If the point is good enough to stand on its own merit you would have no need to be offensive.
Open source software is one of the best
forms of software development (over time) there is. I believe it
empowers the consumer instead of the producer unlike proprietary
software.
It’s either incredibly naive to believe, or even more incredibly disingenuous to state, that open source empowers the consumer instead of the producer. Without the fundamental guarantee that open source code will remain open which the GPL gives you, there is NO way to make sure that the balance is not shifted back to proprietary software writers. Which is kinda why proprietary software makers like it.
So, since you continue to be closed minded and totally ignore what I
say, I will be the big man and end this thread.
Oh, that’s SO much in tune with:
I don’t really care what you think.
Shock f–king horror, there.
I disagree with that in that he has no right to tell me I can (or can’t) write proprietary software any more than I can tell him what car he must drive.
Me saying you are *wrong* for doing anything that doesn’t hurt me doesn’t make much sence. You are free to openly critisize and do whatever you want to me. That is ok.
But he _do_ believe that you writing proprietary software hurts him. That’s the whole point of the argument. By you working on proprietary software you rise the chance of exposing the value of your work to someone who can’t benefit from it because the laws denies him/her access to it. It is also the case that the ones who get access to you software is locked-in to your monopoly on services to improve the software, which also is an unnecessary evil, especially if they come to depend on the services of the software.
Hmmmmm “evil”? Man, talk about warped priorities on OS News. Writing software that provides someone with a service they want is not evil. Murder, rape… things like this are evil.
I’m sorry but the poster was right, he just made the mistake of voicing a sane and balanced opinion about open source and RMS in a forum that is overpopulated lately with fanatical loons and fanboys.
[Even if you don’t care, here’s my HO]
Some definitions for clarification first.
– An idealist is someone only consider the moral/philosophical side of the issue (Kant’s categorical imperative..).
– A pragmatic is someone who does not care about that but only about actions and implications in the real, now existing world.
– An asshole is someone who in the first place and after all cares most about himself and proliferation of his own ego.
– A zealot is someone who has an opinion and is radical about it in such a way he does not accept different point of views besides his own. So he claims to have found the truth, sometimes without even trying for or listening to an argumentative debate. Religion is sadly a lot about zealotism.
– A fanatic is a zealot who would kill for enforcing his side of view. There are too many of them on this planet (but almost none of them in the FOSS world, which is good).
– A hypocrite is someone who says A and does B.
So if RMS would start and try patenting some of the gnuutils algorithms, he’d totally be a hippocrat. Notice he is not doing that; he is an idealist at heart and that is the problem many have with him: his lack of pragmatism, which means not going for what will easily work in the current context and saving the revolution for a bit later. I support him on his views about software (there should be no such thing as closed source software!) but his approach to enforce this early (or just in time, as you may also say) risks colletaral damage imho.
> You have a difference of *opinion* so you call the
> other side religious and a fanatic or a zealot. Be
> honest its just an insult not an *objective*
> argument or a point its just namecalling.
Well in fact he is describing a certain behaviour and giving it the – in his view – right name. Difference here is, RMS _is_ right about FOSS on the idealistic level, but not on the pragmatic. Result is, people throwing arguments at each other on those two levels but don’t comprehend that. And that gives you too many flame wars.
>[..] and its a bit sad really.
Yes, name calling is sad. But then again, it’s not the only sad thing, sadly.
regards to the whole screwed planet.
oooops. it got posted. never trust your own paranoid mind.
Edited 2007-03-21 10:50
“Linux is my love, life, and passion.”
So you are a zealot, right?
You can try to discredit me all you want but I’m not here to play childish games.
We don’t have to. The fact that you obviously do not (or pretend to fail to) understand the concept of free software discredits you quite enough, without us having to lift a finger.
If someone wants to make money from proprietary software, that is their choice.
And if someone does not want to buy that proprietary crap^H^H^H^Hsoftware, that is theirs. Good luck getting ME to pay for it. (And no, I don’t pirate proprietary software: I pay for decent software, one of the requirements of which is that it must be open source, or preferably free software.)
People that think you are a bad person for writing proprietary software to feed your family have issues and are zealots.
People that think you are a bad person for writing exclusively OSS software – and that you can’t make a living out of it – are the ones who are zealots with issues.
It’s sickening to see the kind of crap SEJeff spews being modded up.
I believe that software developers have families they need to feed and that if they get paid to write proprietary software, that is ok.
So how far does this “feed the family” argument go? Can you do anything for a living and get away with it if it “feeds the family”?
You have choice in how you feed your family. It’s not like writing proprietary software is the only way to make a living. If you then believe proprietary software is wrong, it should be equally wrong to chose to work on proprietary software.
I’m not saying that you have to think proprietary software is wrong. But saying that you don’t have a choice in how you feed your family is not an argument.
And what if you’re happy writing propriety software and earning a buck from something you wrote? You imply that this is wrong, that the person is evil. Jeez.
So Ford are evil for making cars and not giving you the details of their engineering or engine management software, TV makers likewise, Smoothie makers, the whole world is bad for selling you propriety goods.
Ho hum, yet another unbalanced loon on OSNews. Why is it only in the software world that I find these ideological nuts?
Cue modding down to -5 by rabid foaming mouthed OSS loons. Oh and apologies to all my fellow sane and balanced OSS supporters.
“So Ford are evil for making cars and not giving you the details of their engineering or engine management software, TV makers likewise, Smoothie makers, the whole world is bad for selling you propriety goods.”
I see your point. Of course, in our world today this is normal. But I think it should not be. I’m totally for capitalism, I need to pay for a car because it cost in materials, build time and so on.
But with software and intellectual property it’s something different. It costs nothing to copy windows. I can replicate an OS as complex as windows (or every other OS for that matter) and it costs NOTHING! No materials are used. No construction time is used.
Because wisdom is the only resource that gets bigger if you share (I’m sorry if this sounds strange, it’s a direct translation from German and I don’t know how to say it more beautiful)
But don’t get me wrong, I see you point and realize that this is how it works today. But this doesn’t make it the right way.
But you are paying for time. The time to research and write the software. Granted, after this then it costs a tiny amount to reproduce the media it’s distributed upon but, at the end of the day, it’s a product. Buy it or don’t buy it, it’s as simple as that. No-one forces you to buy Fords. If you don’t like them, get a Chrysler. It’s the same with software. And if you can’t find an alternative that you want then suck it up and pay. Accept that they found a product or niche that no-one else offered, don’t scream for them to open source it and call them evil.
And do you also think that all music should be free? All movies? These can also be distributed for next to nothing. If you don’t like something don’t buy it. If you like it and want it then pay for it. It is indeed the way the world works. There’s no right or wrong in this.
I’d also love to know the average age of the real fanatics that keep banging on and on about these things regardless of a threads original topic. I think some young, socially awkward stereotypes would crawl out the woodwork. I can only assume that their personal lives are very dull if they get so animated about irrelevant things like this.
Me? I’d rather be out on my motorbike :o)
*a Linux and Windows user who just doesn’t care*
And what if you’re happy writing propriety software and earning a buck from something you wrote? You imply that this is wrong, that the person is evil. Jeez.
Most free software proponents “imply” nothing other than they will simply refuse to fund proprietary software makers.
So Ford are evil for making cars and not giving you the details of their engineering or engine management software, TV makers likewise, Smoothie makers, the whole world is bad for selling you propriety goods.
Since when did you need a Ford driving test and Ford petrol to drive a Ford car? Or a Smoothie glass to drink a Smoothie from? THAT is why proprietary software is a REALLY. BAD. IDEA for everyone concerned. Except for the producers of course.
And before you jump down my neck wondering why a good thing for the producer is a bad thing for everyone else, it isn’t: Ford provide cars, which people need. So each of the parties get something out of it. Without free software only the proprietor gets something out of it.
Ho hum, poor analogy. If I run MS Windows I don’t need an MS computer or an MS program to run on it. I can run it on loads of hardware and a ton of software. Much of it, in fact, OSS. And it’s also, as with everything in life, my decision to do so.
Ho hum, poor analogy. If I run MS Windows I don’t need an MS computer or an MS program to run on it.
Hmm, well considering that most computers are supplied by default with MS Windows, I’d say that pretty much qualifies as an “MS computer”. Not to mention the fact that Microsoft has its own document standards, makes sure that most PC manufacturers preload its own software onto most computers, and makes sure others don’t have access to (e.g.) its exchange protocols.
I don’t believe that SEJeff is saying that prop software is wrong, he is saying that the OSS development model is better for developers and consumers, and that it will supplant prop software eventually.
That’s like saying that CRTs are ok, but LCDs are better and will eventually supplant CRTs (which they are doing).
I think he is right too, that OSS is a better development model than closed source development and that in time, it will supplant closed source, but developing closed source apps is not morally wrong, it is just not the most optimimum way of doing things.
I think he is right too, that OSS is a better development model than closed source development and that in time, it will supplant closed source, but developing closed source apps is not morally wrong, it is just not the most optimimum way of doing things.
I prefer to categorise the morality of things like software from a more personal point of view, as I’m still not sure whether an unpersonal thing like software itself[1] (even if it is closed source and properitary) can be “unmoralic”. But judging from years of experience with closed source, open source and free software, I can tell you that closed, properitary software has brought me into many moral conflicts personally.
Shall I fix my friends computer, even if “pirated” pieces of software run on them or in the worst case cause the trouble? Should I do it, when they convince me, that there were very good reasons to obtain it illegal (like no money to buy and a family to feed)? How am I supposed to keep selfesteem as a developer of software, if I can’t fix the problems of my paying customers, because the terms of the license of a driver don’t allow me to take any action, even if I would be able to do so (happened already to me, there are for example some niches in the field of data acqusition, that are filled by only one vendor. And they sometimes shamelessy abuse their tiny monopoly)? Am I supposed to have no moral disputes with myself, if I am forced by sheer market pressure to recomend software to my customers, even if I know that I lock them to one as-close-to-a-monopoly-without-being-found-guilty-as-possible
vendor, that has a track record of exploiting this lock in? Am I really supposed to point my peers to software solutions, that I am simply not able to maintain with the level of profesionality and competence they can expect from me, just because it is considered to be somehow whacky to find properitary software problematic?
These are all no technical reasons, and I agree, that the method of developing software the FOSS way has some great advantages, that will (hopefully) sooner or later make the properitary software model go the way of the dodo.
But for me it is at least as important to have one solution at hand, that allows me to support my friends, family, peers and customers as good as I can without having to deal with morality disputes and conflicts. And as long as the USTPO is an IT-patent printing machine, I consider the moral implications of violating (as it is pure mathematics: should-be invalid) software patents less severe than the reasons I stated above.
To put it short, for me the openess and the “morality” thing about Free software in particular is a feature, not a bug.
Regards
[1] For the record, I’m a pacifist and I don’t find weapons per so unmoralic. Working in the weapon industry would be another, very difficult topic, though.
Edited 2007-03-21 16:06
“Shall I fix my friends computer, even if “pirated” pieces of software run on them or in the worst case cause the trouble?”
Using closed source software and piracy are not really related, morally, one is software produced by using a particular method, and one is very similar to stealing. Being closed source does allow that piece of software to be pirated, but in and of it’s self, closed source is not morally wrong.
“if I am forced by sheer market pressure to recomend software to my customers, even if I know that I lock them to one as-close-to-a-monopoly-without-being-found-guilty-as-possible
vendor”
That is just making excuses. You could suggest something else that does the job just as well, and that could be OSS, or it could be closed source from another vendor. If you are forced to recommend something due to technical reasons, than you picked the right choice. There is no good reason to choose Windows (as that is who you were alluding too), as Linux and Mac OS are fine choices for business desktops, and on the server, Linux and proprietary Unix can do the job as well (or better)
“Am I really supposed to point my peers to software solutions, that I am simply not able to maintain with the level of profesionality and competence they can expect from me”
Another excuse. There is no reason why you can’t be professional and competent and run, use, or recommend prop software, if you know what you are doing, just the same as OSS.
“To put it short, for me the openess and the “morality” thing about Free software in particular is a feature, not a bug.”
I never spoke about the morality of OSS, I just said that working on prop. software is not immoral.
Personally, I also prefer Open source and Free Software, but I work in a Netware(now that is an entirely different discussion) and Windows shop. I run Ubuntu, FreeBSD and Windows at home. I choose what I run, but I find your arguments weak, almost rationalizations for something you don’t really believe
I’m sorry you think I make excuses and that you find my argmuments weak.
Using closed source software and piracy are not really related, morally, one is software produced by using a particular method, and one is very similar to stealing. Being closed source does allow that piece of software to be pirated, but in and of it’s self, closed source is not morally wrong.
“Piracy” occurs nearly to 100% with properitary software, at least in my experience. Mentioning, that I’m strictly opposed to what is called “software pircay”, when a friend of mine addressed me recently to ask, if I could “borrow” her my copy of Mathematica 5.1 (one of two properitary apps I use from time to time), I was in a moral dispute, since I know that she needed this piece of software to pass a course and that her current financial situation would not allow her to even cough up the reduced fee for the Student version.
If you can avoid moral disputes in such a situation, then I wholehartly congratulate you to your firm principles. I ended up de-installing Mathematica from my workstation and installed it on my spare laptop, and lend her this machine during this semester. The Problem is, that my copy of Mathematica comes with a personalised license, that forbids me by letter to even let other people work with my installed copy, let alone pass on the whole machine.
I introduced this point, because for many people the only difference between properitary software and FOSS, that matters for them is the price, which reduces for both to “gratis” when one has a less firm stance on piracy. And given the high, often inflated prices for properitary software titles (not particullary the student edition for Mathematica 5.1, which comes at a quite reasonable, but still high price) many people simply don’t consider “software piracy” stealing, since the costs to replicate the software is as close to zero as it gets. And since many of this people are among my friends and family, I for long had an uneasy time to decide for myself whether I should help them with related IT problems or not. Again, it is possible,that you wouldn’t have or had problems with such situations, but then I tick a little bit different here.
I stopped my “don’t ask, don’t expect them to tell” policy wrt “pirated” software some time ago, when the quality of FOSS titles reached a level of quality so that I could recommend it for daily work (email, wordprocessing,skype,web browsing, solitaire) even to noobs. But before that, I had the options to either act unsocially (which I have done many times) or to infringe upon the letter of a license. Properitary software per se is not the problem here, but the practice of people using (and misusing, in the case of software piracy) is, and this problems many times can be avoided using FOSS products, as they allow me to share working solutions with my peers legally. I usually tell them how they can contribute back to FOSS software in other terms than money (writing bug reports, submiting feature requests, doing artwork) and most of them find that more acceptable than paying way too many of their hard earned Euros for something, that is (or in many cases: should be) a commodity.
Another excuse. There is no reason why you can’t be professional and competent and run, use, or recommend prop software, if you know what you are doing, just the same as OSS.
The plural of anectode is anectodes and not data, I know, but here is another one: I recently worked on the yacht of an old customer (I’m still doing some freelancing for him) and found a very serious bug in the data acquisition software for the weather sensors.
I phoned the company, that produces this piece of propertary software and they told me, that they will fix this bug in the upcomming version, but that this will take some time and they strongly encourage customers to not rely on the (probably) flawed wheater data in the meanwhile. I’m no big guru in the field of consumer software, but having writen quite similar data acquisition software for a living three years long, I *knew* where the bug would reside and I’m positive that I could have fixed this immediatly and would not have had to wait another three weeks for the update to arrive, if the source code had been available and the license would have allowed me to do so. Instead, I had to tell my customer, that although he pays me to fix the IT related problems at his boat, we both would have to wait for someone finishing writing a closed source program and that I would have to travel the 350km to the marina a second time in about a month. This is not the best level of support I’m able to deliver, but I can’t apply my competence and my experience for the good of my customers, because some of the apps are crappy and closed source. Note, that in this field there are only a handful of vendors who produce the software in question with a quite level standard in quality, so switching vendors is most of the time not an option.
If you know of any mission critical (sailing across oceans *is* mission critical in my book) ready FOSS software, that I could recomend for this field (nautical navigation, steering software for the auto-pilot of the boat, all using the per se open NMEA protocoll. Being ablo to deal with the extensions of this protocoll from some GPS and autopilot vendors would be a big plus), I would be very glad to hear about. Thanks in advance!
I never spoke about the morality of OSS, I just said that working on prop. software is not immoral.
If I misread your post, then I’m sorry and stand corrected. I guess I was responding to the usual argument, that RMS says properitary software is inmoral. It’s a dangerous and streched analogy to apply, but I for example would not want to work in the weapon industry, since I object to the usage of weapons on the basis of moral issues and I have developed a similar view on the topic of properitary apps. But this is a decision that is left ot each person on a personal basis, and I hope we can at least reach agreement on this aspect.
choose what I run, but I find your arguments weak, almost rationalizations for something you don’t really believe
I’m sorry, that you think so.
But working and living with software is so fabricated into our social net today, that I find it hard to avoid discussing the morality of using, fixing and, yes developing software. And properitary software (and the patterns of people using it) have brought me in uneasy sitations, hindered me in acting in a social manner and its closed nature has prohibitet me from providing the best level of support I’m able to give in the past. For me, this one additional reason to not promote and actively avoid it. You may have another opinion or experience, but I find matters of morality in general to be an area of very personal decisions.
IHTH
RMS believes that there should be 0 proprietary software in the world and that you are *wrong* if you write proprietary software. I asked him at his recent talk at the University of Southern California. I believe that software developers have families they need to feed and that if they get paid to write proprietary software, that is ok.
Your argument is faulty. RMS is not arguing about programmers getting paid to write code, he is arguing about them writing *proprietary* code whether they are paid or not.
To take your argument out of the computing industry and put it in another context, it is like arguing with someone who believes that chemists should not create biological weapons, by saying that as long as they are getting paid biological weapons are ok by you. And yet biological weapons have been outlawed, without leaving chemists without pay.
That is just a plain stupid analogy! That is no where near the same. Please try to keep you comparisons in the realm of reality, that was really just poor in taste!
Actually, I think it’s a rather apt analogy. And please use argument to prove your case, in future, rather than exclamation marks.
MySQL has said that they expect to go with GPLv3, but they want to see the final draft first. Unlike the Linux kernel developers, they haven’t expressed any opposition.
If all works out as they expect, the GPLv2-only language will be temporary.
See http://www.planetmysql.org/kaj/?p=81 for the official word.
See http://www.planetmysql.org/kaj/?p=81 for the official word.
Maybe it’s me, but it seems that deliberately switching from the “or later clause” they had previously used for 6 years right in the middle of the v3 drafting process, one that they are actively participating in, is far more of an official “word” than anything they could articulate in text, no matter how hard they try to appease the FSF in doing so.
Specifically:
However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license.
What does that mean? General acceptance from whom? For 6 years the thought of a revised license didn’t concern them, until they participated in the process, and now have second thoughts? Not a resounding endorsement of where they think it’s heading, regardless of what the corporate spin is.
But then, I’m a pretty cynical type.
But then, I’m a pretty cynical type.
I know what you mean but have to say that as far as I see, the v2 only clause makes perfect business sense. MySQL does have a business to run and the fact that v3 is re-writing (or re-defining) much of the license does give partners and share holders food for thought.
A lot of people (including myself) have lost a good bunch of faith in the FSF for this.
They have went to promoting free software to promoting their own ideological ideals and fanaticism.
Actually they went from promoting free software to having their efforts being hijacked by the open source movement to taking taking a stand for free software again.
To me it seems like this was the intended result. To show how out of step the FSF is with Corporate america. Im not saying they are right by any means. Im just saying that it looks like MS did this to show that some “Free” software can be just as controlling as proprietary. Sort of pulling the curtain back as it were. To me it looks like an MS EULA move in that they are changing the terms as they see fit to restrict what people can do, right or wrong.
But hey, life goes on anyway.
“To me it seems like this was the intended result. To show how out of step the FSF is with Corporate america. Im not saying they are right by any means. Im just saying that it looks like MS did this to show that some “Free” software can be just as controlling as proprietary. Sort of pulling the curtain back as it were. To me it looks like an MS EULA move in that they are changing the terms as they see fit to restrict what people can do, right or wrong.
But hey, life goes on anyway.”
GPL2 was wrote in 1991 thats a long time ago. License hasn’t changed in 16 years. They want to get the License right. The EULA *shouldn’t* change. GPL2 doesn’t change. If a project goes GPL3 you can still use code that was under GPL2 as just that.
Software under the FSF has you sign the copyright to your additional code away, so they *can* just change the License over. Linux for example would have a harder time.
It is unlikely that GPL3 once finalized will change for a very long time. I just hope it doesn’t take 16 years again.
Edited 2007-03-20 22:52
My point was in regards to the delay. It’s being delayed to try and stop people from doing something. Thats not free.
What Novell did was wrong and could have put the entire FOSS movement in jeopardy from the fear of litigation.
This deal has given Microsoft and likely other companies greater incentive to examine possible patent violations and use scare tactics to milk royalties from FOSS users and companies.
Lets face it. FOSS does violate some existing patents. With millions of software patents in existance, its virtually impossible to develop a large software infrustructure that totally sways clear.
The FOSS movement could never thrive or even survive if bound by expensive royalties let alone litigation.
Edited 2007-03-20 22:59
I doubt the Novell deal could really do that much damage. First off, its based on a fallacy. You can’t sue customers for a company’s patent infringements. Secondly, it seems to me that Novell really are trying to develop more interoperability technologies, specifically for MS office but also AD.
All I see when I look at this deal is the last big closed source only company running very scared. Every other big shot IT company is either contributing or supporting FLOSS. MS can’t fail to see more and more of they’re “partners” jumping ship and as the foremost closed source proponent in the industry, that has got to be worrying.
Yes they (MS) used the deal to create spin and FUD but frankly that hasn’t really gotten them anywhere. Also, the payout to Novell was substantial. If I where to guess at who was infringing on more patents here, my money would not be on Linux.
Although I don’t always agree with it, I understand what the FSF is trying to do and I apllaud RMS for sticking by his original views inspite of the commercial success of FLOSS. Yes, it will be very unpopular with certain people and corporations but as far as I can see, if RMS didn’t stick to his guns, this whole movement would collapse without it’s moral foundation. Now that would suck! 😉
I think that the sheer division over GPL v3 should point to the fact that maybe this is not what the community needs and that it still needs to be refined.
It seems that this Novell deals has us stuck in an infinite loop.
Its obvious from these comments that most people dont know shit about gpl3, dont know how about novell/MS deal, and dont know shit about the stallman, or the community as a whole.
some claim that stallman wants zero proprietary software in the world. well, Wrong: he just wants there to be always a choice to use free software. If there happens to be both, well, fine.
Some claim that the FSF is changing a license so many believes in. Well lets hear it, which one? all the FSF is doing is releasing a NEW license. Everyone is perfectly allowed to stay with gplv2 if they like, nobody will stop them, changes to gplv3 is done on a purely want-to basis from the copyright holders of a project, as it should be.
and attacks on novell? well, they did kindof omit the GPL. The gplv2 obviously has a flaw in this regard, and what the FSF is doing now is NOTHING different from what they did in the creation of gplv2, only back then it wasnt the same threats they were protecting. It seems that those who protest gplv3 wants to inflate the meaning and spirit of the GPL, by somehow now making it cover all ways a project can be exploited. what the gplv3 does now is EXACTLY the same as what v2 did back when it was created. Why do people want to inflate the GPL? are protecting your project from all threats not as important anymore? The world changes, and those who do not change with it will be put at a major disadvantage.
there’re so many licence wars recently…
Browser: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.7196/1644; en; U; ssr)
RMS is campaigning for the rights of the owner of the computer. Freedom is the right of the user to maintain complete control of our own computer systems as well as the right to share the software that runs on our system.
Ladies and gentlemen, you may already know this but advocating for the user’s freedom speaks for itself. The user’s freedoms have been taken over — “conquered”, if you will — by many groups of vendors. It’s difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume these rights or merely restrict them. One thing is for certain, they can be dealt dealt with; this cost will also be quite hefty. I, for one, welcome this new licence and the extra time needed to further examine it. I remind you that as a free software activist, I would remain at ease knowing that my rights as a user will remain as long as due diligence is taken.
The point of free software isn’t about money but the user’s right to run, modify and share software. What is evil about proprietary software is that it restricts the user’s right to do these things.
It is the vendor that controls the software and therefore the vendor decides how the user’s computer operates; the vendor is in control of the user’s computer and not the user. If the software is found to be inadequate, permission must be obtained before the program is modified as required; the user is deprived of their right to improve their own situation. The user is not allowed to share modifications or knowledge obtained from studying the source code; this knowledge becomes secret knowledge. Special permission is required to share the software with others that may find the software useful; society is deprived of the free flow of information. Basically, proprietary vendors design software to construct walls around each user and prevents them from helping themselves; all for the goal of maintaining full control (usually for the purpose of maintaining a monopoly of selling a usage licence to the user).
With free software, the user is not dependant upon anybody. After obtaining the program, the user may choose to tinker with the code or consult a friend or hire any software developer. The user is allowed to share knowledge they’ve obtained with others that have an interest in it. The user is not artificially prevented from empowering themselves.
Nothing says you do not make money with free software; in fact, there is evidence shows that people make money from free software. What we object is that people are making money by depriving users of their right to empower themselves. The model of enforcing a monopoly to selling licences of a program is detrimental to the user’s freedom. So how does one make money from free software? One example is provide a service to download free software, burn onto a disk then sell the disk. Be creative, think of ways of adding value to free software.
As for modding down, you could have used more eloquent words. Language such the words you have chosen can be easily be construed as an personal attack and therefore deserve to be modded down.
I have been struggling for days on the opensource and GPL v3 issue. I hve now considered moving everyting I do to BSD licenses. I mean this community has allowed a few people such as Stallman and Perens to dictate their opinions for a whol community. Thi whole Novell Microsoft thing is ridiculous.
Yes I know that the GPLv3 is not all about that but the majority of publicity surrounding it has been. I am still like what does it matter if novell made the agreement. If the opensource software does not infringe then there is still no problem.
I have contributed code just write your own code do your own research. This license blocking stuff is childish. Novell has brought linux into the enterprise in a lot of areas, they have brought forth a lot of technical advances in the past few months as well. However our problem with Microsoft affects everything involved with them.
Just a couple of years people were bashing redhat for their enterprise move. It sounds to me the the GPL is really anti- business, anti-corporate. Maybe a new licese should say you are free to do with it as you want as long as you share the code publicly and you can not incorporate it in your product and sell without making the code available immediately at the time your product goes on sale. The code is property of no one and no one may lay claim to any part of it after the the incorporated code has been published.
Atleast then we can have less bickering
leaving open source
I have been struggling for days on the opensource and GPL v3 issue. I hve now considered moving everyting I do to BSD licenses.
I hate to break it to ya, but the BSD licence IS an open-source one.
Yes I know that the GPLv3 is not all about that but the majority of publicity surrounding it has been.
So blame the journalists; this shouldn’t reflect on the quality of the GPL{2,3} versus open source licences. Indeed it doesn’t.
I am still like what does it matter if novell made the agreement. If the opensource software does not infringe then there is still no problem.
No-one has yet explained to me sufficiently (and it’s not like I haven’t been asking) why it’s perfectly ok for proprietary software companies to break the terms of FOSS licences, without it also being fair game if FOSS developers do the same to proprietary.
I have contributed code just write your own code do your own research. This license blocking stuff is childish. Novell has brought linux into the enterprise in a lot of areas, they have brought forth a lot of technical advances in the past few months as well. However our problem with Microsoft affects everything involved with them.
Microsoft are quite welcome to come and play in our playground. But what they need to understand is that they can’t make the rules, and then change them again if the game doesn’t go their way. The MS-Novell deal simply demonstrates you couldn’t make them understand it if you wrote it on an ornamental scroll and then shoved it somewhere painful.
Just a couple of years people were bashing redhat for their enterprise move. It sounds to me the the GPL is really anti- business, anti-corporate. Maybe a new licese should say you are free to do with it as you want as long as you share the code publicly and you can not incorporate it in your product and sell without making the code available immediately at the time your product goes on sale. The code is property of no one and no one may lay claim to any part of it after the the incorporated code has been published.
That’s more or less exactly what it does say, except that your version seems considerably less “business-friendly” than the GPL, even if you reckon that the GPL is “business-unfriendly” in the first place – (which I don’t – I simply maintain that it is unethical-business-unfriendly). The whole argument is simply because Microvel found a way to exploit a loophole in the GPL2, which they themselves freely admit (though of course they call it a “bridge”)).
But let’s be clear: Loopholes only exist when it is easy to conform to the letter of the law, whilst going against the clearly-expressed intent of a document.
Edited 2007-03-21 14:53
Please name one bit of exploitation that has happened so far? MS has paid Novell a lot of money, to improve Linux, there is now talk about MS selling Linux support. Novell may have to pay MS lots of money back in the future, but that doesn’t affect me, or any existing OSS software.
The idea of a ‘covenant not to sue’ is still just FUD until MS actually name some patent infringements. At that point, the fun will begin and the patent infringement will be removed from all the American based distros/SW.
Please name one bit of exploitation that has happened so far? MS has paid Novell a lot of money, to improve Linux, there is now talk about MS selling Linux support.
I’ll name two: MS has paid Novell a lot of money “to improve Linux”, but the fact is that if it weren’t for MS’s constant efforts to prevent interoperability, it wouldn’t be half as difficult as it is, and therefore not as expensive. Not only that, but most of the work done to “interoperate” with Microsoft products has been done by forces other than Microsoft.
Novell may have to pay MS lots of money back in the future, but that doesn’t affect me, or any existing OSS software.
It does if it enables them to engage in long, drawn-out cases in which they allege infringement without proof. We were lucky with the SCO case in that a small company, which was in the wrong, chose stupidly to victimize a large one in the right. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that if Microsoft is in the wrong, it’ll pick a target hard to take down.
The idea of a ‘covenant not to sue’ is still just FUD until MS actually name some patent infringements. At that point, the fun will begin and the patent infringement will be removed from all the American based distros/SW.
Which, if true, will likely result in a loss of interoperability between Linux and Windows.
I’ll name two: MS has paid Novell a lot of money
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about exploitation directly resulting from the Novell deal. The fact that MS has paid novell lots of money has been a good thing so far.
It does if it enables them to engage in long, drawn-out cases in which they allege infringement without proof
It doesn’t. MS already had the ability to do that. Anyone with a patent portfolio can claim infringement, and a company as big as microsoft will be able to procrastinate for several years before actually having to disclose the details.
The fact that Novell may go bust as the result of a court case is not a good thing. But it won’t kill the OSS movement. I said at the time that this thing came out, as far as it goes, the Novell deal is not a bad thing. However Novell is making a deal with a particularly agressive company, their future may depend on how MS handles it.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was talking about exploitation directly resulting from the Novell deal. The fact that MS has paid novell lots of money has been a good thing so far.
It would be a good thing if they were paying it to a company that was serious about being open source, like RH. But instead they are paying it to a company whom they obviously have wrapped around their little finger.
It does if it enables them to engage in long, drawn-out cases in which they allege infringement without proof
It doesn’t. MS already had the ability to do that. Anyone with a patent portfolio can claim infringement, and a company as big as microsoft will be able to procrastinate for several years before actually having to disclose the details.
That’s no excuse for giving them more money. Before the deal I was on the point of paying Novell $50 a year for use of their Enterprise distro. Now neither Novell nor Microsoft will ever see a single [other] red cent from me, and I advise others to follow suit.
The fact that Novell may go bust as the result of a court case is not a good thing. But it won’t kill the OSS movement… However Novell is making a deal with a particularly agressive company, their future may depend on how MS handles it.
I suspect the only thing that has kept the FOSS movement alive (apart from the fact that the products are not dependent on the fate of a single company) is interoperability with Microsoft. If that goes before Microsoft are on the back foot, we’re toast.
serious about being open source, like RH.
Erm. OpenOffice? Why isn’t Novell serious about OSS?
Before the deal I was on the point of paying Novell $50 a year for use of their Enterprise distro
I’m not going to comment on your spending decisions. Anyway, I use Ubuntu and Debian distros, so I don’t have too much personal interest in the Novell enterprise pricing. I don’t see however why a business deal of this nature will adversely affect the quality of Novells software products.
If that goes before Microsoft are on the back foot, we’re toast.
Ahh. the joys of living in the EU. also, due to the essentially community, non-corporate nature of OSS, there will always be distros/software out there that will distribute the software.
As mentioned above, the ‘covenant not to sue’ doesn’t actually make it more likely that MS will sue. It’s just FUD.
Erm. OpenOffice? Why isn’t Novell serious about OSS?
Because it’s exploiting a loophole in the GPL?
Anyway, I use Ubuntu and Debian distros, so I don’t have too much personal interest in the Novell enterprise pricing. I don’t see however why a business deal of this nature will adversely affect the quality of Novells software products.
It makes it all the more likely that the GPL2 will be adopted, which is being designed to make exploiting the loophole in GPL2 that Microvel have exploited more difficult. Therefore it could leave Novell trying to update old, GPL2 versions of software relicensed under the GPL3 more difficult.
Regardless, it’s nothing to do with the quality of their software products. It’s about the quality of their service and the likelihood that, if they are successful, they lead those naive enough to trust them straight to Microsoft’s office for a good old whipping. It’s shortsighted to claim this is anything to do with quality code.
Because it’s exploiting a loophole in the GPL?
It’s not a loophole. It doesn’t actually mean anything, for the reasons discussed above. Only when Novell or MS act on it, does it depart from the letter, or spirit of the GPL.
about the quality of their service and the likelihood that, if they are successful, they lead those naive enough to trust them straight to Microsoft’s office for a good old whipping.
I doubt that, they have spent lots of money developing OO.o They’re not likely to just throw that away and tell all their customers to use MS Office.
Regardless, it’s nothing to do with the quality of their software products. It’s about the quality of their service…It’s shortsighted to claim this is anything to do with quality code.
When talking about a commercial(that includes OSS+commercial service agreement) software product, the customer service aspect is implied. And as a consumer willing to invest in software, it would be best for you to consider code quality and service quality. Not some hypothetical patent claims that may or may not happen sometime in the future.
I don’t see how a huge cash injection into any software business can be seen as having nothing to do with that companies ability to develop code.
It’s not a loophole. It doesn’t actually mean anything, for the reasons discussed above. Only when Novell or MS act on it, does it depart from the letter, or spirit of the GPL.
That is a unique perspective.
I doubt that, they have spent lots of money developing OO.o They’re not likely to just throw that away and tell all their customers to use MS Office.
I’m not talking about “tell[ing] all their customers to use MS Office”, and frankly I don’t know where you got the idea that I was. I’m talking about Microsoft-style extortion.
When talking about a commercial(that includes OSS+commercial service agreement) software product, the customer service aspect is implied. And as a consumer willing to invest in software, it would be best for you to consider code quality and service quality. Not some hypothetical patent claims that may or may not happen sometime in the future.
If quality were all that concerned me, as OS’s go then I’d have been running AmigaOS at least three years longer than I did. Microsoft will be happy to tell you that Windows cleaned up the OS market because it was “quality” software. Just about everyone else, however, knows it’s a different story.
And whether it would be “best” to think about “hypothetical patent claims” or not, people do: which is exactly why Microsoft engage in their unmistakeable acts of brigandry.
I don’t see how a huge cash injection into any software business can be seen as having nothing to do with that companies ability to develop code.
And I, OTOH, don’t see how the terms of a deal which clearly goes against the licencing of GPL code can be seen as having nothing to do with a huge cash injection made as a result of that deal.
I’m interested in exactly what you mean by: “which clearly goes against the licencing of GPL”?
I’m interested in exactly what you mean by: “which clearly goes against the licencing of GPL”?
For one thing, Microsoft would like you to think that if you buy Novell’s Linux products, you are free and clear as to any lawsuits Microsoft might bring against other Linux companies and their customers for violating Microsoft patents. Leaving aside the point that you can’t sue (for example) the purchasers of a Ford car model which violates a patent for purchasing that model, you can’t make a deal with one party to GPL code without extending it to all others.
Erm. OpenOffice? Why isn’t Novell serious about OSS?
Citing from a previous OSNews article[1], titled very aptly “Novell: We’re a ‘Mixed-Source’ Company”[1]
He (Maarten Koster, president of Novell Asia-Pacific) added that Novell sees itself a mixed-source company that provides Linux as a “base building block”, together with identity and resource management products that manage a hotchpotch of proprietary and open source software within an IT infrastructure.
From the same article, one paragraph above:
“You’ve got Red Hat as a pure open source company, and you’ve got Microsoft as a [commercial] license-based company,” Koster said. “The reality is, most Novell customers run a mixed-source IT environment.”
My layman interpretation of this (and related, similar) statements on behalf of Novell is, that they use OpenSource (they avoid the term Free software very carefully, btw.) as a vehicle to base their buisness model partially on and would jump ship rather quickly, if they would find an alternative, more “convenient” way to generate income. RedHat is without doubt no saint either, but so far they have sticked to their guns and have put their money where their mouth is. I am no big fan of RedHat, but I have a big deal of respect for their actions and (consistant) behaviour.
As on behalf of the OpenOffice OOXML plugin: I’m still not convinced, that the interoperability deal was crucial for the development of the OOXML plugin, see the efforts from Sun et al. to develop their own versions. And I find it very disturbing, that the plugin is written in mono (well, what else, after all, it is from Novell, right?). Besides the OOXML plugin, could you please tell me what other innovations inthe regime of interoperability have arisen from this deal so far. I have not noticed any, but I may have missed them.
I agree, that the patent deal will not likely result in
gloom and doom patent litigation any time soon. But it has opened a door as it introduced software patents as a differentiating factor in the FOSS landscape and has lend credit to the idea of software patents for many (so far neutral) observers. As a citizen of the EU, I expect this deal to be one of the arguments in favour of a common (and more liberal) software patent legislation, which without doubt will be tried to introduce more sooner than later.
[1]http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16869
[2]http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61977995,00.htm
That’s no excuse for giving them more money. Before the deal I was on the point of paying Novell $50 a year for use of their Enterprise distro. Now neither Novell nor Microsoft will ever see a single [other] red cent from me, and I advise others to follow suit.
When any other software company not named Novell or Microsoft makes directory, server, and workstation administration something less than a total nightmare and actually has a real groupware solution, feel free to let us know.
When any other software company not named Novell or Microsoft makes directory, server, and workstation administration something less than a total nightmare and actually has a real groupware solution, feel free to let us know.
When Microsoft or Novell make it possible to interoperate, longterm, with their directory, server, and workstation administration software and actually has a groupware solution that isn’t lockinware, feel free to let ME know.
When Microsoft or Novell make it possible to interoperate, longterm, with their directory, server, and workstation administration software and actually has a groupware solution that isn’t lockinware, feel free to let ME know.
Why, would you use it even if it was?
Yeah, I get that you hate proprietary software or at the very least, Novell and Microsoft. You ignored the fact that for large networks, there aren’t always totally open solutions that can compete with “lockinware”. Refusing to pay Novell and Microsoft for software is fine, but telling everyone else to avoid it strikes me as ignoring the computing world outside of your home PCs. The game changes when you deal with customers, coworkers, and bosses who expect more than OSS can always deliver.
Yeah, I get that you hate proprietary software or at the very least, Novell and Microsoft. You ignored the fact that for large networks, there aren’t always totally open solutions that can compete with “lockinware”. Refusing to pay Novell and Microsoft for software is fine, but telling everyone else to avoid it strikes me as ignoring the computing world outside of your home PCs. The game changes when you deal with customers, coworkers, and bosses who expect more than OSS can always deliver.
OSS has no deficiency in making groupware that it couldn’t rectify if Microsoft’s protocols were open, and even if it did, proprietary software from companies other than Novell and Microsoft would still be at a disadvantage if they had to deal with closed protocols. Indeed the progress that has been made in Linux vs the little that has been made in Windows in the same timeframe demonstrates that well-supported OSS software is streets ahead of proprietary software in terms of the development process.
OSS has no deficiency in making groupware that it couldn’t rectify if Microsoft’s protocols were open, and even if it did, proprietary software from companies other than Novell and Microsoft would still be at a disadvantage if they had to deal with closed protocols.
You seem to not understand the concept of groupware. Why would an open source project need anything from Microsoft short of documented APIs for client creation? Groupware doesn’t equal Microsoft. Look at Open Exchange. It’s a groupware solution. However, it’s not at the same level of Notes, GroupWise, or Exchange. That has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft’s proprietary protocols, not a thing.
Indeed the progress that has been made in Linux vs the little that has been made in Windows in the same timeframe demonstrates that well-supported OSS software is streets ahead of proprietary software in terms of the development process.
You can’t equate Linux development with the rest of the OSS projects out in the world. You also can’t make a blanket statement that OSS software is ahead of proprietary software as far as the development process. Some instances, yes, it is. Sometimes it is not. You seem to be implying that OSS is somehow of a higher quality in every instance and that’s not the case at all. Plenty of OSS projects have fallen flat on their faces just as proprietary software projects have done the same. I really hate to use a marketing term, but the OSS community cannot and will not be able to deliver all the “solutions” that larger organizations need which some proprietary software can deliver.
Here’s an example right from Novell. Hula, derived from NetMail, was spun into a fully open source project. Continued development was done by Novell employees. Traction in the OSS community was nill. The developers were pulled to do other projects at Novell and the project ended up going into a coma. The point is, just because something is OSS, that doesn’t mean it will survive. Someone has to have the need for a project to contribute. Whether it’s a real need or just an itch they want to scratch so to speak. If there’s no need from open source developers, but there is a need from businesses or organizations, what’s left? The only option, proprietary software.
twenex, you have your cause and that’s fine. However, you should really try to understand the entire scope of the situation before you throw rhetoric at it.
Edited 2007-03-22 13:54
I’m not saying that the OSS model will always result in good software. I’m saying the proprietary model will always result in monopolies and/or orphaned software.
twenex, you have your cause and that’s fine. However, you should really try to understand the entire scope of the situation before you throw rhetoric at it.
Good advice. Why don’t you follow it?
Edited 2007-03-22 15:31
You seem to not understand the concept of groupware. Why would an open source project need anything from Microsoft short of documented APIs for client creation? Groupware doesn’t equal Microsoft. Look at Open Exchange. It’s a groupware solution. However, it’s not at the same level of Notes, GroupWise, or Exchange. That has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft’s proprietary protocols, not a thing.
Open Xchange is designed as a drop-in replacement for Microsoft software. The fact that it doesn’t work as well is directly attributable to the fact, that Microsoft won’t release protocols. The fault is not the OSS software: Look at how quickly Unix was “reinvented” as Linux for an example. This was possible because Unix uses open standards. Microsoft do not.
Good advice. Why don’t you follow it?
Nice retort, very full of substance and reason. Ok, I’ll bite. I have to deal with OSS and proprietary software in a real production environment every single day. The clean and moral OSS only model you’re advocating doesn’t apply to every situation. You have to look at every available option, even if it goes against your political belief. I really don’t think you have to deal with this, so your point of view is very different from mine. If you are a sys admin or network admin for an organization with more than a server or two, I’d be very surprised if you had this type of attitude and still had a job.
Open Xchange is designed as a drop-in replacement for Microsoft software. The fact that it doesn’t work as well is directly attributable to the fact, that Microsoft won’t release protocols. The fault is not the OSS software: Look at how quickly Unix was “reinvented” as Linux for an example. This was possible because Unix uses open standards. Microsoft do not.
What protocols are you talking about? You do realize that Exchange, GroupWise, Notes, Open Xchange are nothing more than glorified MTA servers with lots of extra “features”, right? Since when did SMTP become a Microsoft only tool of the devil? Protocols have absolutely nothing to do with this. How does Open Xchange on Linux have the first thing to do with Microsoft?
Linus started Linux without any POSIX docs. It took him months to get the low level system calls sorted out for basic I/O. POSIX was created by companies to standardize the different versions of Unix. It benefited them, as the vendors, not directly the customers. If I’m not mistaken, you had to actually purchase the POSIX docs for a hefty fee. They were not widely available. Linus didn’t get his hands on them until after he started Linux. Unix was not reinvented as Linux. It took years and a lot of trial an error especially by Linus at the start. I don’t even think it was POSIX compliant until after the 2.X series of kernel(I could be wrong on this).
And finally, I’ll fully agree that I wish Microsoft would conform to standards or at least let everyone else know what their own internal standards are more than they have been doing. Computing life would be better for most of us. However, from the other side, why would they do that? Where’s the benefit to them?
Nice retort, very full of substance and reason. Ok, I’ll bite. I have to deal with OSS and proprietary software in a real production environment every single day. The clean and moral OSS only model you’re advocating doesn’t apply to every situation. You have to look at every available option, even if it goes against your political belief. I really don’t think you have to deal with this, so your point of view is very different from mine. If you are a sys admin or network admin for an organization with more than a server or two, I’d be very surprised if you had this type of attitude and still had a job.
Just because we have to deal with legacy stuff – for example, I once worked at a place where we had an IBM mainframe serving an application through x3270 terminal emulators – doesn’t mean that legacy stuff is the right or the nicest thing to deal with. I myself have to deal with Microsoft Windows on a daily basis, but that doesn’t mean I think either Windows in particular or proprietary software in general holds up in comparison to open solutions. And at least part of my opposition to proprietary software is due to the fact that I have been on the receiving end of product abandonment. By contrast, with open source, if the product is dropped I only have to spend money paying someone to maintain it – I don’t have to acquire the rights to it.
What protocols are you talking about? You do realize that Exchange, GroupWise, Notes, Open Xchange are nothing more than glorified MTA servers with lots of extra “features”, right? Since when did SMTP become a Microsoft only tool of the devil? Protocols have absolutely nothing to do with this. How does Open Xchange on Linux have the first thing to do with Microsoft?
If competitors are prevented from fully operating with Exchange servers, then it’s obvious that either Microsoft is not just using SMTP, or that it has obfuscated the SMTP standard just like it did with SMB.
Linus started Linux without any POSIX docs. It took him months to get the low level system calls sorted out for basic I/O. POSIX was created by companies to standardize the different versions of Unix. It benefited them, as the vendors, not directly the customers. If I’m not mistaken, you had to actually purchase the POSIX docs for a hefty fee. They were not widely available. Linus didn’t get his hands on them until after he started Linux. Unix was not reinvented as Linux. It took years and a lot of trial an error especially by Linus at the start. I don’t even think it was POSIX compliant until after the 2.X series of kernel(I could be wrong on this).
You’re right that POSIX is only available on payment of a hefty free, however the Single Unix Specification, which amounts to the same thing, is available without charge. Nevertheless, it’s possible to create a “Unix-type” operating system without adhering to the POSIX standard – which in fact is why POSIX was created in the first place. If it hadn’t been for the fact that customers were put off by the incompatibilities between “open systems”, the vendors wouldn’t have created POSIX in the first place.
And finally, I’ll fully agree that I wish Microsoft would conform to standards or at least let everyone else know what their own internal standards are more than they have been doing. Computing life would be better for most of us. However, from the other side, why would they do that? Where’s the benefit to them?
As things stand now, there IS no benefit to them, because they are a monopoly. However, this is a situation about which I constantly wonder how we found ourselves in it in the first place. When Chuck Peddle was asked why MOS technology did not attempt to retain a monopoly on the 6502, he said that “people will not give you a monopoly”, they want a second source. The question is why has this been different in software than it is in hardware, when all the evidence indicates that (given that you can create a multiplatform software stack, like Linux or NetBSD or UNIX in general, even when faced with differing hardware) a monopolist software stack has been much more damaging than any monopolist hardware stack.
Just because we have to deal with legacy stuff – for example, I once worked at a place where we had an IBM mainframe serving an application through x3270 terminal emulators – doesn’t mean that legacy stuff is the right or the nicest thing to deal with.
Agreed. On the flip side, it doesn’t always mean OSS is the nicest thing to deal with either.
And at least part of my opposition to proprietary software is due to the fact that I have been on the receiving end of product abandonment.
I feel that pain too. But again, and OSS project can be abandoned too. It’s not a dead end like an abandoned proprietary product, but an unsupported OSS project is just as dead as an unsupported proprietary project(although far more easily revived if you can get someone to do it!).
If competitors are prevented from fully operating with Exchange servers, then it’s obvious that either Microsoft is not just using SMTP, or that it has obfuscated the SMTP standard just like it did with SMB.
You don’t need Exchange or Microsoft servers for a proper groupware solution. Their proprietary bits don’t impact on an OSS project such as Open Xchange from creating a feature comparable product. The only issues you might get into are Active Directory schema hooks if you’re even using AD. I’m not saying it’s not possible to hook an open groupware solution to AD, I just really don’t have enough experience with AD to know.
SMB/CIFS doesn’t really relate to this discussion. Direct file system access required save a file to an NTFS volume isn’t the same as sending an email from a Postfix SMTP server to an exchange based SMTP server.
As things stand now, there IS no benefit to them, because they are a monopoly. However, this is a situation about which I constantly wonder how we found ourselves in it in the first place.
The situation was born from the commercialization of software before the wide spread idea of open source. Let’s forget Microsoft for a second. What benefit would Novell have to open source GroupWise? They are not a monopoly by any stretch, and GroupWise is not the dominant player in that market. It costs money to develop software, unless of course you have community support like Linux, the GNU toolset, OpenBSD and so on. If Hula is any type of indication, there aren’t too many people lining up to develop on any groupware system not employed by the company who owns it.
The question is why has this been different in software than it is in hardware, when all the evidence indicates that (given that you can create a multiplatform software stack, like Linux or NetBSD or UNIX in general, even when faced with differing hardware) a monopolist software stack has been much more damaging than any monopolist hardware stack.
How do we know that a monopolist hardware stack isn’t more damaging? The only reason we “see the light” with software is because there are viable alternatives. That’s not the case with hardware. It’s x86 or bust in most cases when you’re talking about CPU and motherboard combos.
Just for the record, I’m not a blind supporter for proprietary solutions just as I’m not a blind supporter for OSS solutions. I try to make the best decision I can on what to use in specific situations.
Just for the record, I’m not a blind supporter for proprietary solutions just as I’m not a blind supporter for OSS solutions. I try to make the best decision I can on what to use in specific situations.
Nor am I. For example, I will admit that currently, (MS) Publisher is a better product than (for example) Scribus. Having some clip art in Scribus would help immensely.
How do we know that a monopolist hardware stack isn’t more damaging? The only reason we “see the light” with software is because there are viable alternatives. That’s not the case with hardware. It’s x86 or bust in most cases when you’re talking about CPU and motherboard combos.
It may be “x86 or bust”, but we still have two sources for x86 hardware – Intel and AMD. Their products demonstrate that it is possible to construct two different implementations of x86 technology, without them being incompatible – indeed, reputedly not even Intel’s processors now implement the x86 ISA internally. Not only that, but the AS/400 (or whatever it is called this week) has existed on several different “real” architectures whilst remaining compatible with the AS/400 spec.
OTOH, when it comes to “implementing the Windows specification”, insofar as there is any such thing, ReactOS for example is streets behind the progress Linux had made in implementing the Unix/POSIX paradigm/specification in the same timeframe.