Google WebM Calls "Open Source" Into Question 185
snydeq writes "As open source becomes mainstream, vendors are under pressure to market their offerings using the 'open source' brand to the highest degree possible — a trend that may eventually degrade the meaning of 'open source' as we know it, Savio Rodrigues writes. Witness WebM, which Google has positioned as an open alternative to H.264. After examining the software license, some in the open source community have questioned whether WebM should be classified as open source software. Google did not use an OSI-approved license for WebM, meaning that, at least in theory, WebM cannot be considered open source under the OSD — the 'gold standard' by which many government and business open source policies are defined. Moreover, when prodded for OSI review, Google required that the OSI agree to 'changes to how OSI does licenses' as a precursor to submitting a license for OSI review and approval. 'When Google, one of the largest supporters of open source, goes out and purposefully circumvents the OSI, what signal does this send to other vendors? How important is using an OSI-approved license likely to be in the future if other vendors follow Google's lead?'"
An anonymous reader adds: "It turns out that libvpx, Google's VP8 library, isn't compatible with the GPLv2. Google is apparently aware of the problem and working on a solution.
I sense scaremongering (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need the OSI to tell you what is open source and what isn't. Read the OSD and the WebM license and see for yourself.
Re:I sense scaremongering (Score:5, Informative)
Has anyone run it past debian-legal yet? That would also be a credible mark of acceptability as free software.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just BSD + a patent license.
OSI doesn't own a trademark on "Open Source" either and if they did, it would probably be ruled generic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically the BSD license (word for word) plus the patent license from the Apache License (slightly narrowed and paraphrased, but at least equivalent when paired with Google's license over the patents in the spec). So I honestly don't see anything worth arguing here.
Re:I sense scaremongering (Score:5, Informative)
The article is merely a trolling attempt.
Re:I sense scaremongering (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I sense scaremongering (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally would wait for the FSF to make a statement about GPL3 compatibility, reading both sections from both licenses does not give me a 100% sure feeling that it is necessarily so.
Re:I sense scaremongering (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, no matter how clear it appears to me, it may be better to get a statement from the wolf's mouth. I mailed licensing@gnu.org asking for their word.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally find it very difficult to read any license and the GPL v3 and be 100% sure they are compatible. Heck, I've previously expressed doubts about whether the BSD license is compatible if one reads them both strictly (The issue has to do with requirements on additional permissions and differences as to when restrictions can be added to turn a BSD-licensed work into a GPL-licensed work). Richard Fontana's advice (from the SFLC) was helpful. He said that the licenses were intended to be compatible s
Re: (Score:2)
But from a legal point of view, it doesn't matter what the FSF thinks. If a dispute ever went to trial, a judge would be the one doing the interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Dibona, Google's open source front man has consistently pushed Apache license hard and campaigned unabashedly against GPL. Alienating good contributers and damaging Google's rep in the process. His imperious attitude [crynwr.com] does not help a bit.
Reputation is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2)
For those who don't support the GPL, this would enhance Google's reputation, not damage it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not compatible with GPLv2. It is very clearly compatible with GPLv3 (at least the problem section pointed in the article).
It is also not done yet. The current license isn't the final call from Google. They are currently looking at license compatibility.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:1019:dphgapeaeaahenjiboco [crynwr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I take a OSI license with feature set A and a OSI license with feature set B, and make a linear combination of the two, why shouldn't I get a OSI license. (feature set != paragraphs)
FSF Free Software, however. (Score:5, Informative)
Note that WebM is, however, FSF-approved Free Software [fsf.org].
The FSF is rather more active than the OSI, and is unlikely to, e.g., get its corporate registration suspended just because they were too arse-disabled to get their paperwork in [the451group.com].
We do need some sort of organisation like the OSI, perhaps even the OSI itself. But I'm entirely unsurprised someone would consider the present OSI just not to have its shit together enough to be taken seriously.
Re:FSF Free Software, however. (Score:5, Informative)
That link makes no claims that it is a FSF approved license, just that FSF is a proponent of using WebM format on the web. I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones. They make statements about which licenses are GPL compatible at times, this was not such a statement either.
Re:FSF Free Software, however. (Score:4, Informative)
I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones.
Actually the FSF approves of using any license [gnu.org] that meets their definition of free software [gnu.org]. They discourage the use of GPL-incompatible licenses for new projects, but have no problem with contributing to existing projects under an incompatible license.
Re:FSF Free Software, however. (Score:4, Informative)
It's an official FSF press release in which the FSF states that it's free software. It's not a place in their list of approved licences, but it is the FSF officially calling it free software. What you "would imagine" is incorrect - there are many licenses the FSF lists that are not GPL-compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be implausible to list every single license on that page. That's why they don't list licenses used by just one project unless there's some special reason to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
...vendors are under pressure to market their offerings using the 'open source' brand to the highest degree possible...
I'm sorry, what planet are you on?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you mixing up free software with open source?
Re: (Score:2)
In what way does what I wrote do that?
Whinging about Google wanting change? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OSI wants to be the One True Cathedral, through which licenses get handed down from on high. Google is taking a bazaar approach, realizing that they can use their own brains to develop a perfectly open license of their own -- a position that the Free Software Foundation agrees with. Having an open market for open source licenses threatens OSI's cathedral-based model so naturally OSI is attempting to quash such deviant behavior.
Who cares (Score:2)
Open source has been around a lot longer than Google. The OSI can just continue doing their thing, and everyone will look for the nod from RMS, and nothing will change. Google can of course just use the words "open source" and maybe the OSS fad people who get a kick out of sticking it to the man and not using IE will be led astray, but the open source community isn't a bunch of art students looking for a sleek OPEN SOURCE logo at the bottom of the page, it's a bunch of intelligent developers who already dea
This strikes me as misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems very clear that Google is trying to support open standards and technologies. Different people are going back and forth over licenses and procedures. Everyone seems to be acting in good faith. And there's no reason to believe that it won't all get worked out.
The language in the /. article almost makes it sound like Google is trying to do something like "Embrace and Extend". I just don't think that's what's going on.
If we can move to a place where most video is managed with open technologies, it will be very good for everyone. I'm grateful to the companies who get it, and to people who are trying to figure out the best way to do it. And I don't think the fact that there are small differences of opinion among those folks is a good reason to get upset.
Re:This strikes me as misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
The OSI seems upset that someone has finally said "sorry, you're too arse-disabled to take seriously. You want to be taken seriously, get your shit together."
The licence is Free Software as far as the FSF and Debian are concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read the thread when it showed up in my email. I didn't see any sign that OSI was upset. Someone brought up the fact that google was using a different license. There was a discussion about the license they used. OSI doesn't evaluate licenses unless the authors of the license ask them for their opinion of the license. Someone suggested they prod Google. Google responded and said they weren't ready to submit it and were still working out compatibility issues. They also said they wanted to discoura
Re: (Score:2)
The Simon Phipps article linked is *precisely* being upset Google didn't bother to call them. As is the Michael Tiemann [opensource.org] one.
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading way too much into those articles. Nobody said they were upset that google didn't bother to call them.
Simon just said it isn't open source due to the field of use restriction in the patent grant and that it hasn't been submitted to the OSI. And ASKED google to submit it.
And Michael's article only briefly touches on the situation with the VP8 licenses and all he does is ask questions.
You're reading emotion into these posts where there is none.
Re: (Score:2)
*cough* I *know* they were upset Google didn't call them and therefore wrote those articles. The whole point of them was to get Google to bother calling them.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong about "embrace & extend". It's the "extinguish" part, when it happens, that is undesirable. In this case, though, I don't see how it applies.
You want open? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The WebM license is a BSD license with an added clause giving an explicit patent license.
Re: (Score:2)
What Google wants is a end user bandwidth ready get out of royalty payments codec.
Nothing more or less. They dont want to have to give back in any form or be any more open with related projects.
They also expect their 'gift' to be worked on by developers around the world for free, updating, optimising and fixing.
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license works REALLY well for the PostgreSQL project though....
Me? I mostly just sick of license wars.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite true. A normal BSD license doesn't have a copyright cancellation clause. The WebM patent license rescinds the copyright license if you sue google over the patents.
This may well be a reasonable thing to do, but it is not strictly more permissive than BSD, in the way that a simple BSD plus separate patent grant would be.
Re:You want open? (Score:4, Insightful)
A "BSD" license is open.
Especially in the nether region, inviting anyone like Apple to exploit you without giving anything in return.
Re:You want open? (Score:4, Insightful)
A "BSD" license is open.
Especially in the nether region, inviting anyone like Apple to exploit you without giving anything in return.
And yet, for some reason, Apple gives back, anyway...
Strong copyleft helps ensure equity (Score:2)
I'd rather not look at this in terms of what one proprietor does today but across what is possible and what is fair. I think it's unwise to rely on corporate largesse for getting back published improvements to programs I wrote. I shared my published improvements with them, they can share their published improvements with me and do so in a form I have a chance of being able to incorporate into my variant of the program. That sounds fair to me. Leaving it up to proprietors to share and share alike with me
Kinda misleading (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kinda misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
Why would an open source firm lack transparency?
*WebM* is open sourced? (Score:2)
How can a *format* be open sourced? It's like saying that JPG or DOC are "open source". If you're talking about particular implementation, then please be more clear.
As a side note / example:
Statement: "H264 is open source (see x264 project)"
Is true: Y/N?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mix up source code and data format (Score:2)
I don't care if Google's VP8 library is not strictly speaking open source (or even proprietary), just as long as the WebM format is described in a precise way in a public document, with no patents forbiding me to implement a codec.
In the same way, I would happily buy a proprietary version of Microsoft Word 2013, if only it would save documents in strict ODF format.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with VP8 is that the present definition includes bits of C code ;-) Xiph is one of the organisations working on cleaning it up.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is good C code that could be fine. At least it makes it a strict spec. All specs should at least come with a reference version.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care if Google's VP8 library is not strictly speaking open source (or even proprietary), just as long as the WebM format is described in a precise way in a public document, with no patents forbiding me to implement a codec.
The problem is, given current US intellectual property laws, no one can say for certain that there as "no patents forbidding me to implement a codec". That is up to the legal process. Active people in the IP space say that all modern digital video compression methods are probab
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way, I would happily buy a proprietary version of Microsoft Word 2013, if only it would save documents in strict ODF format.
It does that since Office 2007 SP2.
(assuming that by "strict ODF" you mean "fully conformant to the letter of ISO standard", not "fully interoperable with OO.org")
compatibilty (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer. Here's the gist. the license is not compatible with:
GPL, GPL2, LGPL2
compatible with:
BSD, MIT
likely compatible with:
Apache, CDDL, Mozilla
unlikely compatible with:
GPL3
This all boils down to the patent clause at the end. It makes further restrictions upon distribution. They are worded in a way that looks to be compatible with Apache and the like, but someone from the FSF should really step in and announce if the two different patent clauses are compatible in GPL3 and WebM license.
That's all that really matters to most, it is not an OSI approved license, since it has not been submitted. That matters to some organizations in choosing a license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's funny is that the regular (modified) BSD-style license, which grants *no* patent license at all, is considered GPLv2 compatible. How can a license that grants you additional rights on top of the BSD license then be *in*compatible with the GPLv2? The brain boggles...
As soon as you bring up patent grant rights, I guess you potentially run afoul of Section 7 of the GPLv2 which references patents? The interaction between Google's (conditional on not suing Google) patent grant and Section 7 of GPLv2 is
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you consider that the last section (cancellation) refers to the rights under the whole license. If the last section just referred to the patent grant, then it wouldn't explicitly forbid you from distributing the software, it would just open you up to countersuit from google.
That's my point.
Upon reading it again, though, it says "then any rights granted to You under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed." - what it probably should say is
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the way I read it at first, it doesn't take away your right to sue them, it just says they will no longer promise not to sue you if you sue them first.
But I think I misread the last sentence initially (see my reply here [slashdot.org]. If the license just terminated the patent grant when a lawsuit was filed, that *would* be GPLv2 compatible. Since it appears that it terminates all rights in that case, it's not currently GPLv2 compatible, though it would be a trivial modification to make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the "restriction" is basically "if you try to sue someone for patent infringement on the code covered by this license, then your license to use it is terminated".
If you are scared to use software because you may be restricted from suing other people using it, then by all means DON'T USE IT.
I must have missed it. (Score:2)
Google wants "changes to how OSI does licenses'" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, here is what Google was concerned about:
1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license.
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We
are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
3) We need to know OSI's current corporate status. I heard that osi was a
california corporation again, but I would like to know, from the group, that
this is true for 2010 and that there aren't any issues there.
So, they want the OSI to be more open, and they want to discourage the use of the WebM license by others to prevent license sprawl, and they want to verify OSI's corporate status.
Anyone else have a problem with these changes? They seem help everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I think it's worth noting that the GPL v3 would have to be interpreted to allow substantially compliant licenses to be compatible even if there are minor incompatibilities according to a strict reading. Otherwise, the BSD license would be incompatible because the BSD license cannot be reduced to GPL v3 + additional acceptable terms (the issue here has to do with removal of the "additional permissions" and when that's possible). So I think it's reasonable to assume that two licenses are compatible if
"Open source" is getting diluted everywhere (Score:2)
Within the Transportation Security Administration, the phrase "open source" refers to publicly available versions of various types of documents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's actually a much older use of the term open source in the intelligence community. "Open source intelligence" means getting your intelligence from open, i.e. public, sources. It's used in intelligence predates the "coining" of the term for use with software. [citation needed.]
I much prefer just calling free and "open source" software, because without the source code, it isn't really "soft" ware, is it? Well, sure, you can hack the binaries, but that isn't as useful.
It is 'Open' enough for me,if it has the following (Score:4, Informative)
* Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
* Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
Did any of you actually *read* the controversy (Score:3, Insightful)
OSI didn't ask for any of this.
Someone who wanted to start developing stuff on top of the library (who happens to be esr) asked for this.
Then some things were said, like "well we're not ready yet" but in a hurried and somewhat non-diplomatic manner.
Then the whole thing blew up just enough for the lid to leave the teapot by about a quarter of an inch before it settled back down.
There is no there there.
Re:Did any of you actually *read* the controversy (Score:4, Insightful)
What pem said. The original summary above is full of hyperbole and epic levels of FUD. A thread on a mailing list elevated to the status of News. Sheesh. Slashdot editors, please use some discretion.
For those Slashdotters who want the executive summary, go read the LWN thread from 4 days ago: http://lwn.net/Articles/388883/ [lwn.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whoops. Wrong article. Here you go: http://lwn.net/Articles/389611/ [lwn.net]
dilution of "open source" (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever the merits of this particular disagreement, the term "open source" is definitely getting diluted in the same way that "organic" and "innovative" have been diluted. I went to a symposium in LA last year about the governor's Free Digital Textbook Initiative [bbc.co.uk]. There was quite a mix of people there -- teachers, education bureaucrats, open-source software types, authors of free books, people from hardware companies, and people from traditional textbook publishing houses. Everyone was using "open source" like it was magic pixie dust, sprinkling it on everything to make it seem shinier and better. Pearson's rep referred to the consumable workbook it submitted as "free and open-source" -- actually it's just a PDF file that you can download and print, but that you can't redistribute, modify, etc. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's rep, when questioned about DRM, said that her company was committed to DRM, and envisioned its DRM'd materials being mixed and matched with open-source ones. Both said that they wanted to be service providers (think Red Hat), rather than just content providers (a la Microsoft) -- but, hey, they produce really great content, too. Apple and Dell's reps argued for open formats such as XML.
Part of the reason for the confusion is that people are confused about applying the term to anything other than computer software. When I've mentioned here on slashdot that I was the author of some open-source books, I've sometimes gotten reactions amounting to, "You're an idiot. You don't even know what open source means." This despite the fact that the books are under a GPL-style copyleft license (CC-BY-SA, same as Wikipedia) and their source code (written in a programming language called LaTeX) is openly available and free for redistribution and modification under that license. It sounds like there's similar confusion here because people aren't distinguishing clearly between the issue of WebM as an open format and the implementation of WebM in open-source software. Who the heck cares whether google's reference implementation is open source, as long as the format is openly defined and usable without paying patent royalties? The first implementations of html by NCSA weren't open source according to the modern meaning of the term, but html was certainly an open format.
"Open Source" -/ OSI. (Score:2)
Just as "Free Software" does not exclusively mean FSF approved.
So, Google's release doesn't meet one specific definition of "Open Source" doesn't mean that either WebM isn't open source, or that the name or model of "open source" is in question.
It just means that WebM is "open source" by some definitions, but not others.
I see this in the same light as Apple's licensing of Mac OS X as "UNIX". It's just a name. Apple called it "unix" before it was officially licensed as "UNIX". Does that mean that versions
To anser your sig (Score:2)
Its MS AI and statistics workshop.
Here is the 1999 one:
http://uncertainty99.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]
IS it circumvention (Score:2)
or a reasonable change?
Working on solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this a library Google themselves have written? Why not just open it up and make it compatible with the GPL version in question? If they want to call it open source isn't that the easiest and fastest way to solve it? Do no evil, not do less evil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is with the GPL, not Google.
Google's license is BSD, EXCEPT for the one clause that says anyone can use it, UNLESS they try to assert patent rights over something in libvpx. It was a smart clause to have, and taking the teeth out of it would be a disservice to everyone, all to humor rabid GPL advocates who can't handle the real world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has a "shared source" thing [microsoft.com] where they will show you the source code for reference purposes (Wikipedia says for viewing Microsoft classes while debugging) but you can't redistribute it. Definitely not open source.
Re: (Score:2)
if you can see it, then it's open. Its not free however. Don't get the 2 confused just because most GPL/BSD/etc code is free and open.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is actually very careful about how it uses the term "open source". It does have some true OSS licenses of its own (e.g. Microsoft Public License), and some projects under those licenses, such as IronPython or IronRuby - and those are referred to as "open source"; while projects where source is available, but modification or redistribution is not allowed, are, as you rightly point out, referred to as "shared source".
So, yeah, I'd say that the difference is fairly mainstream within the industry. Whi
Re: (Score:2)
It does have some true OSS licenses of its own
A TRUE OSS license will contain the Four Freedoms. IF it does not then it is not a license that would encourage community source code contributions and return improvements back to the community for the benefit of all.
The OSI markets a forest of pseudo Open Source licenses which attempt to hide the few trees that honor the Four Freedoms. Without the Four Freedoms GNU Linux would not have grown to its present popularity and still remain free. One has only to
Re: (Score:2)
I've no idea what you mean about "true OSS", but even FSF recognizes BSD (and similar non-restrictive licenses) as a Free Software license.
In any case, it is not at all clear why the term "open source" should have anything to do with some "four freedoms".
Re: (Score:2)
MS-PL and MS-RL are both quite OK with regard to the four freedoms. It's just that they're GPL-incompatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Software nerds suck at marketing. The "Open Source" branding effort uses term which doesn't even mean what it implies, and has a completely different meaning in other contexts (open source intelligence). And plus, it's a common term and can't be trademarked anyway. So every discussion always turns into a endless squabble about definitions, which is exactly the opposite of what they should be achieving.
Of course the alternative, "Free Software" is even worse. Especially because they tend to use as an excuse
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only a complete idiot would ignore how compatible a license is with other open source licenses. I can in two lines create an open source license that is totally open and totally useless. Watch:
Totally incompatible license v1.0
"You're free to use this code for anything without restriction if any and all code in derivatives is licensed under the Totally incompatible license v1.0"
This obviously meets every definition of the OSI, but it's not compatible with anything, not even the BSD license. It's utterly usel
Re:Dear OSS Zealots (Score:5, Funny)
Uhm, haven't you just redefined GPL?
Not completely (Score:2)
Of course, he convinced some of his license users to release under "Totally incompatible license v1.0 or greater" which means that he can now stick a clause in 2.0 explaining how he owns their souls.
Re:Dear OSS Zealots (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, quite many licenses are GPL-compatible without being the GPL. They tried very hard in the GPLv3 to make more licenses compatible by letting you add various bits:
a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.
But yes, ultimately the GPL says "no more restrictions". It doesn't matter if those restrictions are a good idea or not, if noone thought to include them in the license text they're not permitted.
Oddly enough, if I look at the GPLv3 under patents there's one word I'm not seeing here:
"Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."
The word I don't see is "irrevocable". Does this mean Google's patent termination clause is GPLv3-compatible? Good question indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
Re: (Score:2)
No, the GPL has a very broad range of OTHER licenses compatible with it. As long as you follow the spirit of the rules, it's unlikely your license will be incompatible with it.
In fact, any free but GPL-incompatible licenses tend to be either borderline free (advertising clause, immutable-but-patchable, etc) or specifically designed to be GPL-incompatible (CDDL, I'm looking at you!).
Re: (Score:2)
No, the GPL has a very broad range of OTHER licenses compatible with it. As long as you follow the spirit of the rules, it's unlikely your license will be incompatible with it.
For a rather cherry-picked definition of "compatible."
Ironically, if you consider the entire OSS/Free software community as a macrocosm, GPL projects do exactly what its proponents/zealots claim that it protects against: taking without giving anything back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, every product that claims to be 'green' is equally green for you?
You don't think it would be useful to have some help in determining which ones adhere to practices that are generally considered to be good (or at least, not so bad) for the environment?
I personally am not willing to trust that every claim of green, or open, or whatever is equal, but I don't have time to investigate these things myself, so I appreciate the help of organizations that will help me sort these things out.
I'm not looking for co
Re: (Score:2)
So, every product that claims to be 'green' is equally green for you?
Yep, that's analogous to what the parent post claimed. Let's see, your interpretation:
Anyone who claims they are open must be open source.
What the parent actually said:
People who are so pedantic as to nitpick about arbitrary details that define openness are a burden. If the source is open for use, then it's open source. It really is that simple.
You didn't take many classes in proper paraphrasing in high school now did you? Sheesh.
All late-afternoon bitterness, aside, your other point about
Re:Dear OSS Zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
Use a brand new license and people are right to be suspicous.
Licenses are like reading someone else's source code. They're bastard cousins of contracts
and contracts are complicated twisted things specifically engineered to try and screw the
other guy. This is a reason to avoid license proliferation and a reason to stick to what
is well understood. Legal language has consequences.
So the obvious question is why has Google chosen to add to the mix or start from scratch.
What are they up to? What is the motivation that already isn't encapsulated in one of the
pre-existing licenses.
A new license needs to be vetted just like any other legal language.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the source is open but not for use?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the source is open but not for use?
Then it gets supported by Steve Jobs.
What's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's license for this software is just an approved BSD license + a narrow patent license. If it'd be open source without the patent license, I'm not at all sure why it wouldn't be open source with an added patent license which is along the spirit of the original license.
This controversy is STUPID. Next we'll hear bitter complaints about how PostgreSQL's not "open source."
Re: (Score:2)
Your code will be mortal again and they will hunt it down.
Re:seconded! (Score:4, Insightful)
Were we would be?
We would have no access to source, companies would feel free to use works with no giving back to the source and we would have a massive tragedy of the commons. Yeah, that sounds great.
Re: (Score:2)
Were we would be?
Probably posting in Slashdot. It was BSD licensed code that encouraged the Internet taking off. Anyone could take the BSD stack, add it to their operating system and allow users to connect to the Internet. When I press submit, it will be a BSD licensed stack that transports this post to the Internet.
If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it, an Internet that we can all post to no matter which operating system we're using would of been delayed or perhaps not showed up.
Re: (Score:2)
"If the stack had been GPL, hardly anyone would of used it,"
Why do you make that assumption? It isn't like the entire OS would have to be opened if the stack were GPL. Everyone who used it would just have to contribute back to the stack.
The result would be a more robust and featureful stack all around, as it is any improvements made by those who used the BSD stack stayed proprietary.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, in a word of all public domain/bsd code nobody contributes code anymore. They all take the code add their enhancements and either keep it closed or sell it, still keeping it closed.
The freely available code no longer gets improved and stagnates until it is no longer useful to any one.
In other words, "everyone takes what they can from it until it is no longer useful to anyone".
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a surprise, but there's an article linked from the summary!
This Google licence is basically BSD one with an appendix covering patent issues.
Re: (Score:2)
"This may come as a surprise, but there's an article linked from the summary!"
And you read it? Heathen! Stone him!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)