Tuesday at OSCON, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has continued the celebration of 20 years of open source. A blog post at the OSI reflects on how Open Source fits in with pre-existing intitiatives.
Open source did not emerge from a void. It was consciously a marketing programme for the already-15-year-old idea of free software and arose in the context of both the GNU Project and the BSD community and their history (stretching back to the late 70s). We chose to reflect this in the agenda for our celebration track at OSCON.
But that doesn't mean its inception is irrelevant. The consensus to define open source at the VA Linux meeting and the subsequent formation of OSI and acceptance of the Open Source Definition changed the phrase from descriptive to a term of art accepted globally. It created a movement and a market and consequently spread software freedom far beyond anyone's expectations. That has to be worth celebrating.
Wikipedia's entry on Open Source provides a great deal of information on its origin and application in multiple fields besides just software.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 18 2018, @06:52PM
I guess this is 20 years of the foundation - Open Source software has been serious stuff for closer to 30 years.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)
No. "Open source" is consciously a marketing program for "open source" at the expense of [gnu.org] free software.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18 2018, @07:59PM
It's Bruce! Now doing the same for "free car software". Thanks, Bruce!
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday July 20 2018, @07:01PM (2 children)
However, the marketing of open source software has nonetheless strengthened free software. Free software would be nowhere as developed or widespread as it is now had it not been for open source marketing.
For good or ill, the fates of open source software and free software are intertwined. The ends are the same, even if the motives are different.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 20 2018, @09:19PM (1 child)
See if you can see the difference: Has strengthened the spread of software incidentally carrying free licenses, but weakened free software, software that respects freedoms. Spreading software that technically respects your freedom alongside software that doesn't while constantly repeating "it don't matter, yo" is not strengthening free software in any way, no matter how the deployment numbers look.
On the contrary, free software would have much larger mindshare among people who would then recognize whether software respects freedom or not (which matters to the free software movement) along with a smaller installed base (which doesn't).
The spread of software which respects freedom by means of a disinformation campaign that denies the importance of respecting users' freedoms is no advancement at all for free software.
Or, putting it another way, the free software movement was successfully hijacked and derailed.
That is the polar opposite of the truth. If you say this in a genuine, non-trolling way, as I believe you do, then it means that you do not know the ends of the free software movement, which are to encourage people to choose and recommend software which respects their freedom, and to avoid and not recommend software which does not ("market penetration", while nice, isn't a goal; it would be a way to measure the growth of the goal if not for this open source nonsense, but it didn't work out that way). And you probably don't know the ends of the free software movement because they have been hidden by the open source movement. That's a loss for free software, but I can't see how it's a win for the open source folks, or for anyone.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday July 21 2018, @01:02AM
I'm not sure I understand you.
Let's assume two parallel universes, one where I create a useful program, licensed under GPLv3 because I believe in free software, and one where I create a useful program, licensed under GPLv3 because I believe in open source software.
Literally, what is the difference? What I care about is the availability and use of good software distributed with a FOSS license. The open source marketing campaign has increased the availability and use of such software, beyond what I would have reasonably expected had the marketing campaign not happened.
I do not believe that an identical program with an identical license, but created by someone who believes in open source rather than free software, is somehow destroying my freedom to choose software that respects my freedom.
>the ends of the free software movement, which are to encourage people to choose and recommend software which respects their freedom, and to avoid and not recommend software which does not
Except if open source proponents "encourage people to choose and recommend software which respects their freedom (with a FOSS license) and to avoid and not recommend software which does not", that doesn't count as meeting the ends of the free software movement? Only when a free software proponent performs these actions it counts?
This is like complaining that people stopped drinking unhealthy soda drinks because they are no longer hip, rather than because they are unhealthy. Health proponents would rather the "unhip soda" advertising campaigns stop and shout that said advertising campaign is defeating the purpose of the healthy beverage movement because they are doing the right something for the wrong reasons. This is truly missing the forest for the trees. Even if we have to "trick" people into using more free software by selling it as open source, isn't that better than the alternative?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:17PM (12 children)
Time has proven me wrong. It's not harmless, and Stallman was right.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @08:59PM (11 children)
I am curious how the "open source" brand is not harmless.
Stallman was right about some things. GPL was perfect at preventing a Microsoft from stealing . . . here I say that word . . . open source. (because it rolls off the tongue and I've said it for so many years.)
There are other large ecosystems of non-GPL open source that are more friendly to commercial developers leveraging their work. I would point out the Apache foundation for starters. Or Eclipse. Or Mozilla.
For a long time Stallman was right about "the Java trap", but now Java is GPL + classpath exception. Really the best of both worlds. A viral license on all the Java tech, but it is non viral for anything that "runs on" Java.
Microsoft has been beaten. They even admitted that they're embracing Linux "to get the developers back". Not that Microsoft can be trusted. And they are still a danger.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:17PM (10 children)
Because it's viewed as a purely technical innovation. Free Software was a technical innovation but that was the least important part of it.
The Open Source brand gives cover to those who wish to take advantage of the technical benefits as if they were some sort of voodoo - while disavowing the underlying principles that cause it to work. It's cover to abide by the letter of a license, while completely perverting its spirit. It's cover to produce 'Free Software' that's used to take away human freedoms.
"Microsoft has been beaten."
You're too optimistic. They're not beaten, but Google is giving them a run for their money. That's no reason to cheer, though. It doesn't matter which one of these 'win' when the game is to screw the rest of us. The best that can come out of that game is a protracted battle that damages them both, but that's not good enough.
And the only way to change the game is to repeal or overturn a huge string of bad court decisions extending copyright into something that it was never supposed to be.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:29PM
Maybe I should say: Microsoft's best days are behind it.
It doesn't have the monopoly any longer.
Microsoft cannot squeeze and demand in the ways it once did. It can't pressure its OEMs so much any more to make only Windows devices. And once Microsoft OEMs now make all kinds of devices even as they continue to make Windows devices.
Microsoft has thrown in the towel on smartphones. No surprise since Ballmer laughed at the iPhone. Unable to see the potential.
A surprisingly sized chunk of the population needs nothing more than a Chromebook. Microsoft's once deepest Netscape fear come true. The OS has become irrelevant. Most good things are cross platform, or run on the web, and probably run on phones, tablets, etc.
Intel's future is not quite so bright either due to their integrated approach of both designing and fabbing chips. The rest of the world has design houses who hire fabs to build their chips. AMD is giving Intel a run for its money as Intel has had a stumble. ARM chips still might become "a thing" in servers. Simpler architecture might be more secure in the wake of spectre like attacks.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:18PM (8 children)
And, then, there are those of us who prefer to work with LGPL, MIT and BSD licenses, because those are "free and open enough" for our purposes.
The last thing I need in my business or hobby is some sniveling GPL SJW sniffing around demanding a copy of the source. Maybe I want to share it, maybe I don't, and why should you be able to impose legal proceedings on me if I'm not in the mood to share today?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 18 2018, @11:13PM (6 children)
Because you are building your software on code that has this as licensing condition. For some libraries you pay with money, for others you pay with your source.
And yes, I see why you prefer libraries that are gratis. But you have no right to complain that others don't give you their code gratis, especially if you are not willing to give away your code at all.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:18AM (5 children)
No, most explicitly: I am not. Code which is GPL licensed is persona-non-grata in my professional and hobby work, and I am far from alone.
The GPL license is overboard, toxic, and it does shrink the potential developer pool significantly. I'm not complaining that people want to make their own rules and play in their own sandboxes - that's their right. I do get a little peeved when a particular technology is GPL only, that's a situation that will obviously right itself with time, but I'm impatient and I wonder why it's so important to defend your sandbox with lawyers instead of just sharing?
The code I work on professionally is not my own, I am paid a good salary by the people who actually own that code. Whether or not I agree with their decisions on code sharing, they are their decisions to make, not mine. I was actually at a meeting yesterday where we clarified our current quality and sourcing situation: Open source code is not only free, but it also does not trigger tremendously expensive (hundreds of thousands per vendor) risk assessment, vendor reliability and disaster planning activities - the $50 per copy we might spend on a proprietary solution is something less than half the true cost of the proprietary solution over the life of the product. In the particular case in question the proprietary vendors are maybe 5-10 years ahead of the semi-free open source alternatives, so I'm in favor of keeping them on-board, but the process costs to do so are staggering.
If I ever get time for hobby code, it's MIT license now. Check back in 6 months to a year, I might have something interesting.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @03:06AM (2 children)
I don't get it.
Either:
- you really need that code, so that code is important to you (and your question about "what it is so important" is misplaced); *or*
- indeed, that code is not "so important" for your work/hobby and can be replaced, thus, why are you complaining?
What's the name of that psychological phenomenon when someone can hold as true two contradictory positions without blowing their mind? Cognitive dissonance?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:18AM (1 child)
The position in a professional setting is: occasionally, a piece of GPL code would meet one corporate objective while simultaneously violating multiple standing rules.
As a cog in the machine it is frustrating, like wandering through the desert potentially dying of thirst and coming upon a well labeled: drink this and you have a chance of dying from a lawsuit in 5-10 years.
As a hobbyist, I have precious little time to work on my own code in the first place, and I hate lawyers, so I will not use my hobby time to give them work or value.
Where's the contradiction?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:20PM
sounds like the easiest course of action would be to change the corporate policy ;)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:38AM (1 child)
I would think that a capitalist would understand when he is not in the market for a certain product. Software should be GPLed specifically when it may have commercial value because you, proprietary sir, are not one of the end users we are developing for. I am not even developing for my daytime self (check with a lawyer, kids). All the MIT stuff is an ecosystem for proprietary programmers, so off you go to your dysfunctional pre-socialist sandbox!
It is you who are not sharing the economic proceeds from our hard work when we license MIT or similar. Either a.) it has market value, and you need to compensate us if you intend to use it as capital; or b.) it does not, and therefore you are no worse off for not having it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 19 2018, @11:44AM
I am not the proprietary sir. I am the schmuck stuck working for a living because I don't have a place where I can get food, shelter and medical care without a J.O.B.
I understand that there are millions of people around the world who live in a fairy land where they can spend all (or some significant part) their time doing whatever they want and not worry about a thing so mundane as a paycheck, and some part of that population writes and shares code. And, sure, there are even people paid big professional salaries by real corporations to work on GPL code, but they are even more fancifully rare than the independently, if not wealthy at least self-sufficient. Call it jealousy if you like, maybe it is jealousy, but from this side of the "has to/doesn't have to" work for a living divide, it just looks like a bunch of spoiled kids having a fancy party where they make their own rules about a fanciful utopia where all code is free and then turn around and smack people with lawsuits when they get the means and opportunity.
The world is as it is because of how we got here, and I don't think we would have gotten to where we are today without GPL. Structurally, it has enabled the Linux OS to thrive in the world as it was and has become. I do think that GPL has a place, however twisted (because the world itself is deeply twisted, so it's entirely logical that practical constructs within it will be equally so...) in the operating system, especially the kernel and I would wish up through the hardware drivers stack. In my fairy-land, all those licenses would be BSD/MIT equivalent and people would just share and share alike because it's better for everyone. I understand all too well the reality of corporate, IP protection, traditionalist greed and how GPL is fighting fire with fire on this front. Getting closer to the applications layer, LGPL starts to make more sense, and many of the applications oriented libraries have migrated there (Qt and GMP come immediately to mind, but there are many others...) I'm on board with LGPL where it makes sense, which (as the L is sometimes used) is in the Library Level.
The reason I champion MIT is: freedom to practice. If I publish an algorithm, or even a patent-worthy description of an algorithm, or protocol, or other "innovative" whatever that might be patented "for use in X", as an application in X and diligently develop it, that won't stop the big money players from patenting it tomorrow, but it will stop them from attempting to enforce that patent when the publication and practice history comes out (usually in pre-discovery before suits are even filed.)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Arik on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:46AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:08PM (1 child)
Something that really helped open source / free libre software . . .
The March 6, 2003 SCO vs IBM lawsuit.
Yes, really.
That was the wake up call that caused everyone to start taking license and copyright issues very seriously. To track the ownership status of every line of source code. To put copyright notices into source code. To check the origin and provenance of all code in a project. I think before the SCO vs IBM suit, a lot of open source projects were sloppy in this regard.
The clowns who couldn't sue straight eventually ceased to be a threat. The SCO vs IBM is still an "ongoing" "case". Yes, really. 15+ years old, now in its 16th year. SCOXQ.pk in bankruptcy for, it will be 11 years come this Sept 14th. How can something even BE in bankruptcy that long without having been liquidated and disbursed to creditors and investors? Ah, because of the unlikely chance that SCO might win some giant $5 Billion payday from IBM. The only things left at issue, IIRC, in appeals court are SCO's contract dispute with IBM over the Monterey project, and IBM's counterclaims against SCO. Those counterclaims are going to be sweet. And Linux code is no longer even an issue in that case.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:02PM
It happens that my former employer Live Picture filed for Chapter 11 in 1998, yet they are still active as a corporation.
This because _somebody_ has to administer the 401k accounts of their former employees.
The social security administration once sent me a notice that I had some money in my own Live Picture 401k and provided Live Picture's postal address in Delaware.
It was founded in France then relocated to Scotts Valley California. I expect that Delaware address is that of some manner of service that does nothing other than look after the operations of bankrupt companies.
Real Soon Now I'm going to roll my LP 401k over into an IRA.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:14PM (10 children)
I remember a movement a few years ago, maybe 3 or 4, where some people started saying they were not going to put any license on their code. They didn't want to bother even picking out an OSI approved license that fit their wishes.
It was like: hey, I just want people to use my code. I'm not going to sue anyone. I don't care about all the pages of legal details about licenses. I don't want to ever have lawyers involved. Etc.
What I say: If you don't put a license on your code, I won't touch it, not even with a ten foot pole. Without a valid copyright license allowing me to exercise certain rights, you could sue me later. Whether you like it or not, the law recognizes copyright the moment the work is created. Without some kind of license, I am vulnerable to a copyright infringement suit if I use your code. If you're really such a good guy, promising not to sue, then put that promise in writing -- it's called a license and is legally binding. There are a bunch of different OSI approved licenses to choose from.
Part of the problem was that Github was allowing a project to be created without picking a license.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:59PM (2 children)
This according to Richard himself: "If there is no explicit license it defaults to All Rights Reserved".
To provide your code for download on your own website implies that your user has a license to download and use it but DOES NOT imply that they have a license to redistribute it - even if they don't patch it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 18 2018, @11:18PM
Strictly speaking it only implies that you are allowed to download it. I'd also say it implies the license to look at it. But unless explicitly specified, you cannot even imply the license to compile it, let alone use it for some specific purpose.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:49AM
You're stating my problem with No License.
I may (questionably) be able to download it. But I have NO rights to do ANYTHING with it. So why even download it.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:22PM (4 children)
I like the MIT license, BSD isn't bad either. Here's the code, have at it. You can't sue me and I can't sue you.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:15AM (2 children)
I'll take your code, squash some bugs, and substantially improve it. Thanks, my product is awesome now. Then I'll lock it down and never give you back the improvements. Not even interested in collaborating with you but feel free to BSD license any fixes you might make.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:49PM (1 child)
A. Are you trying to be hurtful? Because that's the weakest form of envy-ooooooh that's not faaaaaaaair-hurt I can imagine.
B. How do you think that's any different from what most software thieves do with GPL and every other form of available-for-inspection source anyway?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @03:40AM
A. Corporations don't feel envy.
B. Is that a solvable problem?
Anyway, that's why *I* use GPL instead of other licenses. It's interesting to let loose a creation and see what other people do with it. Much better than having code I write hoovered up by some corporation never to be seen again. Works for me, might not work for everyone.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:51PM
I also like MIT and BSD. I also like Apache 2.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:40AM (1 child)
There is a license for people who can't bring themselves to care about licenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicense [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:50PM
I understand the sentiment of not caring about licenses. I think it is a shame that we must waste so much time on that.
It is the proprietary software, the music, movie and other industry, and greedy corrupt politicians that force us to have to care about licenses.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:19PM (4 children)
I know, a girl analogy might be difficult to grasp for soylentils, anyway:
- knowing that a program is free software is like knowing a girl has no BF (I mean in general, SO). Useful factoid to avoid being punched in the nose after few interactions and maybe expensive dinners.
- the open source brand instead is like the smartass friend that tells you watch the girl it has a miniskirt. OK OK I can inspect the legs, and possibly she is advertising some availability, but you need to know whether it has a BF.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:32PM (1 child)
I truly don't get it.
What is the open source danger?
Drat! I'm having trouble setting my Linux hostname to all emoji characters!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mrpg on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:32PM
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html [gnu.org]
Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source
In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.
The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @04:53AM (1 child)
No wonder so many men seem to instantly grasp the issue here!
Let me make a boy analogy.
- Knowing a program is free software is like knowing a guy doesn't have antiquated beliefs about women.
- The open source brand is like that reactionary friend you once thought was merely trolling (because how could a woman ever think about herself in such a way?) who sees no reason other women--not just her herself--should have lives independent of men.
- Proprietary software is like being married to a violent and abusive rapist with 19th century ideas about women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:17PM
we should have a -1 No Sense of Humor mod
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:56PM
Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org].
After someone at Kuro5hin pointed out that "Open Source is the enemy" I spent some time reflecting on my own loyalties then resoundingly came down on the side of Free Software.
When was the last time your employer donated money to the FSF?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]