FrankoBoy writes for Slashdot: “CRN has an interview with SuSE CEO Richard Seibt in which he claims such things as ‘Linux means two companies: Red Hat and SuSE, and nobody else.’ Another example of this kind of corporatespeak can be found in another interview he did with ZDNet last week. DistroWatch has an article about all this in its current weekly newsletter.”
SuSE CEO’s Two-Distro World
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
From what he shoots seems that he doesn?t know about the recent contract between Mandrake and HP?
Seibt has gone crazy ?cause Red Bug and FuSe lost market this year!!
I hope this guy stops talking like an M$ CEO?
Well.. truth is, you do hear about SuSE + RH strategic moves or big contracts now on a daily basis while you hardly ever hear about Mandrake. One contract won’t save the day for Mandrake.
It has long been said that Linux wouldn’t be ready for anything with 1000 different approached floating around for every feature. Linux can only take off now where like 2-3 companies actaully profilerate so that companies have a clearer idea of where to go to/whom to talk to.
In so far I think his statement is correct. The positioning of RH and SuSE has been a looong ongoing process and I don’t see where Mandrake has done anything like it. Mandrake has no appearent profile these days.
With regard to the Distrowatch article, as far as I know SuSE does provide ISO’s, but doesn’t allow people to distribute them. Consequently, SuSE will never do well on home desktops where people just buy cheap CDs over the Internet.
The DistroWatch article talks about usage which isn’t as important as number of distributions sold. If you base your statistics on that I’d say SuSE would be doing quite well in comparison to its competitors (it certainly hasn’t suffered the financial troubles of Mandrake, nor has it needed to set up a donations scheme).
As an example, I know every workstation in my old computer science department in college ran (and still runs) Windows and SuSE Linux.
“Do you think that Sun, IBM and HP are stringing you along and that at a certain point they will decide to put out their own Linux distribution? They do their own service and support, so why wouldn’t they want to eliminate the middleman–or buy them?
I don’t think that will happen. All of them know the history (of the Unix market) and what happened. If HP makes up its own distribution, then IBM will do the same. And this ends up with endless distributions and differentiation–and that’s what the industry doesn’t want.
But choice means more than the two alternatives presented by SuSE and Red Hat.
But what does choice mean? For instance, on the hardware, they wanted to compete from PCs to servers; they don’t see the OS as a differentiator. If they all made their own distribution, then they’d have to certify their software, and it adds cost to the bottom line.
But if they’re getting rid of Unix, that would suggest there’s room for more Linux distributions. It’s all open source. It’s all transparent.
If you ask them, they will tell you they want to support two distributions.”
Where does he say that it’s a 2 distro show only ? If anything he is saying that the big guys like IBM, HP and Sun etc… are the ones who think/want a 2 distro show.
Distrowatch didn’t appreciate much this pretention of SuSE,
and critics it in a violent editorial
SuSE’s dangerous arrogance
http://www.distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20030818
First, let’s get the facts straight. SuSE is nowhere near to being the second most widely used Linux distribution in the world.
Other critics include their reluctance to release ISOs, to open testing to the genereal public, and ends up with
Unfortunately, it seems likely that the wide acceptance of Linux will undermine the purity of the original ideals that have initiated its development. Yes, profits are important. Yes, there should be companies that benefit from Linux so that they can contribute to its continued prosperity. But is it necessary to resort to dirty tricks and outright lies? Is arrogance of top executives of commercial Linux companies slowly becoming the order of the day? I certainly hope not, Mr Seibt.
Well, they could also have talked about the strange strategy of SuSE , who support Libre software, but base its distro on a proprietary product ( YAST )
“With regard to the Distrowatch article, as far as I know SuSE does provide ISO’s, but doesn’t allow people to distribute them.”
You CAN distribute them. When will people stop claiming the opposite?
Sorry, I had not seen the link to the distrowatch article
Yast is not a proprietary product, it is just not licensed under GPL
http://www.suse.de/en/private/support/licenses/yast.html
And here you can find the sources: ftp://ftp.surfnet.nl/vol/1/suse/suse/i386/8.2/suse/src
By propietary I mean that it’s not free according to either FSF or Open Source definition
http://opensource.org/licenses/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The YaST License
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF.
There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be missing there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really intended.
While this may seems not to be a huge point, this prevents YAST to be included in a libre distribution, that’s why we have 30 setup tools (hence the name Yet Another Setup Tool) who sucks more or less instead of 2 or 3 very good
setup tools.
” By propietary I mean that it’s not free according to either FSF or Open Source definition ”
Well what distro is “free” by FSF. Not even Debian.
Mandrake is free. Debian is free. Linex is free. Slackware is free. Red Hat is free.
Whether RMS thinks that a distro should never even link to proprietary web sites is a different thing. But all of the above distros adhere completely to the GPL, meaning they are 100% GPL, while SUSE isn’t.
Plain and simple. SUSE is trying to sneak proprietary bullshit through the backdoor and lord knows that I didn’t leave the windows world to deal with this bullshit, so I use Mandrake.
“Well what distro is “free” by FSF. Not even Debian.”
RMS’s only beef with Debian is that they actually *gasp!* recognise that their users might require some non-Free software. I personally have no problem with this pragmatic acceptance of reality. It’s only Non-Free if you, the user, want it to be. If you want a totally Free distribution, just choose “No” when debconf asks you if you want Non-Free added to your sources.list, and there you have it.
As an aside, Debian defines itself as “Free” by virtue of it’s *own* definition, not that of the OSI or the FSF. See http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines for more info.
“But all of the above distros adhere completely to the GPL, meaning they are 100% GPL, while SUSE isn’t.”
This is just plain ignorant, sorry. Distributions distribute software under a variety of licenses, but this is perfectly acceptable provided that said licenses all provide the same basic freedoms. Not even the FSF are so arrogant as to think that the GPL is the only Free Software license. See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
The problem with Yast is that you cannot redistribute a modified version. It is not Free for the FSF, neither Open source (for the Open Source initiative). It is clearly proprietary, don’t be afraid with that word.
You can…just read the license!
I know that there are other licenses besides the GPL, thank you very much.
And thanks for creating a strawman to mask the real meat of my argument, which is that YAST is not compatible with the GPL. Why is this important? If SUSE dies, and I hope they do not, nobody would be able to build on their work and create something from their ashes. This kind of continuity has been one of the greatest protections for Linux as it provided some assurance that even if a company disappears, its software doesn’t. It also makes it possible that, heaven forbid, if a company were to be purchased by a third party, the existing codebase can continue to be developed and redistributed by another company that wants to continue to carry the torch. This is strategically important for Linux companies as its competitors cannot just decapitate/by out one single company and kill the momentum behind Linux.
To summarize, SUSE’s distribution is not entirely GPL which makes it difficult to build on it. In the long run, this even undermines the longevity of the SUSE code itself, but they seem quite willing to give that up in their search for profit.
I sleep better knowing that if Mandrake goes under, anybody can continue where Mandrake left off than if I had to go with SUSE and know that the code cannot be maintained if they go down, since the two critical parts of any distribution the installer and the configuration tool (YAST) are not GPLed.
Of course, SUSE Is still largely an open source company, but they are not in the same league as Red Hat or Mandrake. In the very interview that is under discussion, Seibt was asked whether SUSE as Red Hat would put its money where its mouth is by contributing to the open source legal fund that Red Hat had created to protect open source developers.
They are response was vague and non-committal. Each of us have to make choices. I support companies that are 100 % in letter and spirit behind Free Software.
Yes….. Mandrake got a contract with one company for a bundling deal. But remember a few years ago RH had a similar deal with Dell? What ever came out of it? How many people are going to order HP machines with Mandrake? Heck, the only people advertising it is Mandrake.
By comparison, SuSE and RedHat is landing deals just about every now and then. From Munich to Sarawak, I would think SuSE and RedHat are in a much better position. Plus, how many people would tie their business to a company that might bankrupt as oppose another supported by a megacorporation and yet another also supported by that megacorporation and in suplus (where they earned the money is besides the point, the point is that it is unlikely they are going under anytime soon).
Out of curiousity, I followed the link supplied earlier to read the YAST license. You obviously haven’t done so, because then you wouldn’t type stuff like that. It’s not even much, only a page or so, so don’t be afraid, just do it.
From the FSF:
The YaST License
This is not a free software license. The license prohibits distribution for a fee, and that makes it impossible for the software to be included in the many CD-ROM free software collections that are sold by companies and by organizations such as the FSF.
There may be another problem in section 2a, but a word seems to be missing there, so it is hard to be sure what meaning is really intended.
“I know that there are other licenses besides the GPL, thank you very much.”
Really? Your last post certainly didn’t show it.
“And thanks for creating a strawman to mask the real meat of my argument”
No… It’s only a strawman if someone deliberately misrepresents someone else’s argument. That’s not what I did. You said those distros are 100% under the GPL, which is completely untrue. What you said was completely and utterly wrong, and I pointed that out. If what you said isn’t what you meant, that’s no-one’s fault but your own.
“To summarize, SUSE’s distribution is not entirely GPL which makes it difficult to build on it.”
Hey, look, you’ve just made exactly the same mistake again. Debian and RedHat aren’t “entirely GPL”, either. Why don’t you just say “entirely Free Software” or even “entirely FOSS [Free/Open Source Software]” if that’s what you mean?
I use Debian, anyway, so I’m not quite sure who your long, boring, ideologically-driven spiel was aimed at, but I sure hope it wasn’t me.
‘Yes….. Mandrake got a contract with one company for a bundling deal. But remember a few years ago RH had a similar deal with Dell? What ever came out of it? “
MS pulled out all the stops in threatening Dell with its illegal monopoly and put the frighteners into Dell. So much so that when Michael Dell was asked about recently all he could say was “Wooh !” and wave his finger in the air according to the irrepresible Reg. Thats what came out of it.
As for the earlier post that compared Seibt to a MS CEO he is not like an MS CEO he is like an IBM CEO. Seibt was a former very senior IBM Germany executive. He was parachuted into SuSE when IBM bailed it out from near bunkruptcy, SuSE is pretty much an arm of IBM Germany.
stop complaining about lack of ISO’s. Just because you’re not smart enough to do an FTP install doesn’t mean you can’t get it without paying SuSE. big deal that there’s no ISO…it just means that I can save money on cdr’s and cdrw’s AFAIC.
Syntaxis,
You should stick to syntax as semantics isn’t your forte. What I said is very clear. SUSE’s YAST tool is not under a GPL or GPL compatible license whereas those of Red Hat and Mandrake are. These allows these distributions or forks thereof to continue into the future unencumbered by financial woes.
The GPL is not only a license; it is also a social contract that people undertake. It says: play nice.
SUSE, by using YAST, doesn’t play nice. In other ways, by supporting KDE, for example, it does.
I hope this puts our little exchange to rest.
Good day.
GPLed software is not free software. Suppose I want to modify it and redistribute it without source – oh, I’m NOT ALLOWED. So, it follows that GPL software is not free. If there is an axis of software licenses along a line, with least free to the right and most free to the left, then the GPL is somewhere in the middle. It is not entirely proprietary, but it certainly has its restrictive features. According to the obvious (not propagandistic FSF) definition of “free”, the GPL is not free, and therefore Debian, Mandrake and Suse are non-free distributions. People who actually like free software write BSD licenced code. People who don’t care about free software, and in fact dislike truly free software, but hate and despise Microsoft, well, those types write GPLed code.
The restrictions that the GPL places on GPL software are meant to make sure that the software remains free for every one to use and change at perpetuity. Freedom isn’t worth a lot if one I obtain it, I can deny it to you. The GPL says you may have this software, if you are willing to be a good citizen. Just as you were given this software, you cannot prevent others from using it, studying it, changing it.
There is an important caveat here. If you do in-house development for in-house consumption, you do not have to redistribute your changes. So if a company extends a piece of GPL-software for its own use and does not intend to sell it or redistribute it to others, they can keep their changes.
If a developer does not like the GPL, he does not have to use it. The people who release GPL software believe that they benefit by putting their talent on a common pool. I doubt that IBM, HP and Oracle would work on the Linux Kernel if one of them was able to “privatize” the Kernel at any point for its own benefit.
I believe that when the SCO mess is over, many will come to see how instrumental the GPL was to keep Linux on track.
By propietary I mean that it’s not free according to either FSF or Open Source definition
Sorry dude, but that’s a pretty crappy definition of “proprietary”. Proprietary doesn’t mean “something I don’t like because it runs counter to my ideology”, no matter how much RMS’ newspeak would suggest it.
SUSE is a company who is making lots of money with GPL software selling it and not sharing it, that livecd crap and online installation make my point.
@Chemtux and the anonymous who say I should read the licence : do it yourself !
I copy here the article that makes it proprietary :
http://www.suse.com/us/private/support/licenses/yast.html
3. Dissemination
It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. Distribution of the YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full or in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG.
OK ? You cannot redistribute Yast without their consent for a charge. A Free licence gives you this right. Not Free=proprietary. You should make your homework before arguing.
“SUSE is a company who is making lots of money with GPL software selling it and not sharing it, that livecd crap and online installation make my point.”
You are a fool. Go copy someone’s CDs. If you don’t know anybody whose got them: I don’t see a difference between downloading 5 CDs or the respective FTP-branch from the internet bandwidth-wise. Making money with GPL software is exactly what the GPL wants you to be able to do with it. I fail to see how you could possibly turn this against SuSE.
Well I happen to like SuSE, so I guess its just me and Linus then.
I Love SuSE, but this kind of talk might persuade me to change.
“What I said is very clear. SUSE’s YAST tool is not under a GPL or GPL compatible license”
No, that’s not what you said. What you said was:
“But all of the above distros adhere completely to the GPL, meaning they are 100% GPL, while SUSE isn’t.”
Which is wrong, and which I corrected. The above is a direct quote from your post on the first page. Weird that I have to quote it, since you’re the one that wrote it, but there we are.
“I hope this puts our little exchange to rest.”
Likewise.
“The restrictions that the GPL places on GPL software are meant to make sure that the software remains free for every one to use and change at perpetuity”
No, I’m afraid this is wrong. With BSD-licensed software, the code itself remains free for ever, too. The difference is in *derivative works” of said code, which is a different point.
“If you do in-house development for in-house consumption, you do not have to redistribute your changes.”
True, though you get these same rights if you develop with BSD-licensed code, as well as other licenses.
“I doubt that IBM, HP and Oracle would work on the Linux Kernel if one of them was able to “privatize” the Kernel at any point for its own benefit.”
They wouldn’t be able to privatize it even if it were under a more-permissive BSD license, say. The code itself would remain freely-distributable forever, but the difference is that derivative works would not have to be.
… does have some real problems with the summer heat here in Europe…. sunstroke anyone @suse?
Additionally, the GPL is no good if you want to encourage wide-spread adoption, e.g. you want commercial products to use your implementation. The BSD TCP/IP stack is probably the best example of this, and in addition RMS himself recommended that Ogg Vorbis move from the GPL to a more permissive BSD license (see http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/26/1311242.shtml for more details).
SuSE does not want others to make money with YaST2 because it’s one important distinguishing factor of SuSE Linux. It appears from the license that one can distribute it without a fee, but I would say they need to make better use of comma’s in the License.
Bottom line, yast2 and derived work can be distributed without a fee.
I would have to agree at least in spirit with the article that only two distros are likely to have a shot at carving out adequate market share (which equates to $$$) to do battle with MS and survive. As proof of this look at other market examples after all how many categories have more than 2 successful players? Coke and Pepsi, hertz and Avis, Dell and HP. So IMHO SuSE and RedHat emerging with 80% + market share seems likely. The real question now becomes who can claim the other 20%.
The next sentence says “There will be no third distribution that will be supported by the large IT vendors”, this sounds reasonable (ofcourse he is talking about Red Hat and United Linux, not Red Hat and SuSE).
I get the feeling from the article that either his English isn’t too good, or that the interview was conducted in German and the interviewers German wasn’t much good.
Having said that, there are some worrying things such as “They understand that they are safe buying SuSE Linux Enterprise Software because we have a cross-licensing agreement in place with SCO because of the UnitedLinux joint development effort” this is after SCO tried to get an injunction try to stop SuSE from selling their distro.
BTW, why is this news, okay the slashdot posting maybe new, but the interview is two weeks old (just because /. is rehashing old news, OS News doesn’t have to follow suit).
you can modify the source, distribute it or whatever, but you would have to put up a notice on the first screen that it’s not the suse yast and suse doesn’t provide support. If you want to make money out of it suse wants its share.
Even though i don’t use suse (don’t even like them) that seems fair enough for me.
It even seems like a license i would like to release my code under: feel free to play with it, but the commercial part is mine.
_Any_ fee is extremely problematic. There are reasons that someone may want to charge a bit of money for the CDs – shipping and handling, for instance. Even RMS charged you a decent chunk of change to ship you emacs on tape.
Not all of us have the bandwidth for the much-vaunted “FTP install”, either. I’m working off a 56k modem – a $5 set of CDs is a god-send for getting the latest and greatest in a hurry, and SuSE just won’t let me do that.
RedHat is also annoying in this regard, although at least you can work around that (replacing the trademarked art is not so hard, really). Fortunately, they’re going to change that policy soon anyways, since they’re no longer selling a boxed distro come RH10.
-Erwos
“With regard to the Distrowatch article, as far as I know SuSE does provide ISO’s, but doesn’t allow people to distribute them. Consequently, SuSE will never do well on home desktops where people just buy cheap CDs over the Internet. ”
With home users, they usually want proprietary software since they will only be installing on a few computers at the most and want the technical support. The money you save on buying the CDs is only a small part of the whole cost and this only saves money on scale. At this point the Mac is cheaper for me, because there are already software products that work wth it that do what I want. I do not have the ability to design my own software as I cannot work on the computer for long periods of time. I can write and design much quicker than I can program.
Bottom line, yast2 and derived work can be distributed without a fee.
Then it is proprietary. I see no reason to hide the truth or to not accept it.
Well according to RMS all but one distro has GPL issues. But what does he know about the GPL anyway
I believe the reason you can’t but Redhat or SuSE cd’s on places like CheapBytes is that these companies don’t want people buying a knockoff cd calling them up for support saying “But don’t you stand behind your product? Your name’s on it”.
How do you pronounce the name “SuSE”? No one I have ever talked to knows for sure, and it doesn’t say on their website, and I got no response to my email I sent to them asking the question. Is it like “sooce” “sooze” “ess-you-ess-ee” “soo-ess-ee” “suzie” or what?
Thanks!
>>
Then it is proprietary. I see no reason to hide the truth or to not accept it.
>>
having the freedom to view the source, modify it, and then redistribute it without a fee sounds more like “friendly proprietery”.
IMHO SuSE shouldn’t be criticized so heavily for this move. I think it’s more of an issue that they don’t provide some kind of iso’s for the latest versions. This prevents developers from producing packages for the distro.
meant, “friendly proprietary”. should use the spell checker.
Lol!
My money’s on “Soose”… at least, that’s the only pronunciation I’ve ever heard people actually use.
That should’ve been spelt “sooze” just to avoid any potential for ambiguity… sorry ’bout that.
First of all, SuSE is pronounced… well… suse. :p It’s german it is obviously pronounced in the german way. “Sooze” probably is it, if this includes pronouncing the “e”.
YAST is a real problem and it scares me. Not because it’s “friendly proprietary” as someone put it, but because the danger of it is usually ignored, as if it wouldn’t exist. Whenever someone even points them out, a flamewar starts like it just happened, with lots of people trying to defend the YAST license as not beeing proprietary (which is non sense).
While the YAST license isn’t “evil” in any way and I wouldn’t really mind anyone writing software under such a license, but there is one real danger that you can’t talk away: Should SuSE ever become _the_ Linux like Red Hat almost is, then Linux would mean SuSE. No other company could take SuSE and develop from it (like Mandrake, SUN and others did by modifying Red Hat) and should SuSE ever die, the operating system would die, too. Yes of course you don’t have to use YAST, if you can figure out how to install the system in any other way or configure it… Back to the “roots” in every meaning of the word.
Of course it’s illusional to think that SuSE would ever be the only distribution on the market, but the fact that this situation would be so horrible is reason enough for me to be very very sceptical. I don’t see why this is worth risking, when there are other companies doing the same while remaining completely free.
I do not think however that not putting out ISO images is a bad thing in any way. It is a disadvantage for them, sure, but they are perfectly right to do it, as long as they don’t disallow anyone else from doing it (and my understanding is, that they don’t disallow that, as long as it’s distributed for free).
I think your analysis is too dramatic. you forget Linux cannot die, because it is Free Software. For instance, if Mandrakesoft would die, it does not mean Mandrake Linux and its GPL tools die, since the community would carry on their development. Of course, it would be slow down, but it cannot die ! Suse cannot prevent other distributions to have a 100% Free core like RH, Mandrake, Slackware or Gentoo.
On the contrary, if Suse died, Yast could not be freely developped except if they released it under a free licence. BTW, the Yast licence isn’t really developper friendly. Which developper would accept to inprove it for free, if only Suse is allowed to make profit with it and still controls it. Drake tools from Mandrake (and their installer) are GPL. They still control them (then the argument that Yast is not Free so that Suse still controls it is false), but a lot of external developpers participate. And the fact a licence was free makes these projects attractive to developpers : they don’t work for the benefits of only one entity, but for the whole community.
BTW, I prefer the way Red Hat protects its redistribution : they are still 100% free software, but they protect their name. This is in compliance with the Free licences : they give the status of code redistribution, not the trademark status.
OK ? You cannot redistribute Yast without their consent for a charge. A Free licence gives you this right. Not Free=proprietary. You should make your homework before arguing.
Well, it’s good to see that sophism is alive and well. Of course, having pretty arbitrary “working definitions” (cough) doesn’t help much either…
Arbitrary ? The definition of Free software is out since a long time. If a single company controls in fine the redistribution of a product that you may modify, for me it is not free. There is no arbitrary definition here. Free software has been defined in the 70s and prevails now. You may call Yast licence anythging else than proprietary if you want, but certainly not Free.
“”Free software has been defined in the 70s and prevails now.””
Not by me it wasn’t, and I’ll continue to determine the “freeness” of a piece of software for myself, using my own definitions.
This isn’t an attack on you Zeb, but I’m getting very irritated with the constant drivel from the FSF/RMS insinuating that they, and only they, are capable of determining what is and is not “free” software. I don’t know them, don’t care about them, and quite frankly using commentary from them to justify the “freeness”, or lack thereof, displayed by a piece of software is ludicrous IMO. Perhaps GNU should change their logo to a sheep to better compliment their FSF roots.
Ignore that comment, it’s way off-topic. Just a knee-jerk reaction to another thread that devolved into an argument about “free”.
Apologies
What SuSE’s CEO meant by “two distributions” only, it was with regard to coporate certifications. IBM, Novel, Oracle..etc certify their products mainly for RedHat and SuSE, they don’t certify their products to work with “Debian unstable” or “Gentoo 1.4rc1 beta3 alpha5 20030405”.
Regarding YaST license, SuSE has an absolute right of protecting its IP rights and under NO OBLIGATION to release any of its code under FSF-compatible license.
Remember that Linux is not about “ONLY FREE or EVIL”, why do you think the FSF released their compiler as LGPL?
I don’t take that for a personal attack, it is interesting to debate, no problem.
Then :
-who do you think should define Free software ? if it is not the anteriority which prevails ?
– do you think the rights given by the Yast licence are enough to make it “free”, since the company still controls the redistribution of the software.
Regarding YaST license, SuSE has an absolute right of protecting its IP rights and under NO OBLIGATION to release any of its code under FSF-compatible license.
Never claimed the contrary. But this choice can be debated at the ethical level, can’t it ? Since Suse uses Free software to make profits, the question can arise.
“”-who do you think should define Free software ? if it is not the anteriority which prevails ?””
Wasn’t going to post on this thread again, but since you asked the question…
I suppose part of my gripe lies in the idea that there should be ANY authority that believes itself capable of defining what is and is not “free”. I certainly don’t think it should be left to those who have placed themselves in the forefront through being the ones to shout loudest and longest.
Personally I would believe myself to live in a free country (UK if you’re curious), however I recognise that there are controls over my life which actually limit those freedoms. Nonetheless I consider myself to be a free man.
Now it would be quite possible for someone else to claim that by their definition of freedom I am not in fact free, but simply a slave to the will of others. Am I supposed to view their definition as somehow automatically superior to my own judgement?
And so we come to software. Are we incapable of determining for ourselves what is and is not “free” software? It certainly seems that this view is held by the FSF/RMS when they arbitrarily state that a piece of software, or a license, is “free” or not “free”. Very rarely do you see one of their representatives preface such a statement with ‘In our opinion’ or similar. For that reason I can’t shake the feeling that the FSF/RMS somehow expect members of the OSS community to subordinate their own judgement in favour of that held by the FSF/RMS.
Given the generally rebellious nature of the OSS community I’m amazed that there hasn’t been a stronger backlash to this attitude over the years.
I live in UK too (despite I am not British)
Actually, what is important is to know what people are talking about when they say “open source” free or proprietary software. There have been definitions that have been proposed. I admit the definition stay relative to the fundation which propose them, and that “freedom” can have different senses. Anyway, when you talk about “free software”, it is admitted that it is the FSF definition : the 4 rights to use, modify, redistribute and analyse. For the OSS, there is another fundation : the OSI (osi.org), which gave a definittion of OSS. Then one can say : my definition of “open source” is different from the one of the OSI. But this would be very complicated at the end. It is better to leave definitions to the wider accepted use, and choose another word, instead of trying to bend/modify a preexisting definition. Otherwise, we don’t understand anymore what we are talking about.
I would agree in part, and if they were using the term “FSF Software” then there wouldn’t be any problem here. As the FSF they would be quite entitled to state what is/is not “FSF Software”. However they are using the word “free”, which carries with it an original dictionary meaning, and in the process have tried to redefine that meaning to better suit their own ideology.
The term “free software” had meaning long before the advent of the FSF (A very different meaning I might add) and personally I feel they are deliberately using the words “free” and “freedom”, words which carry emotive connations far exceeding any relevance to software, in an attempt to further their own cause.
“Given the generally rebellious nature of the OSS community I’m amazed that there hasn’t been a stronger backlash to this attitude over the years.”
Maybe because the definition is reasonable?
What defines free software according to the FSF is:
1. That you can use the software for whatever you want.
2. That you can read and modify the source.
3. That you can give it to anyone you want.
4. That you can improve it and distribute this improved version.
Do you disagree with that or not? It’s just as simple as saying you are free if you can make your own decisions, walk whereever you want (if you are able to), etc. You can disagree with something but obviously the vast majority of developers shares the FSF definition (including GPL and BSD zealots).
Perhaps “Soozeh” is closer to the German pronounciation.
“”Maybe because the definition is reasonable? “”
It’s only reasonable if you’re looking at it from the same point of view as the FSF and not in isolation.
“”What defines free software according to the FSF is:
1. That you can use the software for whatever you want.
2. That you can read and modify the source.
3. That you can give it to anyone you want.
4. That you can improve it and distribute this improved version.””
Ok, by the numbers:
1 – So long as I abide by a license which itself abides by the definition laid down by the FSF. An organisation which has no authority over my actions whatsoever. Please expain to me why, if I should refuse to adhere to their definition, my application is no longer free? Besides, I want to use my application to fly to the moon. Oops, it’s a Tetris style game, guess that means it’s not free.
2 – This presumes I have the skill to a) Read the language the source is written in b) Program in that language. So presumably any source written in COBOL is, by this definition, not free when I am the one looking at it. Of course if I write using a hex editor then the binary is the source, and I’m distributing it at the same time I distribute the binary. It doesn’t really have to be that radical either. Let’s say I have an in-house compiler, compiling an in-house language. Now I can release the source, thereby making my application “free”, but if I’m the only one with the compiler, and I’ve deliberately made the language obtuse then the source is pretty much worthless to anyone else. Is this application actually “free”? By the definition it is, but my judgement tells me it isn’t.
3 – This presumes that the person I want to give it to actually wants the source. “I wish to give you a virus”, “I don’t want a virus”, “Aww, you do realise you’re making my application not free by refusing to accept don’t you?”.
4 – This has the same problem as 2, with the added problem that I may not have access to any mechanism through which to distribute it. Although it would be amusing to have a Linux distro come complete with a few thousand wax tablets showing the source code.
***
Ok, so I’m being very, very picky, more than a little argumentative, and deliberately using only one meaning of the word “can”, but hopefully you’re getting my point. This definition seems simple when one looks at it from a specific point of view. Change that view and one changes the entire character of the term they’re trying to define. A term which they had no right to try and define in the first place.
Here’s what the OED has to say about the word free:
Not in bondage; at liberty; (of translation)not literal; clear of obstructions; disengaged, available; spontaneous; lavish, unreserved; not charged for.
Now in my opinion, the actual definition of the word “free” as opposed to the FSF generated one, fulfils every requirement needed to describe “free software”. The FSF have deliberately chosen to try and redefine the term to better suit their own purposes.
Free software is software that creates certain freedoms:
1) The freedom to use, see, study, redistribute, etc.
These are true feedoms. Like any exercise of freedom,they require competence. We live in a democracy, but if you want to be a competent political actor, you still have to study the law, learn to organize, be articulate if you want to influence public policy. Lately, and unfortunately, you also need money, but that’s a whole different issue.
The point is that you are being deliberately obtuse in your analysis to the point that it becomes absurd. For example:
“3 – This presumes that the person I want to give it to actually wants the source. “I wish to give you a virus”, “I don’t want a virus”, “Aww, you do realise you’re making my application not free by refusing to accept don’t you?”.
The point about GPL software is that the source should be available to somebody if they WANT it, not that you need to shove it down their throats.
You are the one trying to redefine something that is extremely clear and I suspect that you have ulterior motives for doing so.I suspect that, deep down, you love proprietary software and the fact that other people choose to create and release software in a different manner bothers you. Why should it? It’s their software and they are entitled to do with it as they please and this means that they can release it under whatever license they choose.
Most people have no problem understanding what free software is. Why does it trouble you so much that you as a user may be endowed with certain rights? What’s so bad about this?
Finally, governments are betting on free software because they need their data to be encoded in a transparent and open format. They need access to source code to make sure that there are no loopholes affecting the security of the data that they hold. At a time when electronic voting is about to become a reality, you would do well to ask yourself whether you want to entrust democratic outcomes to a corporation whose software you have no right to review to see what it does. If you are not qualify to study the software for yourself, you can always hire someone that is.
If you are honestly concerned about understanding the importance of free software to a state’s integrity, read this: http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html
Just a short comment: Here in Brazil Eletronic Vote has been reality since more than one decade. And it has been working fine even for the presidential election in a developing country with 170 milion people.
As for the main discussion, I also think Err didn’t notice that his suggestion (taken to a higher degree) even renders the Free Speech to be impossible. Free speech in many cultures requires that you must respect conventions done long before you were born in order to: 1)Be cleary understood 2)Not hurt anyone’s name without a proper cause jsut to profit from th smoke you caused (read SCO).
Social freedom by itself also requires some restrictions. It ever did.
If following the German, then Zoo-zuh would be the closest.
Off-Topic:
If you’re referring to my use of the word “one” instead of “you” then you might like to know that the only reason I use it is because I’ve been ranted at in the past about using “you” in debates. Can’t please all the people all the time I guess *shrug*.
On-Topic:
An interesting letter, but here’s the part that’s relevant to this specific debate.
“”we will assume that what you call “open source software” is what the Bill defines as “free software”, since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill;””
I’m unfamiliar with the Bill in question, but my interpretation of that passage leads me to believe that the Peruvian government has defined what is and is not free software within the terms of the bill. My argument was against the attitude of the FSF when they give the impression that only they are capable of determining what is free software. Unless the Bill in question defines free software as being “Software which fulfils the Free Sofware Foundation’s definition of free” then I thank you for providing evidence that the Peruvian government’s view mirrors my own.
Anyone who automatically assumes that the term “Free Software” refers only to the FSF’s definition is mistaken. Debian use exactly the same phrase to refer to software *they* consider Free – see http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines for their own criteria.
Additionally, whilst the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php) was created in order to focus on the *practical* benefits of the Open Source development model rather than the ideology behind it, it’s nevertheless a fork of the DFSG.
Gentoo are wavering between FSF-approved and OSI-approved requirements for the core components of their distro (http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml).
—-
“However, Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of software unless it conforms to the GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License or some other license approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI.)
Note: We are considering extending the above clause to require that all core Gentoo Linux components must conform to a license approved by the OSI and Free Software Foundation (FSF.)”
—-
Which definition(s) will they ultimately settle on in the end? Who knows?
Just like them, you get to pick and choose, or even formulate your own if you so wish. And if you want to go it alone, the three existing mainstream definitions/guidelines are a good starting point – it’s probably easiest to just edit one of those to taste, especially since you’ll most likely find yourself in agreement with one of them apart from one or two objectionable clauses.
Only 2 Linux companies are certified for SAP, Oracle, Hitachi Data Solutions, etc; SuSE and Red Hat, so for Corporate market, it is a 2 distro world.
What he stated is not far from the truth. And SuSE’s YaST is GPLed and they don’t have ISOs. Oh no, death to SuSE. YaST is a great tool for linux, sure everyone acts like they edit everything by hand, but really only a quarter or half actually do. So many linux users act like if it isn’t free then it’s as bad as Microsoft and if its not straight up geek it sucks. I don’t understand this mentality and most who have it don’t know linux (of course some know it inside and out).
Another thing that pisses me off is all of my fellow linux users who bitch about paying 70 bucks at most (suse pro) for 2 dvds, or 6 cds of programs. I mean give me a break. Windows XP pro is 150 and comes with jack. You can’t declare linux is so great and then bitch about paying 70 dollars for the software. Go pick another distro then and keep using linux…but never actually supporting it.
And yes i know money isn’t the only way to support linux.
And SuSE’s YaST is GPLed
No, it is not. Have you read the licence ?
3. Dissemination
It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. Distribution of the YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full or in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG.
Not the GPL, not a free licence.
And it is not problem of money (I buy Free distros, like Mandrake), it is a problem of principle.
You are right on the GPL, sorry about that.
What is the problem with their principle? They are making money putting out a quality distro…is making money from linux what bothers you, or just that business practices like this give the impression of linux turning into something we all know to well? The latter scares me alot, but I have no problem with “selling” a distro.
It is not a problem with their principle. They have the right to do whatever they want, of course. But people can criticize too, and prefer 100% free distros like RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware or Gentoo. I have no problem with them. The issue is that Suse makes profit because thousands of developpers use Free licences. I can understand that in return, they would not block redistribution of these Free softwares using a non-free installer.
The problem is not that they do money : RH makes money, Mandrake begins to make money, and they use Free software though. Do not consider Free software developers as hippies who do not want to make money. Free software never prevented business.
The issue is that Suse makes profit because thousands of developpers use Free licences. I can understand that in return, they would not block redistribution of these Free softwares using a non-free installer.
The problem is not that they do money : RH makes money, Mandrake begins to make money, and they use Free software though. Do not consider Free software developers as hippies who do not want to make money. Free software never prevented business.
You’re absolutely right! Free software never prevented business, but restrictive software prevents it quite a lot. And the HSF/FSF (Hypocrisy? Software Foundation) lovely license GPL is hardly free, rather restrictive.
The Free software fundation is not the GPL only, troll.
Look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for tens of Free software licences.
It is the choice of the programmer to use GPL or any other licence, not the FSF. The FSF gives only recommendations. The GPL prevents that private companies take the hard work and give nothing in return.
It is why MS loves so much BSD, and you too apparently. You are the hypocrit : you like to take Free work, but want to own it. Exactly like SCO : they criticize the GPL but they distribute Samba 3.
Maybe we all need to use distros other than the two he is talking about.
I want my free BSD.
I got my 2 world distro…SuSE if i want an RPM based and “user friendly” linux (which i love) and Slackware for a more hands on approach. I think SuSE, Mandrake and redhat are in the same league of linux distros…and maybe only one will survive…maybe. Slackware, Gentoo, and Debian are a more hands on and community based and I would be surprised to see them go since they all have a huge following of competent users and coders.
> The restrictions that the GPL places on GPL software
> are meant to make sure that the software remains free
> for every one to use and change at perpetuity.
Bull.
The restrictions that the GPL places on GPL software are meant to make sure you cannot profit from selling a modified version.
There might be much wishy-washy about this fielded by the FSF, like “you can demand a fee”, or “just sell manuals, help, or consulting on your product”, but the fact remains: If you build something on GPL code, you can’t profit from it because customer #1 is allowed to redistribute the source so there won’t be a customer #2.
Otherwise, it would be called “Public Domain”. THAT is what I consider “free” software: Free to do with it whatever you like.
“Otherwise, it would be called “Public Domain”. THAT is what I consider “free” software: Free to do with it whatever you like.”
And why, sir, should I give you my code for you to profit from years of m work while I get nothing in return? As I have said, if you don’t like GPL software, don’t use it. If you don’t like the ethos of sharing that it fosters, don’t use it. If you don’t understand why people want to share their work under an agreement that says, “I’ll share mine if you share yours, don’t use it”, but don’t expect people to give away their labor to you for nothing in return.
People have every right to release software in a way that makes sense to them. As for it being impossible to make money of GPL software, that remains yet to be proven. Red Hat is doing quite well as is Montavista and a bunch of other software/hardware players. And of course, you can always take the MySQL dual-license approach.
Really nice.
> And why, sir, should I give you my code for you to
> profit from years of m work while I get nothing in
> return?
You don’t get anything in return if you give me your code under GPL, either.
> If you don’t understand why people want to share
> their work under an agreement that says, “I’ll
> share mine if you share yours”, don’t use it
Note how the FSF labels licenses that require you to send changes back to the original author (like the Open Public License) as “non-free”.
> don’t expect people to give away their labor to
> you for nothing in return.
Again, the GPL gives me nothing in return, either.
> People have every right to release software in a way
> that makes sense to them.
Looking at the flames I get from people for chosing a license that actually allows me to cover some of the costs involved in hosting the project, I doubt you believe in that statement yourself. The FSF sure doesn’t since it believes that proprietary software is, quote, “a social problem”. If I have that right, why does the FSF actively challenge it?
> As for it being impossible to make money of GPL
> software, that remains yet to be proven. Red Hat
> is doing quite well…
[url=http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20030817.html]Sure they are.[/url] (Do check that link…)
Red Hat is making money off printing manuals, providing shrink-wrapped packages and consulting services. RedHat does not make money off the work they do on GPL’ed code.
Besides, how old is the GPL? How long does it take for GPL advocates to finally succumb to common sense? I do not doubt that a company involved in GPL’ed software can make money – but not off that software.
As for my project, I don’t want to print handbooks. I don’t want to build a company that sells consulting services – if I would, I could very well do so without adding the work on the GPL’ed software.
I hope that my code will be so good I don’t have to provide a help desk for it – and even then, I wouldn’t have time for that because sure as hell my day-to-day job earns me more than a help desk could.
So how am I supposed to make money if I cannot sell the product?
Face it: Placing code under the GPL can work out for a company. For a small team, the code is all they have time to work on, so it’s the code that must earn them their lives, unless you live off charity funds or something.
> And of course, you can always take the MySQL
> dual-license approach.
Or I could just ask you to pay for a product, like mankind did for millenia.
I also don’t like seeing a project of mine ripped, forked, mutated, and spread around the globe in a dozen subtly inconsistent versions.
But that’s yet another matter.
I forgot the bottom line on the last one:
Either your code is really free, or you place restrictions on it.
“Free” means public domain.
You forbid me to use your code and still cover my costs.
I forbid you to use my code without covering my costs.
It’s that simple. Don’t tell me you are free / good while I am proprietary / evil.