| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: russell_-at-_flora.ottawa.on.ca
Date: 3 Nov 1998 00:25:23 -0500
References: <199811030312.WAA00414@onering.urth>
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Krishna E. Bera wrote:
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
There are also references from news articles such as:
<http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28215,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh>
I expect much discussion to happen around this one.
While reading it, there were some areas that I am surprised ESR didn't
comment on. There seems to be this misunderstanding about other OSS
Operating Systems and while this document mentions the others it puts them
in a back-seat. While I'm a fan of CopyLEFT, I do not agree with the idea
that "Linux is on track to eventually own the x86 UNIX market", nor do I
believe that this would be a good thing.
I believe some short-term aspects of the OSS movement need to be taken
into consideration. In todays world there is currently a battle between
OSS (Open Source Software) and SS (Secret Source) where some strategic
alliances are being formed within the OSS world in the fight against SS.
What this means is that some splintering of code into different
sub-projects is currently not happening as the "competition of ideas" is
seen to be the overriding ideological battle against SS.
Once the SS model is brought to it's proper level (I suspect that less
than 2% of software projects are appropriate for some temporary form of
the SS funding model), then the OSS environment will be able to allow for
different project threads and parallelizable innovations.
I have strongly believed that the strengthening of Linux will eventually
lead to a straightening of other OSS Operating Systems. Currently these
are primarily Unix based (I don't know of any other OSS environment yet
other than UNIXs and Hurd), but the movement away from SS will enable
environments where non-Unix based OSS OS's will become possible.
The "de-commoditize protocols & applications" is very important here.
What the standards community needs to do here is pre-emptively educate
people on the problems with this environment. We are talking about
centralization of the essence of computing, attempting to destroy
competition at any level: OSS or SS. For those who were not convinced of
MS's monopolistic belief systems, this memo should wake them up.
The language in this article is of course counter-culture. When I think
of a 'Code Fork' in a product, I think of a features, ideas or source
fork. In this memo, Microsoft means 'License Fork':
"CopyLeft or GPL (General Public License) based software takes the Open
Source license one critical step farther. Whereas BSD and Apache style
software permits users to "fork" the codebase and apply their own license
terms to their modified code (e.g. make it commercial), the GPL license
requires that all derivative works in turn must also be GPL code. ``You
are free to hack this code as long as your derivative is also hackable''"
The GPL does *NOT* say you can not fork a source tree (Quite the
opposite: It ensures that this will always be possible) and provide for
different innovative ideas - it just says you cannot change the license.
In essence, GPL is very similar to the Microsoft license where users of
the license and program cannot 'fork' their own license that is different
than the Microsoft one. It seems that Microsoft wants to consider
modifying their restrictive license as "piracy" (And the negative
connotations that go with it), while seeing the "restrictions" (If you can
call them that) of adhering to the GPL as a negative thing.
I also do not understand why people allow them to equate "make
commercial" with "make secret source". I consider RedHat, Caldera and SuSE
to be distributing *COMMERCIAL* UNIX products, even though their products
are OSS. Language is a very important and fundamental aspect of this
battle - For Microsoft to claim that "FUD tactics can not be used to
combat it" and then abuse language as to create FUD(fear, uncertainty, and
doubt) lacks credibility (Not that they had much to begin with).
(FUD Defined <http://earthspace.net/jargon/jargon_21.html#TAG712> )
In my writings on ethical computing I have always put process over
technology. It is interesting to note that Microsoft is realizing that it
is this process that is at odds with the Microsoft chosen funding-formula,
and not some specific targetable technology or vender: "In other words, to
understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather
than a company". This also needs to be remembered by other ethical
technologists, and can be used to understand why people like me have a
"freedom or nothing" attitude towards technology (IE: That I would reject
the use of a technology on its licensing alone, regardless of the
perceived short-term utility).
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/work/>
http://www.flora.org/russell/work/closed-ms1.html Is MS a Monopoly?
CKCU Funding drive, FLORA, Y2K http://www.flora.org/?ckcu
<http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28215,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh> MS Halloween
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|