Via OpenSource.Org:
The OSI Board today approved the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) and the Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL). The decision to approve was informed by the overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus from the open source community that these licenses satisfied the 10 criteria of the Open Source definition, and should therefore be approved.
The formal evaluation of these licenses began in August and the discussion of these licenses was vigorous and thorough. The community raised questions that Microsoft (and others) answered; they raised issues that, when germane to the licenses in question, Microsoft addressed. Microsoft came to the OSI and submitted their licenses according to the published policies and procedures that dozens of other parties have followed over the years. Microsoft didn't ask for special treatment, and didn't receive any. In spite of recent negative interactions between Microsoft and the open source community, the spirit of the dialogue was constructive and we hope that carries forward to a constructive outcome as well.
The Open Source Initiative is best known as the steward of the Open Source Definition and for its license review process. But, an open source license is just the starting point. Open source depends upon code (which can be made better), community (which can be made larger), and ultimately a commitment to the idea that the more free the market is for innovation, the more innovation the market can deliver.
Every approval that OSI issues represents our community's demand for more open-source code, a larger and more vital open-source community, and all the benefits open source brings to innovation in a free market. The new Ms-PL and Ms-RL are no exceptions.
From what I have read from these licenses they seem to be very forward thinking for Microsoft. I'm no sure how this will keep Steve "Monkey-Boy" Balmer from running his trap about Linux and other FOSS projects but maybe this can be a new era for Microsoft. I plan to keep microsuck.com in the bookmarks just in case though
threethirty.us is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Opensource.org site content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Here we go again
This is looking like SCO 2.0, from Ars,
and here is a link to the patient itself
Patent holding company IP Innovation has filed a patent infringement suit against Linux distributors Novell and Red Hat. The patent, which describes a "user interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects," dates back to 1987 and originated in Xerox's PARC labs.
IP Innovation seeks damages and injunctive relief. "Red Hat's and Novell's infringement, contributory infringement and inducement to infringe has injured Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate them for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," reads the complaint.
The Linux vendors aren't the only companies that have been on the receiving end of lawsuits for allegedly infringing this particular user interface patent. In April, IP Innovation sued Apple and demanded $20 million in damages. Apple eventually settled with the company for an undisclosed amount.
IP Innovation, which is a subsidiary of the Acacia Research Corporation, develops no products of its own. Acacia owns over 140 patents in 38 separate categories, accumulating patents and generating all of its revenue from licensing and litigation. Such companies are generally referred to as "patent trolls" because the manner in which they take advantage of the patent system is broadly considered detrimental to innovation.
Many companies that invest heavily in Linux development have long anticipated patent threats against the operating system, but the defensive measures in place might not be enough to stop this threat. Consider, for instance, the Open Invention Network (OIN), which was originally devised to deter patent litigation by establishing a vehicle for severe retaliation. As critics of the OIN have pointed out in the past, a defensive patent portfolio doesn't provide protection from companies that do not develop products because there is no basis on which to sue them. The OIN's powerful patent portfolio cannot be used to force IP Innovation into a cross-licensing agreement because IP Innovation has no need to license the patents held by others.
and here is a link to the patient itself
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
I just had to defend the CC-BY-SA
I just sent a lengthy email into the Debian bug tracking system. I originally tried to send it directly to the developers through an already "closed" bug (which was returned undeliverable) so I sent it again to submit@bugs.debian.org. I sent it with the proper headings (I hope) so that it would get to the developers. the subject was "VRMS-Why is the Tango Icon theme listed as non-free", and the project in question is vrms or (Virtual Richard M. Stallman) which is a program that will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree which are currently installed. So here is my mail (in full) for all to enjoy...
Package: vrms
Version:
Hello:
I was looking at the change log for vrms 1.13, and can't understand why this is listed as non-free. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the work. As well as to adapt the work. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)
Now let's look at that in reference to the 4 freedoms as put forth by the FSF...
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
*The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
This is implied you kind of have me there.
*The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You are free to Remix — to adapt the work
*The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
You are free to Share — to copy,distribute and transmit the work
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Ok now for some snippets that I couldn't fit into the model above:
(from the Free Software Definition)
"However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."
This is exactly like the share-alike clause.
(from GPLv3 [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html])
"For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions."
This is exactly like the attribution clause.
Here is a little bit from "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY)
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art [see that] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, “Which one?” [good point, for another discussion]
Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY-SA)
This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic [again talking about art] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses just above.
I think that it is a little unfair to call something non-free that is licensed under such a free license. The CC-attribution, share alike is almost exactly the GPL. The only issue I see is there is no source code for an image, but you are given the freedom to "remix" it as you like. There is nothing stopping you from retaining all of your freedoms, and the FSF itself says that it's okay for art and icon are art, so please remove this from the list.
Thank you for your time,
three
threethirty,us
three@threethirty.us
Package: vrms
Version:
Hello:
I was looking at the change log for vrms 1.13, and can't understand why this is listed as non-free. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the work. As well as to adapt the work. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)
Now let's look at that in reference to the 4 freedoms as put forth by the FSF...
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
*The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
This is implied you kind of have me there.
*The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You are free to Remix — to adapt the work
*The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
You are free to Share — to copy,distribute and transmit the work
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Ok now for some snippets that I couldn't fit into the model above:
(from the Free Software Definition)
"However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."
This is exactly like the share-alike clause.
(from GPLv3 [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html])
"For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions."
This is exactly like the attribution clause.
Here is a little bit from "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY)
This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art [see that] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, “Which one?” [good point, for another discussion]
Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY-SA)
This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic [again talking about art] and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
Please see additional comments about Creative Commons licenses just above.
I think that it is a little unfair to call something non-free that is licensed under such a free license. The CC-attribution, share alike is almost exactly the GPL. The only issue I see is there is no source code for an image, but you are given the freedom to "remix" it as you like. There is nothing stopping you from retaining all of your freedoms, and the FSF itself says that it's okay for art and icon are art, so please remove this from the list.
Thank you for your time,
three
threethirty,us
three@threethirty.us
Graffiti FTW!
Well Mousekateers I have a funny and uplifting story about how direct action and graffiti was used for the public good. I have been a graffiti artist for quite a while and I believe that it can be a powerful way to send a message. Let me tell you a story...
About a month ago a gas station that I frequent removed the condom machines from the bathroom. Knowing that the last thing we needed was to make it harder or embarrassing to get condoms I wrote in black permanent marker "WTF no condoms, well I guess I'll go and spread AIDS then". Well I went back in there tonight and there is a big poster sized advert for Durex that said something along the lines of "We're there when you need us." Score one for Graffiti
About a month ago a gas station that I frequent removed the condom machines from the bathroom. Knowing that the last thing we needed was to make it harder or embarrassing to get condoms I wrote in black permanent marker "WTF no condoms, well I guess I'll go and spread AIDS then". Well I went back in there tonight and there is a big poster sized advert for Durex that said something along the lines of "We're there when you need us." Score one for Graffiti
Monday, October 8, 2007
How Much do you love freedom?
My brother and I were discussing Software Freedom, well I was being a zealot and he was being somewhat intelligent in his discussion. After this discussion I got a message on facebook telling me to install a thing called vrms. So I did. For those of you who don't know,
so here is the output on my Gutsy Beta box:
so that means that I am 99.2% free, how much do you love freedom?
vrms (Virtual Richard M. Stallman) is a program that will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree which are currently installed.
Note that vrms is not limited to Debian systems only (which means that it also works with Debian-derived distributions such as Ubuntu). It is also not limited to Linux-based systems.
Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text from the public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free Software community. This functionality is not yet included.
(via wikipedia)
so here is the output on my Gutsy Beta box:
three@CondorV2:~$ vrms
Non-free packages installed on CondorV2
human-icon-theme Human Icon theme
linux-generic Complete Generic Linux kernel
linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.22 modules on x86/x86_64
linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.22 modules on x86/x86_64
linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.22 modules helper script
linux-restricted-modules- Restricted Linux modules for generic kernels
nvidia-glx-new NVIDIA binary XFree86 4.x/X.Org 'new' driver
tangerine-icon-theme Tangerine Icon theme
8 non-free packages, 0.7% of 1170 installed packages.
so that means that I am 99.2% free, how much do you love freedom?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Gutsy Countdown
This is really exciting and really scary at the same time. GNOME 2.20 is sweet there is no doubt about that, but the rest of the stuff is really buggy. Here is a list of stuff that has happened in no particular order:
*the bottom bar doesn't show up when you first boot
*the added effects manager or the other effects crash the system
*everything seems really touchy
I know not a "definitive list of why it shouldn't ship", but I'm still worried. Not for the people like me who are going to install it regardless and say that it's better than having to run Slackware from 6 years ago, but it's not even as ready as the Feisty Alphas were. I'm running the Beta and it's like Microsoft beta quality not Free Software Beta quality.
I'm also working on my thoughts of Ohio Linux Fest 2007 and hope to have that posted soon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
