It is obvious that Clause 9 in http://opensource.org/docs/osd is against the principles of FOSS. (Quote "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. ")
Obviously it is not being modified due to corporate pressure.
Even http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html does not explicitly find fault with it. This must change.
Best
A. Mani
On Monday 24 Nov 2008, Mani A wrote:
It is obvious that Clause 9 in http://opensource.org/docs/osd is against the principles of FOSS. (Quote "The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. ")
Obviously it is not being modified due to corporate pressure.
Even http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html does not explicitly find fault with it. This must change.
Er, why? All that the clause says is that you are allowed to distribute, e.g., nVidia drivers along with Ubuntu on the same CD if you want. It doesn't impact the freedom of free software in any way.
AFAIR the GPL also contains a similar clause.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
Er, why? All that the clause says is that you are allowed to distribute, e.g., nVidia drivers along with Ubuntu on the same CD if you want. It doesn't impact the freedom of free software in any way.
It does deprive users of many of the advantages of FOSS and even OSS. Users are required to trust more closed source stuff. FOSS should mean 100% FOSS not something like 90% OSS and 10% closed source software.
But Stallman-sense FOSS seems to mean 100% OSS is in itself sufficient to be FOSS at the practical level. For example the gNewSense distro is a Stallman-sense FOSS distro. Stallman-sense FOSS is OSS + Attitude. But a clearer realization of 'FOSS' should be possible at the practical level.
Things have changed a lot in FOSS/OSS worlds and so it is possible.
AFAIR the GPL also contains a similar clause.
Yes, GPL does say that. But most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond that.
Best
A. Mani
On Tuesday 25 Nov 2008, Mani A wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org
wrote:
Er, why? All that the clause says is that you are allowed to distribute, e.g., nVidia drivers along with Ubuntu on the same CD if you want. It doesn't impact the freedom of free software in any way.
It does deprive users of many of the advantages of FOSS and even OSS. Users are required to trust more closed source stuff. FOSS should mean 100% FOSS not something like 90% OSS and 10% closed source software.
It doesn't deprive users of anything. To be quite frank, 99.9999% of users don't care what licence the software on a Linux CD falls under as long as it works for them and they can obtain and use it for free. There have been and will continue to be pure FOSS Linux distributions, but you probably won't see them gaining much traction in the market.
The users who care enough about the differences between FOSS and proprietary software are in any case clued in enough to be able to choose a distribution which meets their FOSS needs. I prefer not to use proprietary software, so I use Debian which also has a non-free repository. Requiring a licence to prevent bundling of free and non-free software together seems like overkill.
To sum up, people who care about FOSS principles will be able to sift out non-free software anyway. People who don't care about those principles will probably not use a pure-FOSS distribution at all.
Yes, GPL does say that. But most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond that.
Wasn't it RMS who wrote v2 and approved v3 of the GPL? Are you saying that the concepts of FOSS extend far beyond RMS' vision? Be very careful! ;)
Seriously, though, let's distinguish between FOSS as a usage model and FOSS as a concept. I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that everyone should only use FOSS -- IMO everyone should use whatever works for them. If Autoc*d happens to be non-free and my sister-in-law (who's an architect) needs to use it, more power to her! I wouldn't, but then I'm (a) not an architect and (b) slightly more fanatical about these things.
IMO the important goal is to eliminate proprietary software altogether, not to eliminate proprietary software users. If you believe in that goal then you can stop worrying about non-issues like bundling of free and non-free software together in a distribution and instead work towards making the principles of FOSS more entrenched in peoples' minds -- once they believe they will stop using non-free stuff automatically. Make better software so that it is difficult or impossible for proprietary software companies to profit from leasing out software, work towards getting Governments to adopt FOSS and FOSS principles, tell people about the benefits and ideology of FOSS wherever possible (don't become a bore at parties, though :) -- IMO these are some of the ways to eliminate proprietary software.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
It doesn't deprive users of anything.
I do not agree to that.
To be quite frank, 99.9999% of users don't care what licence the software on a Linux CD falls under as long as it works for them and they can obtain and use it for free.
In most western countries, the users are so aware that the only way out for proprietary software companies is by way of corrupt, illegal and unethical practices.
There have been and will continue to be pure FOSS Linux distributions, but you probably won't see them gaining much traction in the market.
Market trends and the increasing income disparities in the population indicate that users will only become more wary of trusting proprietary closed source stuff and "proprietary closed source scientific research".
repository. Requiring a licence to prevent bundling of free and non-free software together seems like overkill.
Such a license is required for producing truly trustworthy software. With the changing nature of software, in future, I should expect such a license to be a de facto requirement for any-sane-sense trust in computing.
To sum up, people who care about FOSS principles will be able to sift out non-free software anyway. People who don't care about those principles will probably not use a pure-FOSS distribution at all.
It is not just about choice and principles.
Yes, GPL does say that. But most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond that.
Wasn't it RMS who wrote v2 and approved v3 of the GPL? Are you saying that the concepts of FOSS extend far beyond RMS' vision? Be very careful! ;)
RMS-sense FOSS is not the GPL. (The cited article is by RMS)
automatically. Make better software so that it is difficult or impossible for proprietary software companies to profit from leasing out software, work towards getting Governments to adopt FOSS and FOSS
You are looking at only one of the ways used by proprietary software companies. They expect to profit in various other ways. Most proprietary closed source software companies have big stakes in the organized crime industry too. The latter is apparently as advanced (if not more) as any other industry.
Best
A. Mani
Probably like Affero-License, you could introduce your own clause for your own Software. But you should make sure to give your license its own subname - More like Mani-GPL License.
This is in moral-practical perspective. I don't have much clues as to the legal matters, and so its better you check with the GPL experts.
On 11/26/08, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
It doesn't deprive users of anything.
I do not agree to that.
To be quite frank, 99.9999% of users don't care what licence the software on a Linux CD falls under as long as it works for them and they can obtain and use it for free.
In most western countries, the users are so aware that the only way out for proprietary software companies is by way of corrupt, illegal and unethical practices.
There have been and will continue to be pure FOSS Linux distributions, but you probably won't see them gaining much traction in the market.
Market trends and the increasing income disparities in the population indicate that users will only become more wary of trusting proprietary closed source stuff and "proprietary closed source scientific research".
repository. Requiring a licence to prevent bundling of free and non-free software together seems like overkill.
Such a license is required for producing truly trustworthy software. With the changing nature of software, in future, I should expect such a license to be a de facto requirement for any-sane-sense trust in computing.
To sum up, people who care about FOSS principles will be able to sift out non-free software anyway. People who don't care about those principles will probably not use a pure-FOSS distribution at all.
It is not just about choice and principles.
Yes, GPL does say that. But most concepts of FOSS try to go beyond that.
Wasn't it RMS who wrote v2 and approved v3 of the GPL? Are you saying that the concepts of FOSS extend far beyond RMS' vision? Be very careful! ;)
RMS-sense FOSS is not the GPL. (The cited article is by RMS)
automatically. Make better software so that it is difficult or impossible for proprietary software companies to profit from leasing out software, work towards getting Governments to adopt FOSS and FOSS
You are looking at only one of the ways used by proprietary software companies. They expect to profit in various other ways. Most proprietary closed source software companies have big stakes in the organized crime industry too. The latter is apparently as advanced (if not more) as any other industry.
Best
A. Mani
-- A. Mani Member, Cal. Math. Soc _______________________________________________ Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Laxminarayan Kamath kamathln@gmail.com wrote:
Probably like Affero-License, you could introduce your own clause for your own Software. But you should make sure to give your license its own subname - More like Mani-GPL License.
Yes, it does have some similarities with Affero. I will put up a draft for discussion on "FOSS-PLUS" license.
I think it will be suitable for:
0. FOSS 1. Software for people with strong security and privacy concerns or distrust of proprietary s/w. 2. Software that processes sensitive information (s/w for cloning, health-related info, sensitive scientific data) 3. Safety-Critical Software
... at least. It may also appeal to people interested in opening up code for commercial benefit.
Best
A. Mani
On Wednesday 26 Nov 2008, Mani A wrote:
[snip] You are looking at only one of the ways used by proprietary software companies. They expect to profit in various other ways. Most proprietary closed source software companies have big stakes in the organized crime industry too. The latter is apparently as advanced (if not more) as any other industry.
Er, would you have some data to back up that statement? If you mean organised crime is technically advanced, sure, I have no quarrel with that. But a sweeping statement that ties organised crime and proprietary software development companies is a bit too much to swallow.
Or have I wandered into the Let's Gratuitously Bash Corporates Mailing List by mistake?
BTW, most of the bot-control IRC servers controlled by organised crime on the 'net run on cracked Linux boxes. Some of them may even be running on Gnusense... makes you stop and think about the connection between FOSS and crime, huh? ;)
Regards,
-- Raju
2008/11/26 Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org:
Er, would you have some data to back up that statement? If you mean organised crime is technically advanced, sure, I have no quarrel with that.
This is an interesting article which shows what some of the corporate "cutting edge research" produces.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye
Cheers Praveen
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/26 Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org:
Er, would you have some data to back up that statement? If you mean organised crime is technically advanced, sure, I have no quarrel with that.
I could have used 'Many' instead of 'Most'. But I meant to include entities like the 'US Government ' and their agencies in the term 'organized crime industry'.
There are plenty of known cases in proprietary software for elections, hedge funds and ... Desktops/servers : )
If some body commits a cyber crime from an OSS platform, then it becomes a honest crime only if the relevant scripts/programs along with relevant documentation are published ... with due credits.
This is an interesting article which shows what some of the corporate "cutting edge research" produces.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye
That is another biased article by Klein. Democracy, unions and information are not as problematic as Klein believes it to be. The people's daily online for example provides lot more info. The problem is more severe in other countries, where the dominant media is more tightly in corporate reins and people are fed 'democracy'. Capitalism is always a problem. ... may be a lesser problem when trained administrators try to rein them in.
Research in pattern recognition and facial recognition has been a hot topic... especially since the seventies. It has its positive and evil uses. But basic research on the subject is 'well known'. Given the capability of present day computers, it adds an extra dimension to spying and surveillance. The US administration (a bunch of corporates) also has a partly stated full time imperialism programme in place in this regard.
A different concern is the private research carried out by different secret service and defence agencies. The 'who-knows-what-it-is ' programs produced will be all the more unknown.
Best
A. Mani
On Thursday 27 Nov 2008, Mani A wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/26 Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org:
Er, would you have some data to back up that statement? If you mean organised crime is technically advanced, sure, I have no quarrel with that.
I could have used 'Many' instead of 'Most'. But I meant to include entities like the 'US Government ' and their agencies in the term 'organized crime industry'.
Even better, let's include ``computer users'' in the term ``organised crime industry'' then the connection between proprietary software development companies and organised crime will be totally clear and unassailable! And since some terrorists are computer users too, we can now also state that the proprietary software companies foster, support and are heavily connected with terrorism.
OK, now let's find some way to blame those nasty software corporates for global hunger, holes in the ozone layer, the terrible water situation in Simla and Amitabh Bacchan's lack of acting talent. I have full faith in the ability of the linguists and logicians in this list to warp languages and concepts into any form required to prove their arguments.
There are plenty of known cases in proprietary software for elections, hedge funds and ... Desktops/servers : )
So... if Diebold had used GNU and Linux on their controversial ballot machines would we have been discussing the connection between organised crime and free software?
FWIW I still don't see any facts coming out, so I'm dismissing your statement about the connection between proprietary software and organised crime as pure, baseless FUD. End of posts on this thread from my side unless some reason comes into the picture.
Regards,
-- Raju
See where the discussion had started and where it reached. I dont see any clarity in the arguments raised.
Media companies wants us to believe that if you can copying a CD then you may be part of drug mafia. Famous film actors from kerala were saying this every day on TV as part of their campaign. No sensible person will believe that. Let us make sound and reasonable arguments for free software. Do we have any dearth of such arguments ?
regards, arun
I could have used 'Many' instead of 'Most'. But I meant to include entities like the 'US Government ' and their agencies in the term 'organized crime industry'.
Even better, let's include ``computer users'' in the term ``organised crime industry'' then the connection between proprietary software development companies and organised crime will be totally clear and unassailable! And since some terrorists are computer users too, we can
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Arun M arun@gnu.org.in wrote:
See where the discussion had started and where it reached. I dont see any clarity in the arguments raised.
nɾɐɹ ʞɔ ˙pǝsnɟuoɔ oslɐ ɯɐ ı ˙ɐsɹǝʌ-ǝɔıʌ puɐ ǝɯ oʇ suoıʇɔnpǝp sɐ ƃuıɹɐǝddɐ ǝɹɐ suoıʇɔnpuı ˙unɹɐ uoıuıdo ɹnoʎ puoɔǝs ı
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
There are plenty of known cases in proprietary software for elections, hedge funds and ... Desktops/servers : )
So... if Diebold had used GNU and Linux on their controversial ballot machines would we have been discussing the connection between organised crime and free software?
Yes. At the testing and usage level, it is easier to deal with open code. You are saying that this does not matter. Open or closed source, there is plenty of incentive for crime. But it is harder to commit crimes using free software. Diebold was hit hard, primarily because their code leaked.
As far as 'special contracts' originating from 'Defence agencies' are concerned. 1. They do not believe in 'public notifications' 2. Have highly restrictive NDAs ... are generally difficult to prove in an impersonal way !
Best
A. Mani
-
Arun M -
Laxminarayan Kamath -
Mani A -
nɾɐɹ ʞɔ -
Praveen A -
Raj Mathur