Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Open Source Convention 2001 Wrap-up 113

Posted by michael from the frequent-flyer-miles dept.
So, we've gotten a lot of submissions about various things related to the O'Reilly Open Source Convention. Michael Tiemann had a few words before the convention; Dan Gillmor wrote a column about it; Fred Baker made a few flameworthy remarks. For whatever reason the whole conference seemed to be dominated by the Mundie-Tiemann debate. See our earlier story for some good links, or watch the debate video, or just read some post-debate coverage here or here. And if you haven't heard enough from Mundie, you can even read his post-debate letter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Convention 2001 Wrap-up More

Open Source Convention 2001 Wrap-up

Comments Filter:
  • "What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works."

    But there's a very long time delay before these works get into the public domain and as we've seen recently, the owners of the work can find ways to extend it even longer.

    "This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL."

    You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it. Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.

  • Divide and Conquer (Score:4)

    by MrEfficient ( 82395 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:33AM (#2188587)
    We are not criticizing the open source community, nor do we have any wish to do so. We are raising concerns about one specific open source license - the GPL - because we believe these concerns are important to the future of the software industry and the customers we serve.

    Mundie is basically trying to separate the the people who support open source software into two groups, those that think the GPL is good and will continue to support it, and those who either already don't like it or can be convinced that it's bad.

    They're attacking what they see as the biggest threat to their way of business, the GPL. I see this as a sort of proof that the GPL works. It's point is to ensure that software is kept free (as in speech). This is exactly the opposite of Microsoft's goal, which is to control every bit of software you use. Don't be mistaken, Microsoft doesn't like any sort of open source software, they're simply using tactics designed to separate the whole and detroy it one piece at a time.

  • Hmm, sounds like a 180 compared to how he blew off the whole siliconvalley.com "roundtable". I was interested in hearing how he defended Microsoft's position, except he never addressed any of the issues, really...

  • Bruce Perens talks about Skylarov (Score:3)

    by davey23sol ( 462701 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @10:00AM (#2188589) Journal
    I am in the middle of a presentation where Bruce Perens is talking about the Skylarov incident. He is actually re-giving the Skylarov talk.

    I want to write more about this later and listen now..


  • We flame, we're ideological, if we're not flaming ideologues then what are we?

    Trolls.


    NEVER use a spineless operating system.

  • Re:Open source lacks proper design (Score:3)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @10:02AM (#2188591) Homepage Journal
    You are confusing "Open Source" with "Hobbyist Programming". Take a good hard look at the Apache Project. They have stable and readable source code. For their later projects, like Xerces, they designed and evaluated the whole project before writing the first line of code. An it's Open Source.

    And let's look at all of the closed source crap. My current boss used to work for SGI. They had an internal motto of "we have the world's biggest QA department...our users". I've seen requirement documents written *after* customer ship. And I've seen the opposite as well: thousands of UML diagrams and no code.

    Generalities are generally [sic] wrong. The "generalized" Open Source project is a hobbyist's project. But not all of Open Source is hobbyist. A lot of it is front line code written by professional software engineers.
  • For whatever reason the whole conference seemed to be dominated by the Mundie-Tiemann debate.
    Yeah, how strange that people might focus [slashdot.org] on the debate. It's a big mystery [slashdot.org] .

    * The Slashdot story editors look at the ground and shuffles their feet.

  • This being an open-source convention, why are they using a proprietary player?
  • Remember:

    If you accept anyone else's code contribution to your project it is no longer 100% your code, and therefore you will not be able to license it under other terms without permission from everyone who has ever contributed code to your project.

    The only alternative I see is having code contributers sign a statement that says all their code contributions are your property.

  • Basically what I was trying to say... I was just a little pissed off at the time.
    I use Linux for my own reasons, a lot of other people use Linux for their own reasons.... those reasons aren't going to change because some M$ puppet starts telling me that companies like RedHat will never succeed, and that the GPL will make it damned hard to sell your software

  • This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.

    Impossible. Know why? The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to. Maybe if the company in question had a decent team of lawyers, they'd know this.

    This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read.


    -RickHunter
  • It really doesn't matter what the GPL considers a derivative work. The question is what constitutes a derivative work in copyright law. I'm sure the FSF would love to be able to declare that dynamically linking to an object (e.g. COM, CORBA) constitutes a derivation, but unfortunately it's not so.

    --
  • Microsoft should change their slogan from Where do you want to go today to share and enjoy it seems a lot more fitting don't you think??

  • Copyrights don't expire like patents ... A copyright held by the FSF will stand as long as the FSF is around and cares to let it.

    IIRC, a copyright is good for some N years after the original author's death, where N is very large (90?). In the case where the copyright is held by a corporation or organization, that becomes the lifetime of the organization + N years.

    I could be wrong, but this is the way I understand it.

    Not to say I think the GPL is a problem in most cases; if you can't use the GPL'd code, write an independent implementation. Generally GPL'd algorithms aren't patented, which can be a problem.

  • Microsoft didn't pay taxes in 1999 because stock options their employees exercised took up all their taxable profits. They get a deduction equal to the difference between what their employees paid for the stock and what the stock was worth at the time. Lots of companies do it. I'm not sure whether I consider it "wrong" or not, but I think the idea behind it is that their essentially being rewarded for distributing wealth to their employees. Anyway, food for thought.
  • You're wrong, he's right (well, mainly).

    If you write/distribute GPLed software, the people you sell/give it to have the right to distribute it however they want (free or for $$$$).

    You don't have to distribute the software to everyone but you do have to make the source available to the people who you do distribute the software to - you don't have to make the source available to anyone else. But, you also con't restrict your users from giving it to the rest of the world.

  • It's possible if the primary author takes the pains to get ownership of improvements assigned to him, and the community is willing to do so.

    The main issue there seems to be informed consent, that is, do community contributors understand that their contributions may be used to generate revenue for someone else? I think we can all agree that it would be deceptive to represent software as GPLed and accept free submissions without informing contributors of the commercial licensing of their contributions.

    Ghostscript is an example of a GPL'ed Free Software program that provides its primary author with a source of revenue from proprietary licensing.

    Thanks for the reference! I see a general description of commercial licensing [artifex.com], but so far I haven't been able to find the modifications to the GPL that assign all modifications back to the owners of Ghostscript. Could you provide a quote or specific pointer, and explain how informed consent for contributing changes works here?

    Software under Mozilla-style licenses requires ownership of published modifications to be assigned to the originator. Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner owns all modifications to Mozilla.

    I can't find such a provision for assignment of modifications in the Mozilla Public License [mozilla.org]. Again, could you please provide specifics, and explain how informed consent is obtained?

    Thanks, Tim

  • There's a short article over at Sun's Java page that has some decent comments on the debate.

    One point that the author makes in particular is that there is nothing wrong in concept with MS having a Shared Source program (Sun's SCSL is similar); its just that they are presenting it as something comparable to true open source licenses that is a problem.

    Anyways, here's the link: Sun's viewpoint [sun.com]

    -Mike Wolf


  • Yeah, because 'Embrace - Extend - Extinguish' is exactly what Microsoft did with the BSD TCP/IP Stack, right? They built on an academic work and used their huge marketing force to crush anyone else who tried to use TCP/IP. This is why the only computers on the Internet right now are using Microsoft operating systems!

    No, wait, that didn't happen at all. Maybe this is just another case of Slash-holes overreacting and reading into Mundie's comments a meaning that isn't there...?
  • We should concentrate on better code, more user-friendly software and more consistent interfaces.

    We should defend the GPL wherever we are, because it protects our rights to use our own work.
  • I know you Kingston military types are easily worked into a froth, but please... try to calm yourself down, or else you'll make RMC look like nothing more than a boot camp.

    Wait a minute...

    --
  • Oh dear.

    To avoid your posts from appearing horribly broken, let the text box on the Post Comment form do the line wrapping for you. This way things will look much nicer (and will be significantly more readable, too.)

    --
  • Any corporation can use GPL'ed code, Government funded or otherwise. They just have to release the resulting product under the GPL too. So what's the big deal? Just because the consumers (also taxpayers) have the right to the source code doesn't mean the company can't have a profitable business. Of course, the company would have to provide a good service, support etc that people would be willing to pay for, and I guess it might be a problem for SOME companies to realise that they have to do that.
  • yup - my point exactly :-)
  • Thanks for the reference! I see a general description of commercial licensing, but so far I haven't been able to find the modifications to the GPL that assign all modifications back to the owners of Ghostscript. Could you provide a quote or specific pointer, and explain how informed consent for contributing changes works here?


    As far as I know, there is no modification to the GPL for Ghostscript, Artifex simply does like the FSF and asks contributors politely to assign copyright contributions to them. In the FSF's case, see Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors [gnu.org].

    I can't find such a provision for assignment of modifications in the Mozilla Public License. Again, could you please provide specifics, and explain how informed consent is obtained?

    See Amendment V.2 of the Netscape Public License, the license under which Mozilla was released (my bad for confusing the two). There are plain-english interpretations of the NPL on mozilla.org that explain that by publishing modifications to Mozilla, you grant Netscape a 2-year license to use your code (again, my error, it's not an assignment of ownership.)

    Brent
  • If you try to see things from Microsoft's perspective (warped as it is), their arguments aren't without logic. They see proprietary code as the key to controlling the market, or "he who controls the code controls the market". Something like the GPL eliminates that control by keeping the code open and able to be modified. MS would no longer have the ability to come up with "trade secret" innovations that allow them to continue to dominate the market as they have in the past. Someone could always come along and improve or modify the product, and then the new non-MS version could be the dominant product.

    Of course, this logic requires drinking the same Kool-Aid as the Microsoft marketing and business folks. Why make something better than the other guys when you can just make something the other guys aren't compatible with and then bundle it into every new computer that comes out? 'Cause that's the Microsoft way, and in that light GPL and other open-source licenses are very anti-Microsoft.

  • I'd like to say that open source code is the next best thing after sex but it just ain't so.
    Yes, but a *real* open source advocate would have said that it was better than sex...

    ---
  • In other words, Microsoft is mad because it wants to "build" upon free software.

    Exactly. Or to put it a different way: MS is terrified that someday, somehow, a group of "hackers" will develop a piece of GPL'd software that is so good that MS can't reproduce or compete with it. Embrace and extend is powerless against the GPL.

    You have to hand it to them - it's a reasonable fear. In fact, it has probably happened already.

    -Renard

  • RE: Mundies response letter (Score:4)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:38AM (#2188614) Homepage Journal
    MS complains about how the GPL erects a wall between public and private development of code. Essentially hes saying that No private company can use GPL'd code because then they would no longer be private, all their source would have to be released under the GPL. I think that the GPL is a reaction to the draconian copyright laws now on the books. A good compromise would be a limited monopoly, you can keep code private for say 15 years and then it becomes public domain. Surprise surprise, this very compromise is what copyright holders destroyed in the last century in their quest for more money. Current Copyright law tips the balance completely away from fair use and public domain, the pendulum has swung all the way to the right. Reactionary actions beget more reactionary actions. The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material. The compromise is to go back to where we were 200 years ago. Copyright is temporary but well enforced. After 15 years or so, the source gets released. This is a good compromise because it makes nobody happy, yet it allows for free dissemination of ideas, while allowing commercial exploitation of said ideas in a closed source sense.
  • You give absolutely no evidence to back up that your method of designing software works better, whereas the tomes of free software on gnu.org and opensource.com do. These assertions are meaningless unless you provide real world proof, especially considering that countless free software projects proove you wrong daily. You nebulously say that KDE is a failure because it underwent redesign, but fail to mention that every single piece of closed source "Traditional" software has undergone many of these iterations, see dos -> win 3.1 -> win 95 -> Win2k -> WinXP .. or MacOS 8 -> -> Copland -> 9 -> X.
  • solicisms? prevelent?

    judge not...
  • Not really. Trolls take whatever position is neccessary to generate the flames. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
  • Michael appeared on stage like a know-it-all, almost making his position look bad because of his attitude!

    dammit, why didn't they get Bob Young in there? Bob has both the idealism of Michael Tiemann, but with the mannerisms of Craig Mundie. or, despite appearances, John Maddog Hall could've done a better job.
    where was larry augustine from VA linux? doen't VA own sourceforge? he would have been a perfect guest/speaker!
    sigh...
  • hmm.... apparently no one made the connection.... you know "share and enjoy" motto of ciriius cybernetics corporation.... . .*Sigh*... I miss you D.A. . .. . . :(

  • This matters because users are finding themselves in an increasingly proprietary environment (or ecosystem, or whatever): it has gotten to the point where you have to _pay_ to do just about anything computer-related.

    The more people perceive open source alternatives to be viable, and preferable to closed-source, the more people will begin to chafe at restrictions, fees, etc.: they will expect freer access. So when Big Corporation comes along and says, we want a new, profitable internet [slashdot.org], Big Corporation will find themselves up against some substantial - and mainstream - resistance.

    The inherent contradiction in this is the companies making money off open source are the ones who will bring it to a wider audience...
    - O.K.
  • t really doesn't matter what the GPL considers a derivative work. The question is what constitutes a derivative work in copyright law. I'm sure the FSF would love to be able to declare that dynamically linking to an object (e.g. COM, CORBA) constitutes a derivation, but unfortunately it's not so.
    True, The FSF can't define what constitutes derivation under copyright law, but they can do something just as effective: By defining what constitutes derivation under the GPL, the license will automaticaly terminate if violated. Then, if anything else the company has done would be a copyright violation if not allowed under the GPL license, the FSF can pursue that.

    This is the way the GPL works. If you violate the GPL license, then the license terminates, and anything that would not be permitted under copyright is forbidden.

    In theory, a company could only use GPL'd code for study, and never redistribute any of it, so the derivation clause would be a toothless dog (except as defined by copyright). But if a company redistributes any GPL'd works, then they must comply with the derivation clause of the license for all of them, or they run the risk of having the license to redistribute yanked due to their violation.
    --

  • The thing Mundie always forgets .... (Score:4)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @10:15AM (#2188622) Homepage Journal
    is that if I release my wonderfull code GPLed it doesn't stop M$ from using it - it just requires them to come back to me and license it under some other terms - ie if the evile empire wants my code to do as they please with they'll have to pay thru the nose - just like they expect their cistomers to do .... but if the local high school can live with GPL I'm quite happy to give them the use of my code - and of course I benefit personally from the exchange of code that the GPL bazzar creates - I get back way more than I put in - and I get to work oin the code that I want to - none of this "OS development is off limits because we know best" sort of attitude that M$ puts forward - I much prefer Linus's "If you do something usefull that will make the OS better I'll add it" - judge me on MY merrits, not where I fit in YOUR business plan
  • Just in this morning from OSCON - Kevin Lenzo introduces "Yet Another Society", a fund devoted to helping developers working in Perl and
    other open source technologies. Larry Wall makes the first donation.

    http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/519
  • MS may not have paid any income tax, but they still paid payroll taxes, and their employees paid income taxes, so they WERE contributing to the economy and the tax structure. MS's view on the GPL is that it limits commercial access to publicly funded works. I have to agree with them on this. If you are stupid enough to think of software as an eco-system, then the GPL probably would qualify as a virus. And AOL users would be at the bottom of the food chain.
  • Is it really that fun to work on a software project of any real complexity for which no design work has been done and which fails miserably to do anything well but the first feature programmed? I would think the feature creep and bug-squashing alone would drive the developer nuts after the alpha skeleton code was created. Even so, some prototyping might be in order to see if any serious design flaws come to mind.

    And I still wouldn't rule out the notion that even a lot of planning can't undo the damage that a really great idea 80% of the way into the work would have on the overall design. And since software design is complex engineering that takes time to learn, I don't think we should fault the hobbyists and students who litter code repositories like SourceForge with projects for applying the paradigm for writing they learned in high school and English class-- that of the rough draft, revisions, final version. And until you spend time studying software design, all this talk of alphas and betas doesn't really clue you in to how much non-code upfront work goes into a successful software project.

  • For one thing, if there is any community support of the GPLed version, third-party improvements to the GPLed version could not be covered by the commercial license. This includes any contributed changes that were incorporated into the main source branch by the original author -- they're all GPLed. That means there probably does not exist any "pure" version which could be commercially licensed. Any free software which has enough value that someone would wish to license it commercially (e.g., Mozilla, GCC, Linux kernel, Bison, Eazel, GNOME, KDE, etc.) has probably benefited from community participation, and so could not be commercially licensed.


    It's possible if the primary author takes the pains to get ownership of improvements assigned to him, and the community is willing to do so. Ghostscript is an example of a GPL'ed Free Software program that provides its primary author with a source of revenue from proprietary licensing.
    Software under Mozilla-style licenses requires ownership of published modifications to be assigned to the originator. Netscape/AOL/Time-Warner owns all modifications to Mozilla.

    foog
  • At least in terms of being the `opposite' to Open Source software, which is simply untrue. The opposite of Open Source or Free Software is Closed soruce of proprietary software. Just because you view free to air television without paying to see it does not make it noncommercial. Just because you use Red Hat Linux without paying for licenses does not make it non commercial either. Commercialness is to do with the motives in producing the software,and in Red hat and Caldera and SuSEs case, these motives are often commercial (although obviously other parts of of the software were produced for altruistic reasons). We all know Open Source /Free Software is a good thing for the software industry. Using the terms `commercial' to mean `not Open Source' destroys that. I've never seen anyone oppose this argument, it seems to be a matter of ignorance or bad habit. The Free Software Foundation also has `commercial' on its list of confusing words for this exact reason. Commercial software rocks. Provided its Open Source :)
  • Current U.S. Current Copyright is for life + 70 years, or for 95 years from publication (or 120 from creation, whichever is shorter) for corporate works (17 USC 302). Copyright of items created before 1978 depends on a number of factors (17 USC 303-305), but can quickly become the above on proper reregistration, etc.
  • Yeah, good point, there's this very weird argument prevalent on Slashdot, k5 etc. - "stop whining about x, let the market sort it out" - well if no-one whines about x, how is the vast majority of the market going to know about it?

    Please can someone give me a coherent answer?

    No, I didn't think so.

  • That's very interesting, could you cite some specific examples?

  • The GPL is just as unfair to copyright holders as current copyright law is to citizens who use copyrighted material.

    No it's not! I don't write any code under the GPL because I think it's too restrictive, but I wouldn't call it unfair by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to write and sell a proprietary compiler or an operating system based on GPLed software - you can't - so go write your own code, don't expect other people to give you their code for free, that's all the GPL is saying!

  • For the love of god, do the videos have to be in real player?

    Anybody got another version? I'm all set with installing that POS software package.


    --

  • So how come peer review works so well in code, but not in advocacy? I think you're looking at a skewed picture here.

    Remember, average /. poster != average coder. Average coder is probably too busy coding to post much to /.

  • /. Poll (Score:4)

    by selectspec ( 74651 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:10AM (#2188634)
    Do you find the Mundie debate remotely interesting?

    Or, did you tire of this issue a long time ago realizing that debates are an irrelevant, waste of time and that people will do what is in their best interests regardless of what the academic and marketeers think?
  • Noone who attended the convention really thought anything good was going to come out of it.

    Mundie had to pitifully tread through the comments of his superiors and make peace with the crowd who was screaming for his blood.

    Also Tiemann was never there to make a point for the Open Source, he was just there to take a good jab at MS and he succeeded in doing just that.

    I thought the "incredibly smart people" reference to each community was just a thinly veiled attempt at making peace.
  • I know this has been done with the GNU toolchain. Also other bits. This is the big deal about GPL/FSF code: the copyright holder determines the license. Thus, the FSF can (and has) licensed GPL'd code to 3rd parties for commercial use.

    This is a demonstrably false statement. Check the GNU GPL FAQ [gnu.org]. There are a number of other places where rms states that the FSF does not and will not license GPL'ed code under non-free licenses. I challenge you to give documentation of an example of the FSF licensing code under non-free software licenses.

    foog

  • Indeed. This is known as the Delphi debating method.

    Read more at this location: Delphi debating - http://www.icehouse.net/lmstuter/page0019.htm [icehouse.net]

  • I mean, Microsoft has Atom Bombs [slashdot.org], and so many Open Source people at one place...
    I'm not sure that Bill Gates can handle the temptation.

    --
    Two witches watched two watches.

  • Re:/. Poll (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do you find the Mundie debate remotely interesting?

    No, but that doesn't stop the slashdot editors posting about every word he utters. After all, it gives all the slashbots a chance to cut and paste their favorite anti-microsoft posts and try to feel good about their position. And it gives slashdot more banner hits.

  • The "movement" actually consists of a very select few that actually have the time and energy to participate in opensource projects. The rest are just people that like to have free software.

    They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk or something like that.

    +++ATH0

  • I would like to see this O'Reilly guy in a room filled with MS employees, participating in a panel with Mundie, Gates, and people from companies like IBM, Adobe, etc.

    Now THAT would be fun.

    +++ATH0

  • Open source lacks proper design (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    (I'm posting this as AC since I'm sure I'll get moderated down for pointing out flaws in the open source paradigm)

    Well, managed software is a way to stability and readable source code!

    I've got an M.Sc. in CS and at work I "manage" a team of 6 people. I design, code and document. Three of my team are dedicated coders and two are jack-of-all-trades. The impression I often get when reading Slashdot is that most people here are coders who don't realise how important it is to design and evaluate the whole project before writing the first line of code. In my work I've realised that a well designed project is already half done.

    And just how many open source projects work this way? I can't think of any. Most of them seem to start when a bunch of people get together and start writing code straight away. The result: code and APIs that have to be re-written from ground up later on when the fatal design flaws emerge. Witness KDE 1.x and KDE 2.x.

    I'd like to say that open source code is the next best thing after sex but it just ain't so. There's plenty of things that could be improved and a more conservative approach with a proper design and documentation process would help a lot.

  • Gotta hand it to Mundie ... (Score:4)

    by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:18AM (#2188643) Journal

    I may disagree with Craig Mundie, but I must congratulate him for his tenacity and bravery. He's taken quite a bit of time to explain the MS position on Open Source, and to engage in dialogue with the Open Source community. It's particularly admirable in light of the lack of respect that the OS community as a whole has given him, in spite of their public gestures.

    If the OS people aren't careful, they may make Mundie look like the hero, while coming across themselves as flaming ideologues.

  • Re:Why Real Player? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For the love of god, do the videos have to be in real player? Thank some god that it is in RealPlayer. It's the only streaming video format that I know of that works in Linux.

  • Open source vs closed source (Score:3)

    by Morphine007 ( 207082 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:20AM (#2188645)
    WHY IN THE NAME OF PETE DOES ALL THIS SHIT MATTER!?!?!?!?!? The open source movement was never started to make money, so why the hell does everybody think that if it doesn't make money it will suddenly up and die!?!?!?!?!?

    NEWSFLASH!!

    In todays news everybody realized that opensource projects aren't making enough money, so all the programmers in the world decided unanimously to delete all their GNU/Linux tools and pay for closed source tools to make their free software with....

    WHAT THE FAK!?!?!
  • >BTW, why do you care about getting modded down? Have some courage. Because if you say things like that, moderators feel guilty and obliged to mod it up even if it has nothing really informative or new to say. ;-)
  • believe that the technical term for this soft of conference is a "circle jerk."

    Actually it kinda reminds me of the last US election.... "mudslinging competition" would probably be a more apt description.... though "circle jerk" ain't far off the mark...


  • Having worked as a programmer, I agree: everything needs to be well-thought-out first.

    What does that have to do with the license under which the program is released? The amount of time/effort I spent designing (or not) has no bearing on whether I distribute source with my binaries (or not). This seems like a straw man argument.

    You aren't pointing out flaws in the open source paradigm. You're pointing out flaws in the design capabilities and self-discipline of most of the random one-off K3wl Projects of the Week on sourceforge.net.

    Well, managed software is a way to stability and readable source code!

    No argument there; it's one way, but not the only way.

  • Mike Tiemann from Redhat sure looked like a flaming ideologue while giving his sermon.

    Even watching the panel discussion. Shirky, Behlenhoff, O'Reilly, Stutz and Mundie all came off as rational individuals looking for an interesting discussion on improving the market.

  • Why do we need to destroy windows in order to have a better world? I do agree that Microsoft has done some very questionable things in the past, and that there should be alternatives to Windows. But as someone who is forced to use Windows daily at work, I don't have much choice in the alternatives.

    Now, if we had a system under Linux, Unix, *BSD, whatever, in which I could read and edit the documents that coworkers sent to me, I would be more apt to run a different OS. Staroffice is a start, but we need to go farther.

    So while we are all here arguing over what was said by Micorsoft and its supports, we could be programming a solution that could seemlessly take them right off the map. Put together an office suite that will work with Microsoft products, install it on Windows. Get people used to using it, then switch the machines over to an alternative. The way to get at Microsoft is not to first kick them out as the OS, but kick them out as the application of choice.

    Just my 2 cents, also a thought that has been bugging me.
  • Okay... Bruce talked about Sklyarov really quickly, but he did talk about it forcefully. I don't want to get into specifics, but he did do something technically illegal and in the realm of civil disobedience. He did get a rather large room of people to learn about the current situtation, and in general this conference has stayed asleep regarding the Sklyarov arrest.

    He also went through the PDF of the Sklyarov presentation to let everyone know exactly what was said at the conference. The revelations about the types of encryption caused quite a bit of laughter in the audience. Bruce also stated his belief that most of these companies should be accursed of fraud since this stuff would not really be called "real" encryption by any expert.

    The rest of his talk has been about patents and GPL and stuff... great but not as interesting. This is the type of talk I've been waiting for at OSCON.


  • I'm not saying that open source approach necessarily produces lower quality code. It just takes longer to produce a product that could be released commercially.

    YES!! because we all know that M$ releases their products much faster than any paltry open source group :)

  • Red Herring (Score:4)

    by Otterley ( 29945 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:49AM (#2188653)
    Mr. Mundie and the rest of Microsoft have most people chasing a red herring.

    The issue is not whether or not Microsoft's software is open source. The issue is not whether or not they like or will ever use the GPL. Being a capitalist entity, neither publishing open source software nor being GPL-friendly should be expected or demanded of them. It's just not logical.

    The problem that everyone is concerned about, that prohibits true competition between Microsoft and Open Source developers, is not whether Microsoft's source code is available, but rather whether interoperability can be achieved. What the world needs, and what open source strives to provide, is something that can effectively compete with Microsoft's "standards."

    Currently open source software has to compete in a crippled fashion: The developers don't have access to Microsoft's file formats (Word, Excel, etc). They don't have access to the network protocol documentation (e.g. SMB). They don't have access to many hardware forums and manufacturers, because they're not willing to sign NDAs or pay money for the privilege.

    What people should be asking for is a level playing field. Making Microsoft open their source code is one way to do it, but it may take away their competitive advantage in other areas (for example, if they build a faster matrix solver) and arguably isn't fair to them. A reasonable alternative, however, would be to ask them to make all of their communication protocols transparent. Once you can interact with other Microsoft users as well as you could if you used Microsoft software yourself, the game is over.

    Without such a concession from Microsoft (forced or otherwise), Microsoft's monopoly power will remain unchecked: the Internet will consist of Microsoft clients connecting to Microsoft servers running undocumented application protocols over TCP/UDP. (And you thought forcing HTML email on everyone was bad enough.) If you're smart, you'll either lobby Microsoft (or better, your gov't rep) to make them open their protocols, or you'll buy Microsoft stock.
  • Do you find the Mundie debate remotely interesting?

    Sure, since Mundie is failing to make a decent case against Open Source / Free Software.

    Or, did you tire of this issue a long time ago realizing that debates are an irrelevant, waste of time and that people will do what is in their best interests regardless of what the academic and marketeers think?

    The problem with your position is that you assume that people know what is in their best interests. That is often not the case. Debates like this are one of the educational tools that folks can use to make informed decisions. Let's hope that the software development community makes the right decisions to foster better, more reliable, and more secure software down the road ahead...and I don't think that means Microsoft!

    186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!


  • Although his argument may have nothing to do with the open source license itself, that doesnt mean that he doesnt have a point. The way the GPL is designed allows and almost encourages the 'fly by the seat of your pants' coding methodoligy. People who arent selling the code dont want to bother with the boring part of design and preparation because they are doing it for fun. Its pretty clear that GPL development (in a non commercial environment) is inherantly 'fly by the seat of your pants'

    ON THE OTHER HAND,
    it also influences the 'product is NEVER done' system that the GPL promotes. and THATS why i love this stuff
  • In his post debate email he said:

    "The GPL not only requires that all source code must always be published, but also states that all third parties must have the right to make unlimited copies of GPL-licensed software and redistribute them free of charge. Obviously, it is extremely difficult for a software company to generate revenue by distributing a program if everyone has the right to distribute unlimited copies of the same program free of charge."

    I may be wrong (and I'd like to be corrected if I am) but my understanding of the GPL is that if MY software is licensed under the GPL then I have a right to sell my software for whatever price I want. I can even restrict the sale of my software by others. The only thing that I must do under the GPL is that I must make my source code available to anyone who buys my software.

    Now, if somebody else wants to expand or repair my software they must also include the source code. But, as I understand it, they don't have an automatic right to sell MY software with minimal changes for less than what I charge.

    In the GPL preamble it says:

    "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish)"

    In this sentance they seem to be talking "Free as in speech" not "free as in beer". but later in the GPL it states:

    "You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, . . ."

    Perhaps "In any medium" can mean "compiled code?" if this is how Mundie is interpreting the GPL then perhaps he is correct in thinking that the GPL automatically makes all GPL'd code "Free as in beer".

    I don't agree with him, but could he have a point from a purly legal perspective?

  • This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.
    You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it.

    Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.

    That isn't what I said. I am not in favor of eliminating the "derivative work" language of the GPL. I am only advocating that an unambiguous definition of derivation be included.

    For example, it is clear that incorporating source from a GPL'd work is derivation. It is less clear if reimplementing the same idea, using the same algorithms, in the same language, is also derivation according to the GPL, and even less clear if you start dropping the language and algorithms. At what point do you cross over the line from copying the underlying idea (which is permitted) to copying the expression of that idea (which is not)?

    That is what the problem is. By looking at GPL'd source code, and implementing the same idea, would a proprietary software developer be violating the copyright (and therefore the GPL)? RMS needs (IMHO) to address this in the next version of the GPL by clearly defining the line between fair use and infringement.
    --

  • No kidding. I totally agree. I think the problem is that there isn't any peer review or even basic reality checking going on here with the movement. Any attempt to address a critisism is simply met with ignorant responses and scoffing.
  • Whenever I am not sure how to explain open source or free software to someone, I just think, "What Would Michael Tiemann Do?"

    He insults VC people, insults the world by saying that "some people get it" when it comes to OS/FS, tells us that there are "some smart people" at MS, and comes off cocky and immature at the same time.

    While I believe in OS and FS, for heaven's sake, at least be mature about it!

    -Adam

    Go ahead, moderate me down if you think this is off-topic, or if you listened to the panel and talks and determined that I've got it all wrong.

    This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
  • I wasn't trying to suggest that you wanted to eliminate the "derivative work" language. That was my own idea. The only part that had to do with you was "You're right". Perhaps I should have put the rest in a different paragraph.

    On the other hand, I don't see incorporating source as a derivation, it's simply copying. If you eliminate incorporation from derivation you and I pretty much agree on this.

    I would be surprised if RMS made such a revision to the GPL since it could slow the growth of GPL'ed code (IMHO).
  • The thing Mundie always forgets is that if I release my wonderfull code GPLed it doesn't stop M$ from using it - it just requires them to come back to me and license it under some other terms...

    This is technically possible, but does anyone do it? Pragmatically this kind of license fork seems untenable.

    For one thing, if there is any community support of the GPLed version, third-party improvements to the GPLed version could not be covered by the commercial license. This includes any contributed changes that were incorporated into the main source branch by the original author -- they're all GPLed. That means there probably does not exist any "pure" version which could be commercially licensed. Any free software which has enough value that someone would wish to license it commercially (e.g., Mozilla, GCC, Linux kernel, Bison, Eazel, GNOME, KDE, etc.) has probably benefited from community participation, and so could not be commercially licensed.

    Tim

  • Which is why I said that if Microsoft isn't happy with the time frame in which the copyright on GPL'd code will expire (and thus fall into the public domain), then they should spend some of their money to lobby congress to reduce the term of copyright on software. I suggest a term of five years.

    If they were to do that, then everybody wins, because even if they took expired GPL code and made proprietary improvements, the shorter copyright term would ensure those improvements coming back to the public domain in a timely manner (after a reasonable time period to recoup their investment and make a profit).
    --

  • If anything, the mere suggestion that it is further proves the man's thesis. If there is one big "problem" with open source these days, it's the unreasoned fanaticism of its proponents. We have met the enemy, and it isn't Microsoft. It is us.

    Yes, many times the Open Source community has produced things better than commercial endeavors. Apache and IIS is a great example. So are vim and/or emacs vs. pretty much any closed source editor. etc. etc. Perl kicks the ass out of VisualBasic every day of the week and three times on Sunday. In terms of security and ease of administration, any of the free unixen beat win32 server platforms hands down IMHO. But there are times when, well, face it guys, someone with a clue works for a company and makes something good that is closed source. ASP pages, for example, have a nice object model (just use jscript to avoid that vbscript suckage ;-) ). Anyone who things linux/*bsd is a good OpenGL development platform has never used Irix. etc. etc.

    In the end, information technology is only useful in the extent that it makes people's lives easier or more entertaining in some way[1]. Whether the machine code came though gcc or msvc++, the end user does not care one whit. We are carpenters and stonemasons, only our raw materials are bits instead of wood or stone. So just pick the right tools for the job at hand, and leave the fanaticism at the door!

    [1] Or to stick it to The Man. But that's besides the current point.

    (I fully expect to get modded down for saying this stuff, but fuck it, I have 50 karma so I care not a fig for the slings and arrow of outrageous moderation.)


    --
    News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org [geekaustin.org]
  • actually, it was me. guess what, i got a couple points left for trolls like you.
  • "The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to."

    So you're saying that part of the GPL is meaningless. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate it then?

    "This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read."

    I suspect that if there was litigation on this matter, the content of the GNU pages would not be admissible.

  • I agree. This was the reason why the State of California released the CSRG code under a (then) new type of license, the BSD license. UCB, CSRG and DARPA are publicly funded institutions. Both individuals and corporations paid for the code, so both should have equal access to it.
  • Besides, the average codes does not participate in OSS projects at all.

    The average coder has an appartment, or a house, a car, perhaps a wife or girl, and maybe even some children. He needs to get the cash rolling, and hence works for a healthy commercial IT business or a not-so-healthy .com startup. The code he creates will be the property of the company he works for, and although some companies do opensource their code, most don't.

    Let's not kid ourselves in thinking that software engineer equals opensource advocate.

    +++ATH0

  • I must congratulate him for his tenacity and bravery

    What? It's his JOB. You don't think he and Ballamer worked out this whole good cop/bad cop thing? Yeah, that's really brave... getting paid six figures to lecture the Open Source community about Microsoft's self-serving licensing position. How tenacious that he spends many hours per week earning his living.

    -Erik
  • I can even restrict the sale of my software by others.

    Wrong. Anyone who has your source code can redistribute it and any derivations for no monetary costs. This is Mundie's point. You customers will be your competition. This is partly outweighed by your having equall access to all of their improvements to it, but it is still a serious blow to profitability.

    Basically, the business model of selling software gets shot to hell when you use the GPL. You have to make up for it with non-GPL addons, support fees, versions with alternate licenses, etc. The software itself has become free beer.
  • I was at Open Source. The debate was VERY informative. It very much clarified what my best interests are in this situation.

    During the Tiemann/Mundie debate, I recalled Churchill's comment on hearing a conciliatory German radio speech just prior to the invasion of Austria: "Before the boa constrictor swallows its prey, it coats it in slime."

    A more graphic image is of MS lubing up the Open Source community before bending us over to have its way with us.

    It was clear that one of MS's goals was to drive a wedge between Free Software and everyone else, since the GPL makes them break out in hives, and to co-opt as many of us as possible into collusion with MS. I fear that this might happen to MONO, although I have confidence that Miguel's no dummy and he'll know when to cry foul.

    On the other hand, I think that Tiemann was correct in his observation that, below the level of top management, there might be a diversity of views within MS, and the management itself is opportunistic rather than driven by principles. So, if MS perceives that it is in its interest to cooperate with the OS movement, it will. But remember that corporations have interests, not morals, so that cooperation is not likely to be long-term. They can get us to commit resources, do lots of work, then cut us off later.

    My conclusion is that, if we don't collaborate with MS, they're going to mess with us in a big way. If we do collaborate, it will end up being on their terms. When a follow-up question mentioned the DMCA, the subtext of Mundie's sneering response sounded like "Well, smart-ass, if you don't like it, buy your own congressmen and change it." He explicitly referred to the lack of money in the OS movement, and said "Fine, if it takes money, then go get some." The main thing I took away from the debate was that MS is an arrogant and unscrupulous monopolist, and anything they can't eat or extract money from, they'll piss on. It has hardened my views (which were previously wavering) that they should be shunned and resisted at all costs. The balance of power is too asymmetrical for us to be able to cut fair deals with them.

    And I'm looking into ways to fund patent applications for features in GPL'd code.

  • Sometimes the best way to handle a troll is to ignore them.

    If you didn't notice from reading the "roundtable"... Bruce Perens was a troll.

  • Mundie ruled. The presentation and Q&A with him was undoubtedly the most waited event of the convention.

    The point of Mundies speech was that Microsoft is a learning machine. Learning from open source - they'll adopt community collaboration & shared source. However, big picture is that microsoft serves the interest of numerous customer groups in a number of areas and languages around the world where open source won't have access. Microsoft offers software for customers that have completely different requirements and viewpoints than linux zealots at /.

  • The 'Software Ecosystem' (Score:5)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:22AM (#2188676) Homepage Journal
    I found the repeated references to a 'Software Ecosystem' in Mundies letter amusing. I am supposing this goes along with the use of the term 'viral' when refering to the GPL. I can just picture a healthy MS landscape, where everything works together in harmony.. little 'VB script' bees pollinate outlook encouraging the growth of communication ("uh.. hey everybody - Don't open any mail from me that asks for your help, or says I love you..). Text Farmers have heathly Word crops with only the occasional paper-clip infestation.

    Then..

    GPL WILDFIRE! Good lord! its heading towards our profits! The crops will be ruined! Won't somebody *please* think of the children!!

    If only those damn university could leave well enough alone, and ONLY allow certain businesses access to source code, this could all be prevented. Lets not waste anymore public money on projects that can't be closed up and profited from by poor lil' old MS..

  • Gimme your software (Score:4)

    by ivan37 ( 149147 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:22AM (#2188677)
    Mundie: We are concerned about the potential implications of the GPL for use in disseminating the results of academic or government-funded research. The GPL in this context effectively erects a wall that prevents the public and private sectors from working together. By restricting severely the rights of anyone who incorporates GPL code into their own software program, the GPL makes it impossible for commercial software companies to build on the types of academic works that have been put in the public domain and have helped fuel innovation the last half-century.

    In other words, Microsoft is mad because it wants to "build" upon free software. Of course, once they build upon it, they will have to use their huge marketing force to crush anyone else who might want to use the same free software to create their own program in the name of "innovation".

  • There's always:

    http://www.sureplayer.org/ [sureplayer.org]

    Or they could have used mpeg, you can stream that as well.


    --

  • You mean we're not? But. But. But. Emacs vs vi. Perl vs Python. Linux vs *BSD. We flame, we're ideological, if we're not flaming ideologues then what are we?
  • Out of curiosity, tell me what you think of Extreme Programming [extremeprogramming.org]. Design is not antithetical to Free Software or Extreme Programming; it just is often important for developers to get their feet wet and see what the problems are.

    Knuth and Stroustrup have both argued that they have never seen any large, successful projects that haven't gone through some full revisions, where the design is cleaned out and built up again. Oftentimes, these large monoliths are really a composition of smaller objects, like Internet Explorer is. (It's a collection of COM objects.)

    BTW, why do you care about getting modded down? Have some courage.

  • Re:Open source lacks proper design (Score:4)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:51AM (#2188683) Homepage Journal
    I would agree that some OSS projects lack proper design, but the majority are designed quite well - a necessity when you're dealing with colaboration on such a large scale (as opposed to a team of 6 programmers). Such large projects as the Apache web server would never have atained the popularity that they have had they not been designed in a way that would allow management of such large scale colaboration. In fact there are OSS projects that are monuments to exceptional software design.

    Granted there are some young projects with bad design but you generally don't have to be worried about having ot use those products because the projects generally don't reach maturity, for reasons of managability.

    OSS doesn't just have good software design it requires good software design, much in the same way as OSS promotes an enviroment of cut-throat competitivemess among programmers, instituted through an effective system of massively scales pier review. Toy are only as good as your last piece of code, and the OSS project will only survive if the underlying design is exceptional.

    This as distinct from treditional corporate software design where pier review is frequently limited to 6 guys in a small room critiqueing your code, and software design is driven by customer deadlines; where software designers, after failing to succeed in one project will be transfered to another and another. Try that in the OSS comunity. If you fail on one public project, it's highly unlikely that you'll be invited to participate in another project. Such is the world of OSS and this is why it will always be a part of the software universe.

    --CTH

  • Re:Open source vs closed source (Score:3)

    by Colm@TCD ( 61960 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:54AM (#2188685) Homepage
    Quite. It's hard to make money by selling Open Source or Free Software, but it's easy to make a lot of money by using it. It's this that Microsoft most fears as it's a direct threat to all of their core businesses. Not surprising that they'll try to rubbish it at every opportunity. The fact that it's hard to sell free software is totally irrelevant.

  • Why Mundie is wrong.. (Score:4)

    by cthompso ( 2283 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:55AM (#2188686)
    I just read Mr. Mundie's message; although I understand where he's coming from, I'm not sure the ecosystem he describes
    can really pan out. For instance, it's important under his model that those who take from the "commons" give enough back,
    but in 1999, for example, Microsoft paid $0 in federal income taxes--large companies in the U.S. do a very good job of
    creating ingenious tax strategies, those are the breaks. But it does seem that there's a disturbing trend with our
    society "socializing the risk, privatizing the profit," as Doonesbury put it. Now, I'm a software developer, not an
    economist, but it seems to me that with Microsoft (and others) paying little or no taxes, hiring as many talented
    academics as will take the offer for working within Microsoft Research et. al., then patenting as much as they can to
    wall off new branches of technology...well, sheesh, how long can the commons sustain this sort of aggressive
    over-grazing?

    Turning to the GPL, I really like its emphasis on making software part of humanity's knowledge base, so that advances are
    never lost, and even poor societies have access. This guaranteed openness points the way toward a computing ecosystem
    like the medical sciences, where scientists not just in the U.S. but around the world share their findings and build on
    each others' work. *Implementing* humanity's open knowledge store of medicine is an enormous field that pays many
    millions of people, often quite well (my wife is a physician, so I have special insight there). The key word is
    *implementing*. I think we'll see this open ecosystem for computing come to pass, thanks to the GPL and the advantages of
    making software development a worldwide, not company proprietary, endeavor. This new world will probably be a little
    weird for Microsoft at first, but I am confident that everyone will find their niche, and we'll all wonder why it took us
    so long.
  • It was self-congratulatory back-patting on the part of the open source people. More constructive and useful discussion would have taken place had it not focussed on or revolved around MS and Mundie.

    -Adam

    This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
  • Contracts, licenses, and other legal documents do this all the time. Terms can be redefined as neccessary within the context of the document.

    There is nothing sinister about this, it simply saves the trouble of having to use a made up word and defining that, instead.

    Let me stress again, that if the terms of the GPL are violated, then the license terminates, and you only have those rights that you get under ordinary copyright law. The redefinition of the term 'derive' does not affect the definition WRT copyright law. If you were doing anything that would not be permitted under copyright law (such as redistribution), then you cannot continue to do so, since your license was terminated.

    This is not a bug, it is a feature, and without it the GPL would not be enforceable.

    If you are doing things that would be permitted under copyright, then you have no problems, even though your license under the GPL has terminated.

    Remember, if you don't agree with the GPL's terms, conditions, and definitions, then you don't have to accept the license in the first place.
    --

  • Dabating and Statesmanship (Score:5)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:26AM (#2188695) Homepage Journal
    Dan Gillmore and others observed that Mundie came off like a true statesman, compated to Tiemann. There is a lot to be said for statesmanship indebates of this sort. There is the PR advantage, the potential to catch your oponatnt off guard, and the potential to build alliances. Mundie and Microsoft as a whole has generall looked reasonable and fair (to outsiders) in the ongoing OSS discussions of the last 6 months. This is potentially vary damaging to the OSS position. If we can't get it together, as was done somewhat back in the beginning when Microsoft launched their attach on OSS through Mundie's first speech 6 months ago, then we might as well pack it in because public opinion is the end all and be all of public debates.

    While I completely disagree with Mundie's position, I aplaud him for his professional handling of the debates at this conference. I never thought I'd suggest using Microsoft employees as examples but i this case we should learn from Mundie's example.

    --CTH

  • Miguel Icaza have just post this at mono-list:

    Hello guys!

    I made a presetation at the O'Reilly Open Source conference on the Mono project, shortly after David Stutz talked about the Shared Source implementation of the ECMA C# and CLI that they will be releasing.

    Interesting things from David's talk:

    * The terms of that shared source license are still not ready, and will likely be different than those from Windows CE.

    * They expect to have something by the middle of next year.

    * He confirmed that it will just be the core of the system, and will contain a JIT.

    He made my life easier by explaining to the audience what the CLI was, which was helpful as I did not have to go into too much detail on the remaining time.

    We had a good talk about the CLI afterwards.

    The slides for my talk are available on the Mono site (I believe I already sent a mail about this) but in case I didn't, just go to http://www.go-mono.com [go-mono.com], and you will find the link to the talk slides.

    There were some good questions, like how we will avoid patents if there are any on the ECMA specification. Our answer is that we will stick to use old technologies: things that have been documented or written about in the past in the various areas where the CLI and C# matter: intermediate languages, standards for type systems, traditional optimization, garbage collection in the ways that Java has done for multi-threaded operation, traditional compiler instruction selection.

    For those cases where we incur in a speed penalty, we will research alternative ways to implement things to not infringe on their patents. This is particularly useful for those of you who are studying and need to write a thesis, as we have a research project you can work on.

    I also got a chance to talk face to face to Sam, and we discussed a bit about possible ways of improving the runtime. One thing that came to mind is that it would be possible for someone to work on a number of projects: retargetting an existing Java compiler (I am familiar with Guavac, and seems good enough) to generate CIL instead of JVM byte codes.

    I am now flying to Ottawa for the Linux Symposium. I will try to make releases of the runtime, the class libraries and the compiler on Sunday or Monday when I get back to Boston.

    Best wishes,
    Miguel.

    useful links




    Sorry for such a big submit.

  • Re:Craig Mundie Letter (Score:4)

    by webmaven ( 27463 ) <webmaven AT cox DOT net> on Friday July 27, 2001 @09:31AM (#2188698) Homepage
    We are concerned about the potential implications of the GPL for use in disseminating the results of academic or government-funded research. The GPL in this context effectively erects a wall that prevents the public and private sectors from working together. By restricting severely the rights of anyone who incorporates GPL code into their own software program, the GPL makes it impossible for commercial software companies to build on the types of academic works that have been put in the public domain and have helped fuel innovation the last half-century.
    What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works. If Microsoft doesn't want to wait for the copyright to expire and the GPL'd work to enter the public domain, maybe they should lobby for shorter copyright terms on software.

    Furthermore, copyrighted and GPL'd works are available in source form, which is the most useful form for creating derived works, but since Microsoft's products though copyrighted have hidden source code, even when their copyright expires no-one is likely to be able to make derived works, as the source code was never 'published'.

    Moreover, because there is no clear definition of a "derivative" work under the GPL, companies play a game of legal chance even if their employees only study GPL code before creating their own software.
    This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.
    --

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close