MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software (networkworld.com) 79
Reader alphadogg cites a report on NetworkWorld: MIT Media Lab, that 30-year-old tech innovation factory that has had a huge hand in churning out everything from LEGO MindStorms to the Guitar Hero video game, has now wowed the open source and free software crowd. Lab Director Joi Ito over the weekend revealed that MIT Media Lab has changed its approach to software releases to FLOSS (free/libre/open-source software) by default.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL removes no freedom at all. It only doesn't grant it. That means, if you really want to distribute closed source software based on GPL, you only need the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL does grant freedoms, the only freedoms it doesn't grant is the freedom to remove freedom. This isn't granted by states either (you may not imprison people, but the state can).
I don't say the GPL is perfect, but for huge monolithic software it is a good model.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom can only be taken away, and that's exactly what the GPL does
If you don't like it, don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
Well, then it sounds like you should use a BSD or Apache license for your open source project. Nobody's forcing you to use GPL if you don't like it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
It's A model of "free", it's not THE model of "free". Even Linux is still GPLv2, precisely because it's a much more restrictive license. You know, kinda less "free".
As you have just inadvertently summed it up, the "freedom" the GPL offers is to use it under a very specific terms, or not use it at all. Which
Re:What the fuck?! Freedom isn't "granted"! (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
Of course I understand. That was the whole point of the GPL. It gives you certain rights, but not the freedom to take the same rights away from others. Sounds like a fair trade to me, but there are plenty of other licenses to choose from if you don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
It gives you certain rights, but not the freedom to take the same rights away from others.
Which some of us mean makes it more free, not less. We wouldn't call a society that allowed slavery more "free" than one that forbade it. Freedom is not about the number of rules/restrictions. It's about what those rules are.
Re: (Score:3)
You can "use" (as in run) GPL licensed software for any purpose whatsoever. You just can't create proprietary closed source software with extracts of the source code provided to you. That's why the GPL promotes freedom, and the BSD license promotes proprietary software.
Re: (Score:2)
Having benefited from BSD and Apache licenses, I'd be quite inclined to use those licenses, or at least things like the LPGL so you can link to stuff ... precisely because they don't wish to assert control over how others use it.
The GPL places no restrictions on use of the software. It places restrictions only on distribution of it.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
GPL means you are "free" to be enslaved by a certain ideological view of "free", by telling you the ways in which you're not really free.
It has its place, but it's by no means perfect, and it certainly has a restricted definition of "free".
Every time I see this philosophical argument, I shake my head, because the proponents of both licenses tend to completely ignore the viewpoint of the other and get bogged down in the definition of "freedom." BSD is free in the sense of anarchy. Here's our code, do with it what you will. "Fork it? Clone it and close it? Go for it, man, be free." There is a lot of good in this, and some bad. GPL is free in the sense of the picnic pavilion down at the local park. "We have some good rules in place here to
This or future version ... not free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"LOL, yup, that's freedom ... adhere to this long list of restrictions, or don't use it."
Only, again, that's not the case. The case is that you can *either* "adhere to this so called by gstoddart long list of restrictions", *or* "just use and modify it at leisure to the full extent allowed by copyright laws".
At your entire choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Cool!
Say, could you do me a solid and use all that freedom you have in the absence of the GPL to make a quick change to the Win10 source code to me? Just the teensiest tweak to a GUI default setting...
I'd do it myself, but, well... Virally tainted and all.
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question about Win10 was to demonstrate the sillyness of the line: "It denies freedoms that are otherwise perfectly reasonable, and would exist were the GPL not denying them."
It demonstrates no such thing since the discussion is about FLOSS licensing, Microsoft is a straw man. Sorry your not getting that.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the GPL doesn't exist in a vacuum - in the absence of the GPL (or some other license), copyright law automatically removes virtually all freedoms except to observe and discuss. No sharing, no modification, not even necessarily the right to use it (running software requires copying it into RAM, a point which has been raised in a few lawsuits, though I don't recall if there's ever been an official ruling on the subject).
The GPL then grants you many freedoms which you would not have had - granting the r
Re: (Score:3)
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It ge
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, BSD can be converted to GPL, but GPL can't be converted to BSD. That's because the GPL does use copyright law to protect the freedom of the software.
It does use the same legal tools as the proprietary software, but it promotes user freedom with those tools, and not restrictions towards the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GPL does remove freedoms, though.
No, it doesn't. Under copyright law, you literally have no freedom to do anything with the code. The GPL does nothing but grant freedoms.
Copyright law removes freedoms, the GPL grants most of them back.
Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD).
ok
Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd.
That's just an example of freedom being removed b
Re: (Score:2)
You can't relicense BSD code as GPL without the permisson of the author.
Why not ? The 2-clause BSD license says:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Nothing in those two clauses prevents licensing under GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
No, nothing prevents distribution with GPL software. You cannot relicense software that you do not own the rights to (i.e. that you did not write).
I do not know why this needs to be explained, on Slashdot of all places...
Re: (Score:2)
It's tempting to grab a CDDL ZFS kernel module, compile it, then license the binary as GPL and see what happens. Include the binary with a Linux distro. Why can't you? It's GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading up on this, apparently the issue isn't with the binary, but the source. CDDL does not permit you to relicense the source, and GPL insists that for any combined work, the source code must be able to be licensed as GPL (only). [sfconservancy.org] Theoretically a FUSE module would be acceptable, but probably not worth it. However, there is nothing preventing end-users from installing ZFS as long as it's not distributed.
Also, in my considered opinion, CDDL is a seriously fucked-up license.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in those two clauses prevents licensing under GPL.
Nothing in that paragraph says anything about relicensing. The BSD license does NOT give youthe right to relicense the work. You can distribute it all mixed up with GPL code, but youcannot relicense.
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license does NOT give you the right to relicense the work.
As long as you keep the BSD clauses, there's no rule that says you can't redistribute it with a GPL license on it, without making any change to the code or adding GPL code to it.
Re: (Score:2)
SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Yes, that's the consequence of the freedom given by the BSD license. It allows others to take its code, modify it, and parade it around.
Benevolent restrictions != free (Score:2)
SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Yes, that's the consequence of the freedom given by the BSD license. It allows others to take its code, modify it, and parade it around.
You do realize the author was simply pointing out hypocrisy? Pointing out that "freedom" is receiving an Orwellian redefinition? The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive. Saying these restrictions are "good for you" doesn't change this simple fact and redefine restrictive as "free".
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things. That's not hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things. That's not hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is being restrictive, which you admit, yet claiming you are "free". Restrictive != Free. Benevolence does not change this, benevolence merely justifies adopting the restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
"Take a piece of code under (modified 2 clause - assumed since 3-clause is incompatible) BSD. It gets incorporated under GPL (fine, that's why the authors picked BSD). Now, however, a patch is made to that code, which is GPL'd. That patch cannot be incorporated back into the upstream project because it's GPL'd which conflicts with the original project's BSD license."
Which is exactly why the patch creator chose the GPL instead of the BSD license -and that's also fine, that's why the authors picked BSD.
"It's
Re: (Score:1)
What the fuck is that "Conceptual Map of the FLOSS" image at the top of the announcement?!
I don't see why the GPL is in the "Free Licences" block alongside the BSD license. The BSD license deserves to be there, but the GPL does not. The GPL goes out of its way to remove freedom and choice (like the freedom to modify the code and to distribute binaries without revealing the changes, or the freedom to use a snippet of GPLed code without virally tainting the rest of the code base), while the BSD license tries to maximize it.
And why isn't the MIT license listed?!
What a fucking weird diagram.
Every time someone says this sort of thing, I have a question. This question has never received a good answer, mostly hand-waving. The question is:
If the BSD license is superior to the GPL, why didn't Open Source really truly take off as a movement with mainstream recognition until after the Linux system and its GPL license? Linux is something lots of average non-techie users have heard of and some of them are using it.
I believe the answer is that the GPL works better in the real world. It achieves a be
Gotta be practical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We often see the same people riding the hype wave. Rust is a good example of this. It's quickly becoming one of the most-hyped programming languages, despite being inferior to C++11 and C++14 in almost every way.
If you can't write rust, the compilation will fail. If you can't write C++, the program will segfault, and perhaps only on some specific condition. C++ doesn't have unified unit testing, it still has the C preprocessor, and still has very easy access to many unsafe C routines. Rust has a borrowship concept that may seem complicated but knowing every single aspect of C++ well its much much harder, C++ is much more complex.
Rust has deserved every bit of hype in my opinion, it can be seen as a full and suiting
Re: (Score:2)
Linux did not benefit from GPL ... (Score:3)
The question is: If the BSD license is superior to the GPL, why didn't Open Source really truly take off as a movement with mainstream recognition until after the Linux system and its GPL license?
Linus answered this himself. The BSD on PC projects got tied up in court by AT&T. If it were not for this fluke of history he would not have written Linux. A PC based Unix was such a compelling "want" that whatever project had the first credible implementation would have dominated. Because of AT&T that was Linux. The GPL had nothing to do with it. Linux did not benefit from the GPL, the GPL benefited from Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
"Linux did not benefit from the GPL, the GPL benefited from Linux."
I was there back then and that's not what I saw back in those days.
Yes, Linus started his pet project because of two things (not just one):
0. (yes, I know I said "two things", therefore the zero): a brand new 386 and the time and will to hack it.
1. Minix was not under a free license, so it couldn't be modified beyond Tanenbaum's desires (not that I think it was a wrong choice for him -I see why he did it).
2. BSD distributions were under lice
Re: (Score:2)
The license that Linus choose is irrelevant, what is relevant is why he had to choose a license. There would have been no such choice, no Linux, if AT&T had not cast t
Re: (Score:2)
"What most people want is a decent *nix on their PC. Period."
Again, you can think all you want (of course). But what "most" people wanted was (and is) completely moot because it is not the "most" but the "minority" the ones that produce the code and make the difference. And while the minority pushing for Linux were adding code to a GPL base, the minority pushing for BSD (i.e. the two Bills, Joy and Jolitz -we are not talking here about people who Torvalds could cast any shadow over) were looking for their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There was not great clamor for the GPL."
Neither I claimed anything like this. What I did say is that GPL was critical to its success. Quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
"Linux was not initially released under the GPL [...] From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft"
Linux was delivered under the GPL since v0.99, december 1992. And what did I already say? "At the beginning this [BSD vs GPL] didn't mean any difference, but once Linux gained critical mass it was the GPL and its snowball effect all that counted."
"There was not great clamor for the GPL."
Probably there was no clamor either for automobiles back when Fo
Re: (Score:2)
"Linux was not initially released under the GPL [...] From the v0.12 release notes: "I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft"
Linux was delivered under the GPL since v0.99, december 1992. And what did I already say? "At the beginning this [BSD vs GPL] didn't mean any difference, but once Linux gained critical mass it was the GPL and its snowball effect all that counted."
What accounted for the snowball effect was the increasing capability of the linux environment and and the increased knowledge of its existence as a PC based *nix environment. The GPL was there coincidentally, it piggybacked and gained its own fame on the back of Linux's technical success.
"There was not great clamor for the GPL."
Probably there was no clamor either for automobiles back when Ford started his mill, but there it was. I never claimed there were a clamor for a GPL'ed OS (outside of the GNU community, should I add) but still, I say that being GPL was key factor for its explosive growth -even when most of their users didn't give a damn about the license itself.
In your analogy giving the GPL credit for Linux's success is like giving Ford's lawyers credit for Ford's success. It wasn't the lawyers, it was the engineers in both scenarios. In both scenarios the lawyers were just along
Re: (Score:2)
"What accounted for the snowball effect was the increasing capability of the linux environment and and the increased knowledge of its existence as a PC based *nix environment. The GPL was there coincidentally"
Again, the "increased capability" of the Linux environment doesn't come from its raw popularity but from the people with the will and ability to code for it. Just as it is the case on the *BSD systems, by the way.
But then, when you have a plan for the "2. ???" point before the "3. profit!" and the abi
Re: (Score:2)
It was the engineering that was key to Linux's success. I came home from the swap meet with two CDs, Yggdrasil Plug-and-Play and FreeBSD. Because of my BSD background from school I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2, it crashed during installation.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world?"
Because, at any rate, Linus didn't want to contribute to anyone's code base but to tinker with his shinny new 80386 on the knowledge he gathered from Tanenbaum's MINIX.
And then again, he started tinkering with his new toy in 1991 while the USL v. BSDi lawsuit didn't started till 1992 and even then, Linus was 23 y.o. living in Finland and so, didn't give a damn about USA politics or laws. I chall
Re: (Score:2)
"Why contribute to a project that may well be successfully sued by one of the largest corporations in the world?"
Because, at any rate, Linus didn't want to contribute to anyone's code base but to tinker with his shinny new 80386 on the knowledge he gathered from Tanenbaum's MINIX.
I'm not referring to just Linus, I'm referring to the general developer community that wanted *nix on the PC.
And then again, he started tinkering with his new toy in 1991 while the USL v. BSDi lawsuit didn't started till 1992 and even then, Linus was 23 y.o. living in Finland and so, didn't give a damn about USA politics or laws. I challenge you to find *any* first hand reference from Torvalds saying he was worried by license/patent's problems from BSD -or that he even knew about them.
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened."
http://gondwanaland.com/meta/h... [gondwanaland.com]
Do you think it was per chance that Linus announced his new project on comp.os.minix and said it was "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu" and even went so far as to add "PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code" but still didn't referenced BSD -at all?
It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license. It gathered attention and support without the GPL initially. The GPL did not make Linux, Linux made the GPL. The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable proje
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not referring to just Linus, I'm referring to the general developer community that wanted *nix on the PC."
That's fair, since that was the mood on the xenix newsgroups back then (and what could be done about minix without Tanenbaum's permission). Yes: it was the time and Linus filled a gap (which is true for basically anything, by the way: its success can be claimed to many sources but the main one it's usually that it was its moment).
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would p
Re: (Score:2)
"It was also not released under the GPL license. He used his own license."
Never told otherwise. But, anyway, Linux has been released under the GPL since december 1992 (v 0.99 if wikipedia doesn't lie) so its inflationary grow has obviously been under the GPL.
Coincidence. You also have a more maturing and more capable PC based *nix and a much wider awareness of this PC based *nix.
"The community wanted *nix on their PCs so badly they would have supported any viable project, regardless of license."
Are you kidding? or forgetting that 386BSD was released in 1992 from a port starting back in 1989? With also FreeBSD and commercial offers like SCO and BSDi being there? There's the fact that *BSD on 386 was more mature and had stronger commercial support by 1993 that Linux -by a long stretch, and still was Linux the one that ate the cake so no, it can't be "any viable project" because there *were* viable projects stronger and older than Linux.
And that is the timeframe where AT&T was creating FUD related to *BSD*, casting a cloud over it all.
Re: (Score:2)
"Coincidence"
It starts to become annoying how many "concidences" you need to bring to your side for an explanation.
"And that is the timeframe where AT&T was creating FUD related to *BSD*, casting a cloud over it all."
Maybe. But it's impossible to support that kind of FUD after BSD 4.4-lite was published, and that's back to JUN/1994, quite a long time ago. And BSD was still technically more advanced and with a better TCP stack -basically no one doubted that back then. And still you had all the strengt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL goes out of its way to remove freedom and choice (like the freedom to modify the code and to distribute binaries without revealing the changes, or the freedom to use a snippet of GPLed code without virally tainting the rest of the code base), while the BSD license tries to maximize it.
Let's start from the default:
- I write code, and you get NOTHING. ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.
You distribute my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You distribute binaries compiled from my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You distribute binaries that I compiled from my code, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
You redistribute binaries that I compiled from my code and distributed to you, I can sue you for copyright infringement.
Now I get to make a choice.
1. BSD
- You can take my code
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this AC up. It's needed.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a bit about what the GPL also allows:
2. GPL
- You can take my code, and profit from it. You can't fuck me, you can't fuck the people who receive your binaries, you can't fuck the world. We all win. You can also whine horrendously all over slashdot about how the free stuff you've been given isn't eaxctly to your taste.
Can profit from GPL without sharing ... (Score:2)
1. There are people and organizations who profit from BSD code and *do* contribute back. Apple does for example.
2. There are people and organizations who profit from GPL code and do *not* contribute back. Google for example. You only have to contribute back if you redistribute. Use it all you want internally, modify it, and you are free to contribute nothing back at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if copyright allows you to use the software, TFA hasn't said anything about patent licenses.
Reading is fundamental (Score:5, Insightful)
MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software
That's not what the article says at all. They've removed the extra approval required to open source projects. They are open sourcing everything by default. It's up to the project whether they release it as proprietary or open source.
Irony (Score:1)
What I find particularly ironic is that they specifically call out GPL and BSD licenses in the article. Admittedly the article's author is using a free graphic.
I would expect that MIT would use the MIT license (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) over the BSD license (https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). Maybe it is just me...
Great news on MIT moving more to FLOSS; next steps (Score:2)
A couple months ago I was emailing with RMS about how sad it was that MIT still required copyright assignment by all students, faculty, and staff. So I'm glad to see some more progress. Related:
http://pdfernhout.net/pledge-t... [pdfernhout.net]
"The FSF could start a new campaign to get foundations and non-profits to pledge that all content and software they fund or develop for the public using charitable or public dollars will be released under free licenses."
Ultimately research funders are going to need to change their pol