Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw)
Groklaw
mentions a new plan to adjust the wording of the GPLv3 license.
"Eben Moglen has now stated that GPLv3
will be redrafted to include clear language that will make the
Novell-Microsoft agreement an obvious GPL violation, and more:
"GPL version 3 will be adjusted so the effect of the current deal is that Microsoft will by giving away access to the very patents Microsoft is trying to assert."
I expect that got Microsoft's attention."
(Log in to post comments)
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:17 UTC (Thu) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] IMHO, licenses should be drafted from basic philosophical principles instead of as responses to this week's headlines (Tivo, Novell, whatever). If you want people to still use your license 15 years from now, it should be short, simple, and to the point. Adding clauses just to deal with specific the 128 people whose behaviour you don't like only introduces legalistic cruft; and cruft increases the chance that people will come up against the letter of the license while trying to follow its spirit.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:22 UTC (Thu) by orospakr (guest, #40684) [Link] Ditto.
The primary reason for the GPLv2's success was that it was very generic.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:05 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Where should the GPLv3 be more 'generic' than it is now?
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:44 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] IMHO, licenses should be drafted from basic philosophical principles instead of as responses to this week's headlines Actually, after reading the Groklaw article, I believe that's exactly what the FSF is trying to do with the GPL 3! The fact is that the Microsoft-Novell deal simply flouts the principles of the GPL, and scrapes by GPL 2 on a technicality. Making sure that the GPL 3 doesn't allow such underhand patent deals is not "adding clauses just to deal with the specific 128 people whose behavious you don't like". It's making sure that the GPL protects the four freedoms the GPL is designed to provide!
thanks but no thanks for the legal advice Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:18 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Adding clauses just to deal with specific the 128 people whose behaviour you don't like only introduces legalistic cruft; and cruft increases the chance that people will come up against the letter of the license while trying to follow its spirit. Yes, that's why most license and contract agreements in the corporate world are short, simple, and to the point. Not like this GPL thing which is being written by amateurs who have no legal experience in software licensing. Or, um, wait a minute... Or, as PJ pointed out on Groklaw when someone raised a similar objection: With legal things, as opposed to code, complexity in the sense of specificity is helpful. The contracts that end up litigated are generally those where there seems to be more than one possible interpretation. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I trust people like Moglen and the many other lawyers scrutinizing GPLv3 to write a tight legal document. (Reasonable people can disagree about what the philosophical goals of that document should be, but Moglen's skill as a "legal coder" is indisputable.)
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:31 UTC (Thu) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link] That would be fine if courts respected that. But they don't. They respect loopholes not philosophical intent.
You are required to translate your philosophy into legalese.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 2:46 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] You're mixing up RL courts with TV courts. In real life they care about intent a lot more than they do on television.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 13:57 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] This differs from country to country. GPL has to work worldwide.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 13:03 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] That's not in general true in RL, allthough frequently true in bad lawyer-soaps.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:35 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] The Novell deal IS inconsistent with GPL v2. The fact that they did it anyway and tries to get away with it ("it not a license, it's a covenant not to sue", "it's not us, it's our customers", ...) may be a sign that the language of the license could be improved. They are doing the right thing here.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 14:00 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] If you want a short licence (as everyone does), go to gplv3.fsf.org and show FSF what bits can be deleted.
GPL is drafted from a philosophical foundation, but it has to work in 21st century Earth, so it tackles the problems that do exist in that time and place.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:30 UTC (Thu) by aisotton (subscriber, #39278) [Link] That's plain stupid. The code currently licensed under GPLv2 will stay licensed that way; Novell/Microsoft don't have to care about the GPLv3 unless existing projects switch to/new projects use the GPLv3. And the big projects (kernel, Samba etc.) are very unlikely to switch. In fact most of them can't because they'd have to ask every single developer who's ever written a piece of the software, which is impossible.
The only big player which could switch some software licenses just to put an obstacle into Novells/Microsofts way is Red Hat.
The bigger problem is the community support they're losing. If every geek out there hates Novell, that's going to hurt them in the long run.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:39 UTC (Thu) by jprenaud (guest, #24040) [Link] What about GNU projects: gcc? glibc? Surely they will re-distributed byNovell in some form after the they have switched to GPL v3 or am I mistaken?
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 20, 2006 12:23 UTC (Mon) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] Right. It is very likely that every project that has assigned copyright to the FSF will switch to GPLv3 or later as their license. In that case, Novell might be forced to fork the last 'GPLV2 or later' version of glibc, gcc, emacs, coreutils and a host of other packages.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:57 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link] And the big projects (kernel, Samba etc.) are very unlikely to switch Actually, the Samba folks have been very vocal about their indignation at the Microsoft-Novell deal, so perhaps they very well might switch to the GPL 3. Interestingly, I think it's possible that resentment within the FLOSS community towards the Microsoft-Novell deal may end up encouraging a lot more projects to adopt the GPL 3. I bet Microsoft didn't think of that when they signed on the dotted line!
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:58 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I think people have been dogging on GPLv3 to much. But I also think that it's normal. Every time something comes along and changes something that currently works your going to have to expect a huge initial negative feedback. Everybody has their doubts, everybody has their questions.
But for businesses things like GPlv3's patent language is actually fairly attractive, and it's not as strong as other popular license's like Apache2 or MPL 1.1, which haven't seemed to cause much problems for those projects.
The licensing compatability features is something that is very attractive too and should make it easier to get developers involved in GPL software.
The DRM functions only realy matter to kernel developers (case against) and regular application developers interested in perserving user's freedom (case for) and everybody else is pretty much unaffected by it.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 16:08 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] If it wasn't for the DRM clause, I don't think anybody would disagree with the gplv3. Well, anybody important. There are always crackpots. :)
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 20, 2006 11:10 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] BTW: Harald Welte (of gpl-violations.org fame) has already successfully sued Siemens to reveal the RSA key which they used to TiVoize a Linux kernel. Using the GPLv2, and German law. Unless a company avoids Germany (like TiVo does, officially for "lack of demand"), nobody is save to distribute a DRM'd Linux kernel.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:04 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Software which has "v2 or later" in their licenses are subject to the changes. Linux lacks this and so isn't affected.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:35 UTC (Fri) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link] Well, they *can* be subject to the changes. The clause usually says "GPL version 2 or (at your option) a later version".
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 8:12 UTC (Fri) by frankie (subscriber, #13593) [Link] That's untrue. Many programs out there use the 'version 2 or later' clause. So GPL3 does matter for all of them.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 14:51 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] The OR word is the key - you can not violate both the GPL v2 and the 'later version' at the same time as one of these licenses must be valid. The 'later version' could be the GPL v3 or v4 or some thing else. Thus, you can violate the 'later version' provided the GPL v2 is not violated. Likewise, you can violate the GPL v2 provided that the 'later version' is not violated.The GPL v3 only matters when any new code added that is GPL v3 because the license must change to either a 'GPLv3 only' or 'GPLv3 or later'. In the current GPL v3 draft the additional terms imposed may violate the GPLv2 for some code.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 18, 2006 0:51 UTC (Sat) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link] I think once GPL 3 is ready, all GNU software that had been using GPL 2 will have all new version saying "GPL 3 or later" instead of "GPL 2 or later". Some software outside GNU will do the same as well. At that point, if you want to do something that violate GPL 3 (but not GPL 2), your options are not that bright: never to upgrade, make a fork and do all security fixes yourselves for all these GPL 3 software. Unless GPL 3 get many people angry, there will probably be no community effort to do this "together", and doing such will be very expensive for the few entities who want to do it.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 10:20 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] Many projects are under GPL v2 or later at your convenience.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 18, 2006 21:22 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] ... so anybody trying anything cute that works only with GPLv2 will choose that.
If it gives more time for consideration on GPL v3 Posted Nov 16, 2006 22:51 UTC (Thu) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] It gives more time to address the DRM clause, the patent clause and other spots where disagreements exist. It is better that way for everyone, and after all there is really no need to rush the GPL 3 out with the difference of a few months, or even longer in terms of similar time scale.
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:07 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I'm confused as to why anyone thinks a change in wording is required. The GPL version 2 explicitly says:For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. So, if Microsoft starts asserting that only Novell has the right to distribute the Linux kernel commercially because of patent XYZ, then Novell can't distribute at all. (On the other hand, as long as Microsoft keeps it in the realm of FUD, and doesn't specifically claim any particular GPL software infringes, then it's not clear that the license has any role to play.)
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:32 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] The MS-Novell agreement is characterized by them as a "covenant not to sue". This is apparently meant to not be a "patent license", thus attempting to step around the part of the GPL you quoted. This is why people characterize this agreement as containing "weasel wording", etc--conforming to the letter of the law while raising one's middle finger at its spirit and intent.
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:43 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Does anyone honestly think that a judge will buy that argument? That because they call it by a different name, it is not a "license?" As PJ wrote on Groklaw: But before you insist, ask yourself this: if two parties go to court in a dispute, and one party says, we knew about the license, and we knew what the terms were, and we deliberately couched our agreement to bypass the clear purpose and the intent of the license when we thought we'd figured out a loophole, do you really believe for a minute that any court of equity will endorse such behavior? There is substantial case law that says that courts will not. Why not? Because it's not fair. Duh. [emphasis added] As far as I can tell, the only reason it is not a GPLv2 violation is that no specific patent violation has been alleged (so far). Which is why I'm confused by Moglen's statements (I'm not saying he's wrong, just that I don't understand what he has in mind).
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 18, 2006 0:20 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Courts aren't always fair and MS has a good record of getting alot of leeway and light judgements. I suppose Novellms laywers could figure something different from our intention was to exploit a loophole. Another thing that might come up in court would be; FSF was aware of the Novellms covenent prior to the completion of GPLv3 yet they made no changes to close the loophole, so they must have been OK with it. Also, Moglen and/or the FSF don't seem to like going to court unless it is necessary.
I'm wondering if MS is using the agreement as more of a public relations agreement: "See how nicely we are working with open source" Maybe they think they have found a way to swallow what is becoming more than a minor irritation.
Swallowing minor irritations Posted Nov 20, 2006 0:57 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Maybe they think they have found a way to swallow what is becoming> more than a minor irritation.
If only MS were an oyster...
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:58 UTC (Thu) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link] That's why the covenant is worth nothing to Novell (except the bag of money they got for it), as MS can sue anyone else and then Novell can't distribute the code either without violating the GPL. It just means that Novell isn't the one paying the legal battle costs.
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:37 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But the patent language quoted was just an example in the GPL of the kind of thing which wouldn't work. I don't think it's clear that the deal really worked around the GPL or if it just made the violation less obvious.
In the long term, respecting the spirit of the license matters more Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:37 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Whether or not the deal violates the letter of the license, in the long term Novell has to be able to hire and collaborate with upstream developers. "We signed a deal with Microsoft to sue you, and by the way, here's a bug report" is not really sustainable.
Why isn't GPLv2 sufficient here? What loophole? Posted Nov 17, 2006 9:19 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Because section 7 of GPLv2 doesn't actually restrict anything that isn't already restricted by the rest of the license:This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.See this thread.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:42 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] ==="I'm instructed by my client," Moglen said, referring to the FSF, "that version 3 will contain measures that will prevent any such deal from occurring in the future. ===
I thought that was an interesting line for Jones to feature.
No mention of community participation. And it was so "from the heart" by Eben:
"I'm instructed by my client"
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:59 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] No mention of community participation. Is there any need ? Outrage from "community" was loud and clear enough - if there are a loophole of such a huge size it must be patched. Most believe it's GPLv2 violation (Moglen is still not 100% sure if it's a violation or not BTW) - but if not then it's only logical to make it GPLv3 violation. Now the changes in wording - that'll be interesting to see and discuss... Here community can help... But such blatant appropriation of GPLed code is not welcome even by linux kernel developers! In fact the only high-profile linux developer who likes this agreement is Miguel de Icaza - and since he's Novell emproyee it does not say much...
From the heart... Posted Nov 17, 2006 6:19 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Well actually the quotations are all from a blog on money.cnn.com, whichdoesn't provide many of Moglen's words -- I wouldn't hold PJ responsible for the selection. I haven't yet located Moglen's statement anywhere else online -- I presume someone will post a link if/when it's available to the general public?
On the other hand similar claims by Moglen over a week ago ("they will
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2167966/novell-microsof...
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 5:49 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] Before the Novell-Microsoft partnership I didn't like the idea of a GPLv3,mostly after reading the Linux kernel developers comments about it.Now,after this,I think that maybe the Linux kernel should pass to GPLv3 or someone should rewrite GPLv2 to close its holes.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 14:22 UTC (Fri) by tgb (guest, #745) [Link] I think that maybe the Linux kernel should pass to GPLv3 It'll be a big job to move to a different licence, due to the way the copyright is spread out between so many hundreds (thousands?) of people. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it'd be a mammoth task. or someone should rewrite GPLv2 to close its holes That's exactly what GPLv3 is trying to achieve.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 20, 2006 11:53 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] The sort of mammoth task it was for Linus Torvalds to add the GPLv2-only clause in 2.4.0-test-something? Other than that comment, which was added without asking the other developers, there's nothing in Linux that really tells you the original developers really wanted to have it GPLv2 only. And you always get the license from the original developers. Linus Torvalds choose to redistribute Linux under GPLv2 only - his right, and his right to change his mind. It's not a mammoth task, it's just a single line in front of COPYING that needs to be changed. Maybe there are one or two files in Linux with an explicit GPLv2 comment from the original author (that's the only thing that counts), which might need some minor debating. If you speak of getting the message that GPLv3 is better into Linus' head, yes, that might be a mammoth task. But Novell+Microsoft did a good deal of that work already, so why bother?
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 15:14 UTC (Fri) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] Nothing like a "common enemy" to unite the chattering classes, eh? Or rather, the enemy of my enemy is my friend (for now). Maybe it is Microsoft's intent to create cohesion within the FOSS community because they hate to see us fighting over the perils or lack thereof of the GPLv3. As if.
Personally, I have lately been going over past talks and documents of Richard Stallman and I have to say that the ethical nature of his position does not seem to have changed very much. I believe him when he says that the GPLv3 is in keeping with the spirit and intent of GPLv2. In fact, I am surprised at how ethical his position is - though I should not be. I hope that the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 will give us all at least a thirty year umbrella. I believe we have to start thinking along those timescales. We may not make a dent on Vista but certainly by Vista+1 we'll have them. As much as Mr. Stallman rubs people up the wrong way we should remember that the GPL is _the_ rock to which our boat is tethered. I also believe that he is too critical about the ethics of the Open Source crowd. He casts open source as populist/pragmatic first, ethical second. I may be alone here but the reason I use the term open source more often than free software is because it really gets to be a pain to explain again and again to non-initiates that one means free as in freedom not free as in beer. I believe that this is the 'ahem' source of the popularity of the term. Not some wishy-washy watering down of the four freedoms. I can't speak for others but I know I'm talking about freedom first when I use the term open source. As Mr. Stallman seems to value exactitude, how about he renames his movement The Liberated Software Movement. This has nice parallels with the current war on terror. We come to liberate your machines. We are bringing freedom to your computer.
I seem to have strayed from the point. And as I have, let me venture further. It is my belief that the end point of Stallmanian ethics lies in a place that is close the Open Society of Popper and co. For instance, as government becomes eGovernment, what is the point in the four freedoms if they are can only be practiced individually? If the people are the government doesn't that mean that all software in government should be liberated. If any sphere of human activity should be exempt from proprietary software, content and formats it is the sphere of governance. This implies that the FSF should prioritise lobbying congress over worrying about Gnash and Firefox plugins. Also it implies that the whole universe of governmental related human/software processes should be replicated in open source/free software post haste. The plus side of this would be that people would trust the government more if everything was handled in the open.
People will say this is impossible or untenable, a socialist step too far. Well, you know, I have my FOSS desktop now. Even the FSF is starting its own distro - gNewSense. This means they must believe that we now have an ultra-viable platform. So we reach a time of questioning I believe. Do we want to spend the rest of our lives chasing driver manufacturers, criticising commercial deals and such like? Let the business tycoons and titans chase the money. How about we chase the fifth freedom. The freedom to inspect the mechanisms of how we are governed. The freedom to know exactly what data is stored about us by government and the ability to amend that data just once and have it replicated securely to the institutions that need it. Less form filling - less inefficiency.
This message was brought to you by the letter Q and the communist party of cyberspace.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 18:36 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] For audio, here's a link to a good talk: blah. Small thing: FSF have sponsored and endorsed gNewSense but gNewSense is still a third-party project.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2006 21:52 UTC (Tue) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] A chara,
Thanks for the link. I listened to it in its entirety. I did three years of philosophy at Galway uni and Stallman's line of reasoning would fit into any modern course on ethics. I repeat my thesis though - it has become obvious to me that as moral beings our movement must eventually merge with mainstream ethics and politics.
Case in point. I read Zmag[1] fairly constantly. They are an avowedly anti-capitalist site. I netcrafted their web server and found they were (and probably still are) running IIS on you know what. So I fired off a mail to suggest to them that their overall ethics precluded them from using this software and might they not migrate their site to BSD/Linux. (I also said their vision thing was off too, which probably got their goat). The thing is, Michael Albert replied to me and said he had dealings with the FSF in the past and he had been burnt in some fashion. He could not see that the logical consequences that the philosophy of the site should force them to use FOSS. These are people that rage about the ethics of capitalism day in-day out and even they don't get it. This, I might note, is depressing.
I say the Geeks shall not only inherit the earth but I believe it is the geeks that are sounding the alarm bells as technology makes its way into every aspect of life.
I applaud the work you are doing. I just think that the time has come to realise that the FOSS movement needs to realise that the majority of proprietary software now being built is in web apps and government apps. I think FOSS has already won the trivial appliance war. We've got to think bigger, much bigger. Chances are governments won't do this for us. We have to literally create a free and open society. We, the coders, are the only ones that can do this.
Again, I ask you, what do you think?
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 18, 2006 16:40 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] As Mr. Stallman seems to value exactitude, how about he renames his movement The Liberated Software Movement."Liberated" means that it was once non-free, and has become free. Since most free software was born this way, it is not very exact (even if it's nice). This has nice parallels with the current war on terror.Why? Is it a smokescreen to hide our incompetence? Is it counter-productive? Is it being used just for economical profits of a few? Are we just dealing with the frankenstein monsters we have created? I think the current "war on terror" is best left alone, it has too many negative connotations. We come to liberate your machines. We are bringing freedom to your computer.I think that using the Spanish term "libre" might be nice. It has a definite meaning, is easy to remember and easy to understand for English speakers (since it is so close to "liberate" or "liberty"). And it is Google-friendly!
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2006 22:05 UTC (Tue) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] "Liberated" means that it was once non-free, and has become free. Since most free software was born this way, it is not very exact (even if it's nice).Agreed. Okay then - to steal a line from The Life of Brian - how about The Software Liberation Front?! I personally like the libre software tag (I am living in the south of Spain so no problems there) but is it English-y enough? Also is it the soft French leebruh or the hard Spanish leebray?
I think the current "war on terror" is best left alone, it has too many negative connotations.Er, agreed. Forget I ever mentioned. What do you think about my thoughts on the future direction of the movement and where we should apply our talent and energy? I am very serious about this stuff. I'd like help. Thanks for your comment.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 18, 2006 17:01 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Your comment has got me thinking about how the meaning of words and phrases change with time. It would be funny if the popular meaning of open source keeps changing into something very close to what "free software" is suppose to mean, with "open source without ethics" religionists trying to explain what "open source" is suppose to mean.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2006 22:25 UTC (Tue) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] That would be interesting :) Here are a few of my pet peeves.
tragic&tragedy: Once used to mean an inevitable terrible event that the audience is on. We _know_ Macbeth is going to get, the witches told us so, it's all the more awful when he gets it. Characters thus have tragic flaws. But now we have newscasters describing a five-car pile-up as tragic... How is this possible in the Classical Greek/Shakespearean sense unless..? Aaargh! 2,500 years down the drain.
hacker/cracker: Nothing to see here - move on.
anti-Semitic: Semitic languages[1]/peoples encompass a family of languages/peoples that includes Hebrew/Jews as a _minority_. Generally an anti-Zionist is mislabelled (in two different senses) as anti-Semite which is then taken to mean anti-Jewish.
Wouldn't you know, I can't think of any more off the top of my head - but you know who you are!
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 22, 2006 16:57 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] > I also believe that he is too critical about the ethics of the Open> Source crowd.
Perhaps.
> He casts open source as populist/pragmatic first, ethical second. I may
You're not alone, but the reason the 'free software' distinction is
Now, open source advocates are likely ethical people, but ethics was not
So there is a strong distinction, and the proponents of both open source
[1] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2006 22:36 UTC (Tue) by gravious (subscriber, #7662) [Link] Yes, yes. I know about the distinctions. But what I am trying to say is that Mr. Stallman (with all due respect, I think the guy is great) is being uncharitable to those of us who use the term Open Source. Other languages do not have the problem English. Free Software is an inherently ambiguous phrase. And in some sense even though it was for the suits the phrase Open Source has clarity and does highlight it is a code thing whereas advocates who use the Free Software continually have to then say "Free as in Speech". How? Because the Source is Open. So what if we have sub-movement that emphasize the different aspects of our cause. If an Open Source dude manages to get GPL'd software used or non-free software GPL'd then FOSS wins regardless of the message. I think (again, with all due respect) that Mr. Stallman should ease off on this one. I think that what might be at stake is that the Open Source movement stole a bit of his thunder. If I'm wrong I apologise but that one be human nature, straight up.
But anyway my post was also about the vision thing and eGovernment. What think you about that? I'd welcome your response on that.
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 29, 2006 4:42 UTC (Wed) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] > But what I am trying to say is that Mr. Stallman (with all due respect,> I think the guy is great) is being uncharitable to those of us who use > the term Open Source.
Perhaps.
> Other languages do not have the problem English. Free Software is an
Merely calling source 'Open' can be ambiguous as well, if you are trying
So long as the advocates of Open Source do not tell (or agree with) the
> I think that what might be at stake is that the Open Source movement
Indeed. And although I don't know Stallman personally, I would expect that
I used to use 'open source' to mean 'free software' like many others do,
> But anyway my post was also about the vision thing and eGovernment. What
Let me respond, then:
I would say that the ethics lie in a place close in many cases. But there
> For instance, as government becomes eGovernment, what is the point in
I agree with this sentiment completely.
> This implies that the FSF should prioritise lobbying congress over
I do not believe that this follows. Lobbying congress is something that
Eben Moglen gave a very fantastic opening keynote at Wizards of OS 3 [1],
So while lobbying congress might be an important agenda, we should
> Also it implies that the whole universe of governmental related
I believe an open government is something we desparately need. I'm
Getting Cute with the GPL (Groklaw) Posted Nov 17, 2006 16:10 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] As always I find the asymmetry striking. If Microsoft brings a patent lawsuit against some Linux distributor, will the latter get a chance to scrutinize the Vista source code? I realize this is not *only* about source visibility but to a *significant* extent it is.
|
|||||||||||||