ANN: Microsoft goes Open Source

[Chris Hills]

Leaving aside the fact that Linspire/Freespire are a pariah in the
community...

Which community? apparently not to Eric Raymond

ESR does not speak for the FSF, Linus Torvalds or any of other many and
varied copyright owners in the software distributed as part of a typical
GNU/Linux distribution so what he says has no weight.

You might say that but I suspect many others would disagree.

You should do some research into the issues at hand

I was doing that at the time. However it appears that anyone who
disagrees with your view is either a pariah or carried no weight

of which the license is
only one amid a thicket of patent and trademark issues before you make
sweeping generalisations about Linux and open source software in general.

I was not making them the OpenSource newsletter was along with one of
the Linux web sites.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

I got the details from the eWeek news letter see
http://ct.enews.eweek.com/rd/cts?d=186-5933-8-85-160091-663531-0-0-01

Unfortunately, the site is down at the moment.

It turns out that RedHat are getting all corporate and are trying to
protect their IP just like other commercial companies. Redhat is
trying to stop people offering training in the RedHat H***** platform
(apparently the word is their trademark). They have told various
people offering training in various RedHat systems that they can not
mention the name in course advertising.

OK -- I can see them doing that. But that's a long way from trying to
impose non-GPL licensing terms on the software.

Whilst digging around on the Redhat item I discovered that the Open
Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group merged to form
the Linux Foundation on March 27th,
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5616022499.html

the point worrying many was that Linux Foundation's new 15-member
board is made up mostly of executives from multi-billion dollar
companies including many Fortune 500 executives from around the
world. For example, Tim Golden, senior VP of the Bank of America; Dan
Frye, IBM's VP of Open Systems Development; and Hisashi Hashimoto, the
Hitachi section manager who oversees workstations and mainframes. The
board doesn't include representatives from purely community-based
Linux organizations such as Debian. So the Linux Foundation is
basically a commercial corporate organisation.

Yeah, it is unfortunate that the board is as corporate as it is. The
only person on it that looks reasonably "community" is the founder of
Ubuntu...

One of the more interesting comments came from Eric Raymond, one of
the great initiators of Open source when Freespire said it aimed to
include legal support for every proprietary format and program that is
available to Linux. Examples include: MP3, DVD, Windows Media,
QuickTime, Java, Flash, Real media, ATI and NVIDA graphic drivers,
Eric said, "If that means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of
the world so that people can watch Windows media files, then so be
it." So Linux may now contain proprietary and commercial code.

When has this ever *not* been the case? When I started using linux in
1996, I think acroread was already there (and if not, it was soon
thereafter). Much as I wish I didn't have flash on my system, I've
got that too.

 

[Paul Gotch]

Which community? apparently not to Eric Raymond

Read Debian, Fedora etc. mainling lists. Older Linspire/Lindows installs
(including pre-installs) did not prompt the user to create a unprivilidged
user at install time and therefore a large number of Linspire users were
running as root all the time. The current ones give you the option of
creating an an unpriveldged user but doesn't steer you towards it nor
explain why it's an essential security precaution.

Freespire moderates this by creating an unprivledged user by default but
allowing them to use sudo to gain root priviledges by entering their
password. This is the same sort of approach Apple took with Mac OS X.

Coupled with the fact that they used to charge people to download Free
software via the subscription to the Click n Run system (which is
substantially based on Free software developed by the Debian project) this
made them extremely unpopular.

You might say that but I suspect many others would disagree.

Since most entities such as Redhat, Debian the FSF, all the *BSD projects
don't even agree with each other how can ESR possibly speak for them all?

Infact if you read Debian mailing lists in particular you will find that
Debian doesn't agree with itself half the time. I suspect lots of projects
and companies are like this but the difference is that with the Debian
project it's out in the open rather than behind closed doors.

I was doing that at the time. However it appears that anyone who
disagrees with your view is either a pariah or carried no weight

Believe what you will.

-p

 

[Peter Flass]

It always amazes me that OS zealots are surprised by this.

Richard

It's like the 70's hippies who now run some big organic grocery chain,
or Tom Hayden, who's now a congresscritter. It's disappointing to have
always thought "we" would be better than "them", only to turn around and
find that we *are* them.

 

[Frank McCoy]

MS' continued existence is a crime.

True ... But somebody has to have the guts to indict and convict
somebody (or a company) who/that likely makes more money each year than
the whole state.

 

[Walter Bushell]

It's like the 70's hippies who now run some big organic grocery chain,
or Tom Hayden, who's now a congresscritter. It's disappointing to have
always thought "we" would be better than "them", only to turn around and
find that we *are* them.

We have met the enemy and they are us. == Walt Kelly

 

[Anthony Irwin]

Which community? apparently not to Eric Raymond

Hi,

Eric Raymond is an open source supporter. Open source people are
generally friendly towards proprietary software.

Richard Stallman started the free software foundation and the free
software world as we know it. We started the whole formal idea of
releasing software with source code and having rights to read and
modify and redistribute it way back in 1984.

Open source people tend to promote the technical and business
advantages of free software where the free software people tend to
promote the ideals of free software etc.

I think the free software community is better to follow then the open
source community because if the people in the community don't value
the ideals of free software then who is going to continue writing the
software well into the future. If people don't replace the proprietary
software like flash, nvidia drivers etc then how long until more and
more software gets added to the list of must haves.

We need to promote free software not open source because if people
don't understand how and why we got the community and why proprietary
software is bad for the free software community then its future won't
be guaranteed.

I do run the proprietary flash plugin by the way so I am not a hard
core free software zealot but it is important to know about free
software and it is a shame that open source seems to be the main term
used these days.


--
Kind Regards,
Anthony Irwin

http://www.irwinresources.com
email: anthony at the above domain, - www.

 

[Chris Hills]

It's like the 70's hippies who now run some big organic grocery chain,
or Tom Hayden, who's now a congresscritter. It's disappointing to have
always thought "we" would be better than "them", only to turn around
and find that we *are* them.

Cue The Who..... "We won't get fooled again......"

 

[Chris Hills]

Hi,

Eric Raymond is an open source supporter. Open source people are
generally friendly towards proprietary software.

Richard Stallman started the free software foundation and the free
software world as we know it. We started the whole formal idea of
releasing software with source code and having rights to read and
modify and redistribute it way back in 1984.

Which is why Paul is saying he caries now weight?

We need to promote free software

Which values the software and the programmer at Zero. Seems like
suicide for programmers.

 

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

It's disappointing to have
always thought "we" would be better than "them", only to turn around and
find that we *are* them.

I once had a badge that said "We are the people our parents warned
us about"

 

[jmfbahciv]

It always amazes me that OS zealots are surprised by this.

Then those zealots are users, not developers.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

The limitations are in practice for the use of RedHat trademarks
and artwork. You can copy the data, but you cannot use it.


Grey area. The precedence between the different parts of IP rights
has not been well settled in the courts.


What the Centos distro has done is to copy RH sources and
toolchains, change all references to RH trademarks and build new (sometimes
dummy or blank) artwork; and build a separate set of support servers.

This is stealing. And I don't give a shit if it's deemed legal
or not. This is outright theft.

/BAH

 

[Rich Walker]

Which values the software and the programmer at Zero. Seems like suicide for programmers.

You know Chris, you keep saying this kind of unfounded thing, and it makes you
look less and less credible about anything else you say as a result.

As a commercial software vendor, you're right to be scared by Free
software - it establishes a baseline of quality that you have to beat to
sell product and services. But for the customers, that's no bad thing -
the quality level of GCC keeps commercial compiler vendors honest, and
the quality level of Linux keeps commercial OS vendors honest...

cheers, Rich.

 

[Chris Hills]

You know Chris, you keep saying this kind of unfounded thing, and it makes you
look less and less credible about anything else you say as a result.

Only if I am shown to be wrong in the longer term.

I said this before and several people challenged me on it saying that
they got paid to write free OS SW. They all turned out to work for HW
companies who gave the Sw away in order to sell HW.

At the moment from what I can see the OS movement is fracturing and the
larger OS companies are behaving like all the other commercial
companies.

Others have commented on this in this thread so I am not the only one.

More and more I see the ethos of the OS is being undermined and
fractured. Like many utopias the idea I great but commerce usually gives
it a slow and messy death.

As a commercial software vendor, you're right to be scared by Free
software - it establishes a baseline of quality that you have to beat to
sell product and services.

Point taken and it is usually not a problem. Though in the past it has
been so you have a good point.

But for the customers, that's no bad thing -
the quality level of GCC keeps commercial compiler vendors honest, and
the quality level of Linux keeps commercial OS vendors honest...

That is one way of looking at it and in that view OS is not a problem

 

[Harold Stevens]

[Followup set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

In <[email protected]> Rich Walker:

[Snip...]

As a commercial software vendor, you're right to be scared by Free
software - it establishes a baseline of quality that you have to beat

FWIW, that's not the half of it (for me). I'd make it very clear to "Chris"
and his quaking buddies they could not *PAY* me to use their trapware. That
fact is what really outta scare the beejeezus outta them.

I use FOSS not only for its quality, but its liberty, too--maybe mostly.

And it is certainly not because I cannot "afford" proprietary toys or even
want to "pirate" anything. Nobody go off ignorantly about "everybody" when
it comes to lusting after glitzy overpriced toys and fads.

Live free, or die...

(Something about "Chris" is tripping my bozobin, so I'm seeing this in FU)

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


This is stealing. And I don't give a shit if it's deemed legal
or not. This is outright theft.

No it isn't. The various pieces are still copyright by their
original owners (unless they have specifically ceded that) and are
only being used under the conditions they were licensed in the
first place. The owners still retain the right to do anything they
wish with it, for example halve its running time while reducing the
codespace used, and then hawk it under any conditions they wish. I
can license my own GPL released code to someone allowing them to
NOT publish their attached code for whatever I can persuade them to
pay. Nobody else has that particular right, because it isn't
included in the GPL license.

However, IANAL.

 

[Rich Walker]

Only if I am shown to be wrong in the longer term.

Fair point.

I said this before and several people challenged me on it saying that they got paid to write free OS
SW. They all turned out to work for HW companies who gave the Sw away
in order to sell HW.

Look at www.sugarcrm.com - an open source CRM package. They make their
money from enhanced versions and support.

Similarly, www.sql-ledger.org

Oh, and the GNU ADA compiler - www.adacore.com

These organisations are selling services and targetted development.

At the moment from what I can see the OS movement is fracturing and the larger OS companies are
behaving like all the other commercial companies.

I think the commercial distributions are becoming more OSS and
"old-school commercial software". Meanwhile, the difference between OSS
and FLOSS becomes more important.

(Side note - the European Union seems very keen that software developed
using FP7 be FLOSS).

Others have commented on this in this thread so I am not the only one.

More and more I see the ethos of the OS is being undermined and fractured. Like many utopias the
idea I great but commerce usually gives it a slow and messy death.


Point taken and it is usually not a problem. Though in the past it has been so you have a good
point.

There was a discussion about this in comp.arch a while ago - why spend
big $ on the PathScale compiler, when GCC exists? The answer was, if
PathScale gives us a 5-10% performance improvement on our $1M system,
it's worth $100k.

That is one way of looking at it and in that view OS is not a problem

And the other advantage is that, once a standard is implemented in open
source or Free software, there's an implementation everyone can look
at. Makes it a *lot* easier to get other versions right, and get
widespread usage...

 

[Grant Edwards]

This is stealing. And I don't give a shit if it's deemed legal
or not. This is outright theft.

RH allows it. If you give something to somebody, their taking
it isn't theft.

Presumably you take money from your employer and spend it.
That is stealing. You belong in prison.

 

[Stef]

In comp.arch.embedded,

Only if I am shown to be wrong in the longer term.

No, your relentless anti open source attitude makes you _look_ less credible
here and now. At least to me, and it seems I'm not the only one. Regardless
of your wrong or right in the long term.

I know you have a lot of knowledge and post very usefull stuff from time to
time. But as soon as open source is involved I'm almost waiting for you to
drop in with some (perceived) negative aspects of open source software. And
if you do, I will usually skip those posts.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

This is stealing. And I don't give a shit if it's deemed legal
or not. This is outright theft.

I am the author and copyright holder of at least small pieces of
code under GPL in RH. The GPL requires that each person
receiving a copy of GPL'd software be allowed to distribute
further, and I didn't give RH any special permission to forbid
further distribution. Therefore, if RH were to try to forbid it,
then that would be a violation of the license to my code. In
other words, in my eyes, RH would be the ones committing
"outright theft", not Centos. Thankfully, RH doesn't have any
legal right to do that and doesn't try to do that.

(I'm now killfiling this thread, as it's wretchedly off-topic for
many of the groups in question.)