You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Mike Dougherty <Mi...@san.rr.com> on 2001/06/07 04:06:26 UTC
Re: The Lie
Jon Stevens wrote:
> --
> "Open source is not available to commercial companies."
> -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
> <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
>
"The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and
Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
- Eric S. Raymond
<http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-01-010-20-OP-MS>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Alex Fernández <af...@tid.es>.
Hi Berin!
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > 08 - "Linux is not in the public domain", so what? Straw man forever.
>
> This statement is never truer. Linux is not public domain, it is protected
> by copyright law, as well as the GPL distribution license. All licenses have
> a price--though not always measured in money.
OK, let me rephrase it. If I say, "I like having sex for free", it's
something I shouldn't even have to say -- it's the default. When I say
it, I'm implicitly saying that "I like having sex for free more than I
like paying for sex", and so I'm also (implicit but distinctly) talking
about prostitutes. This is one trick Ballmer uses: making an obvious
statement (should get him a Nobel prize or two) to express the opposite.
When you negate it, the consequences are even more drastic. If I say,
"You have not stolen money", without a previous accusation, I'm
implicitly saying that "you could have stolen money, but you didn't" --
and if you analyse it, I'm implanting the idea that you have stolen
money, then negating it. When it should go without saying.
This even more powerful trick lets us rephrase Ballmer's statement as
"Linux should rightly be in the public domain, but it isn't", creating
the impression of an injustice. The statement becomes a straw man, as
described by Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World".
I don't know if these grammatic ramble is any more explanation, but I
cannot give you anything else.
Un saludo,
Alex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: The Lie
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@thought.co.uk>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hmm, We produce solutions based on open source software (notably
Linux/Apache ;-) and sell it into commercial companies.
He's just plain wrong about that part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOx+gnklGf1KbtpBnEQIYfACgthQvGkKfBcb1xIG2ApYwN9tPkJgAoNZG
WevdFjzJsdPKiI/NJbz8A7K4
=5ch2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: The Lie
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@thought.co.uk>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pete wrote:
> I am not sure this is true - at least in the US and Australian law.
>
This was told me by a lawyer over here:
"In Scotland, the authors of open source and public domain software
could be
liable where there is no printed licence agreement. In the absence of
a
licence, contract terms are likely to be implied and with that there
will be
certain responsibilities on both author and user.
With implied contracts, the responsibilities will depend on all the
circumstances. That the software was free or provided at minimal cost
will
not mean that the author of the software will have no
responsibilities. Open
source software is usually provided subject to written licence
conditions.
These have to be reasonable, so disclaiming all liability might be
considered
unreasonable, even if the software was free - it would depend on the
circumstances (which is a bit of a lawyer's clich`). If found
unreasonable,
the licensor would not be able to rely on the exclusion of
liability."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOyEDj0lGf1KbtpBnEQJfggCfQfZXKDV73F0WSeWYFK7mJ2iKoVUAoKRM
XufKzoEC9jlfUA13+xMySqWZ
=2Lep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 12:28 PM 6/7/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>This will be my last post on the subject, but this is also a misnomer.
>Public Domain works are open to all without license or warranty. They
>cannot have any license or warranty due to the nature of public domain
>as a whole.
>
>If you use public domain code, and it screws up your system, there is
>no one to prosecute except yourself. The reason being is that once a
>work enters the public domain, there is no guarantee that the copy of
>the work you have is the original.
I am not sure this is true - at least in the US and Australian law. If I
pick up a PD work and it screws my system then I can sue the
distributor/author. Default position is that you have the right to sue.
When accepting a license you give up that right. With PD there is nothing
that makes you give up that right.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>
> At 10:03 AM 6/7/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >Alex Fernández wrote:
> >
> >> I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
> >> 06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
> >> source. Not useful any more.
> >
> >Not entirely accurate. Public Domain is a copyright law term referring to a
> >published work where the copyright has expired OR the author chose to waive
> >their copyright. While it is true that there were several freely available
> >source code distributions that were in the public domain, but they had no
> >protection.
> >
> >A work in the public domain cannot have any license or protection under the
> >law. This means anyone can use the work, and make dirivitive works on it
> >without consequence or ramifications. It also means that you can strip the
> >original author's name from the source code and put your own there--nothing
> >the author can do.
>
> IMHO there is a far worse characteristeric of PD works. Usually
> opensource/free-software has a disclaimer clause in license (ie the don't
> sue me if the program screws your computer clause). Because users of the
> program accept the license (or else they couldn't use program/source), this
> gives the developer protection. They can't be harmed if a bug in their
> software causes damage to a system.
This will be my last post on the subject, but this is also a misnomer.
Public Domain works are open to all without license or warranty. They
cannot have any license or warranty due to the nature of public domain
as a whole.
If you use public domain code, and it screws up your system, there is
no one to prosecute except yourself. The reason being is that once a
work enters the public domain, there is no guarantee that the copy of
the work you have is the original.
This is especially true in the USA where a copyright lasts 50 years after
someone dies (only for works copywritten after 1971). If a work has
gone into public domain at this point, not only is the code archaic, but
there is no one alive to help you out anyway.
Basically Public Domain works are completely unprotected in every way shape
or form, and their use is also unprotected in every way shape or form.
That is why it is best to have a license of some sort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 10:03 AM 6/7/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Alex Fernández wrote:
>
>> I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
>> 06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
>> source. Not useful any more.
>
>Not entirely accurate. Public Domain is a copyright law term referring to a
>published work where the copyright has expired OR the author chose to waive
>their copyright. While it is true that there were several freely available
>source code distributions that were in the public domain, but they had no
>protection.
>
>A work in the public domain cannot have any license or protection under the
>law. This means anyone can use the work, and make dirivitive works on it
>without consequence or ramifications. It also means that you can strip the
>original author's name from the source code and put your own there--nothing
>the author can do.
IMHO there is a far worse characteristeric of PD works. Usually
opensource/free-software has a disclaimer clause in license (ie the don't
sue me if the program screws your computer clause). Because users of the
program accept the license (or else they couldn't use program/source), this
gives the developer protection. They can't be harmed if a bug in their
software causes damage to a system.
Code in PD are not licensed and thus users do not waive the right to sue
... so put something in PD and you open yourself to attack ;) That is where
I see the biggest problem with PD and why I recomend X11 style licensing
for anyone who considers uses it.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Alex Fernández wrote:
> I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
> 06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
> source. Not useful any more.
Not entirely accurate. Public Domain is a copyright law term referring to a
published work where the copyright has expired OR the author chose to waive
their copyright. While it is true that there were several freely available
source code distributions that were in the public domain, but they had no
protection.
A work in the public domain cannot have any license or protection under the
law. This means anyone can use the work, and make dirivitive works on it
without consequence or ramifications. It also means that you can strip the
original author's name from the source code and put your own there--nothing
the author can do.
Open Source Software does NOT waive the copyright priviledges, nor does it
waive the ability to publish the work with a license. The reason Open Source
Software came into existence is to have all the advantages of Public Domain,
without the disadvantages. People _like_ ensuring they get the recognition
for good code.
Richard Stallman's rendition of Open Source is Free Software. This notion
is separate and distinct from *both* Open Source AND Public Domain. He does
have a rather socialistic view on software as a whole, despite his denial of
such. The GPL is not compatible with a number of Open Source licenses that
seek to protect Recognition of the author or organization that produced the
software (read Apache Software License and original BSD license). To me
this is bad.
> 08 - "Linux is not in the public domain", so what? Straw man forever.
This statement is never truer. Linux is not public domain, it is protected
by copyright law, as well as the GPL distribution license. All licenses have
a price--though not always measured in money.
> 12 - Kant's Golden Rule -- suppose everyone does what Ballmer tells us
> is so bad, use GPL licences, do you see any bad consequence for mankind?
> What would it be?
If everything were GPL, nothing would be in violation of GPL. All software
would have source code available. These are good things. The bad is when
you mix software with different licenses. That is where conflict arrises.
Because the GPL is purposely vague in key terminology such as what is a
"derivative work", there is a legitimate perception that any code that uses
GPL code either as a basis, or as a plug-in would force the license to change.
IMO this is not the best of all worlds. I appreciate Richard Stallman's goals,
and his desire to see all software free (according to his definition). However,
there are other tools beside the GPL that ensure open software that is compatible
with commercial licensing (read Apache Software License and original BSD license).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: The Lie
Posted by Tal Dayan <ta...@zapta.com>.
With a risk of being unpopular for a day, ;-)
>From a view point of a commercial software company, there is a kernel of
truth
in what Balmer said, at least when it comes to some open source licenses
(and ASF is not one of them).
Maybe it is the time to coin a new term for a category of 'non infectious'
open source licenses. 'reusable' ? 'sealable' ? 'neutral' ? Any suggestion
?
Tal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Fernández [mailto:afm229@tid.es]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:38 AM
> To: general@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: The Lie
>
>
> Have you noticed the logical fallacies and flaws that guy can put in a
> few sentences?
>
> "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
> you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the
> government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux
> is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in
> an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
> that the license works."
> -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
>
> I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
> 01 - "the license" as if there's only one.
> 02 - "use any open-source software", not write or copy.
> 03 - "the rest of your software open source" in your office, your
> company?
> 04 - "if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest
> [...]" is simply not true. First, by using it you commit to nothing
> (unlike Windows shrink-wrap license), and most licenses allow you to
> copy and/or include in your own code.
> 05 - "If the government wants [...], it should", thanks for telling
> them.
> 06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
> source. Not useful any more.
> 07 - "Linux is not [...]", coming from the general to the particular
> just for the sake of attack: 'Divide and conquer'.
> 08 - "Linux is not in the public domain", so what? Straw
> man forever.
> 09 - "Linux is a cancer [...]" is an obvious ad-programme attack,
> loaded with malevolence.
> 10 - "[...] that attaches itself in an intellectual
> property sense to
> everything it touches." It would seem that if you ever use it, or even
> look at it from afar, you must give your firstborn to Richard Stallman.
> I thought it was only if you try to replicate it inside your software
> (which surely they must have tried with little success).
> 11 - "the way that the license works" doesn't make clear if
> it's "the
> license" mentioned first in a generic way, or the Linux license.
> 12 - Kant's Golden Rule -- suppose everyone does what
> Ballmer tells us
> is so bad, use GPL licences, do you see any bad consequence for mankind?
> What would it be?
>
> Not bad, even for a microsoftie.
>
> Un saludo,
>
> Alex.
>
> Mike Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > Jon Stevens wrote:
> > > --
> > > "Open source is not available to commercial companies."
> > > -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
> > > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
> > >
> >
> > "The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and
> > Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
> > - Eric S. Raymond
> > <http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-01-010-20-OP-MS>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: The Lie
Posted by Alex Fernández <af...@tid.es>.
Have you noticed the logical fallacies and flaws that guy can put in a
few sentences?
"The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the
government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux
is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in
an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
that the license works."
-Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
I read 12 fallacies and flaws in 5 sentences:
01 - "the license" as if there's only one.
02 - "use any open-source software", not write or copy.
03 - "the rest of your software open source" in your office, your
company?
04 - "if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest
[...]" is simply not true. First, by using it you commit to nothing
(unlike Windows shrink-wrap license), and most licenses allow you to
copy and/or include in your own code.
05 - "If the government wants [...], it should", thanks for telling
them.
06- "in the public domain" was the term used 20 years ago for open
source. Not useful any more.
07 - "Linux is not [...]", coming from the general to the particular
just for the sake of attack: 'Divide and conquer'.
08 - "Linux is not in the public domain", so what? Straw man forever.
09 - "Linux is a cancer [...]" is an obvious ad-programme attack,
loaded with malevolence.
10 - "[...] that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to
everything it touches." It would seem that if you ever use it, or even
look at it from afar, you must give your firstborn to Richard Stallman.
I thought it was only if you try to replicate it inside your software
(which surely they must have tried with little success).
11 - "the way that the license works" doesn't make clear if it's "the
license" mentioned first in a generic way, or the Linux license.
12 - Kant's Golden Rule -- suppose everyone does what Ballmer tells us
is so bad, use GPL licences, do you see any bad consequence for mankind?
What would it be?
Not bad, even for a microsoftie.
Un saludo,
Alex.
Mike Dougherty wrote:
>
> Jon Stevens wrote:
> > --
> > "Open source is not available to commercial companies."
> > -Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
> > <http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
> >
>
> "The last I checked, Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, IBM, SGI, and
> Hewlett-Packard were all "commercial companies".
> - Eric S. Raymond
> <http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-01-010-20-OP-MS>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org