/dev/chat

10:00 PM

@FaheemMitha Okay, this one is pretty simple: we know what open source means. The qualification free (or "libre") refers to source that is not just open, but freely modifiable and re-distributable (as per linux and GNU). That's a significant difference, and a very real schism in the open source movement.

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' I don't think so. The open source thing is just a rebranding. Check out the history on Wikipedia.

derobert

IE was about MS wanting to corner what it (correctly) saw as the next huge market, the WWW... And they used their existing dominance in the OS space to do that.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@derobert Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. I think this really held until only a few years ago, when mobile platforms took off and wrecked that plan.

Faheem Mitha

They're functionally the same thing. As Stallman constantly says, the difference is primarily philosophical.

derobert

They did do a few things to illegally entrench their OS dominance, things like prohibiting PC makers from selling systems with other OSes installed. I doubt those really mattered much in the grand scheme of things, but that'd also be a [citation needed].

Faheem Mitha

10:04 PM

@derobert they were in a position to make sure their programs worked better on their OS too. I think some of this at least has been well documented.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha NO. It's a very straightforward, and significant, semantic difference. Open source is simply source that is publicly available. It can be licensed such that you have no further right to either modify or re-distribute it. I suppose that is philosophical in the sense that all laws are "philosophical". It's the reason RMS no longer identifies himself with "open source" -- a term he coined.

Faheem Mitha

I didn't necessarily only have MS in mind, IBM caused similar problems back in the day.

mikeserv

@Gilles what is that supertab thing anyway? I removed my answer there - it would have just distracted from the correct one. I went through those docs - very briefly - trying to help the guy out, but I guess didn't do it well enough to understand what the program even does...

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' I don't think that is true. one sec, i'll find you a cite.

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available and licensed with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.

derobert

@TAFKA'goldilocks' Ummm. Not if it's open source as in the open source definition.

Faheem Mitha

10:05 PM

The first sentence in

Open-source software

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available and licensed with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open-content movements. A report by the Standish Group (from 2008) states that adoption of open-source softwar...

mikeserv

What's the open source definition?

Faheem Mitha

this is the standard usage of Open Source software, as used by Stallman, Raymond, Perens, and pretty much everyone else.

derobert

@mikeserv opensource.org/osd

mikeserv

I see.

Faheem Mitha

"provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose" is functionally the same as the FSF's 4 rights of free software.

mikeserv

10:06 PM

1. Free Redistribution

Faheem Mitha

I think there may be some rare corner cases where the two defns differ, but I'm not aware of any.

derobert

@FaheemMitha (honestly, your answer to the history question reads to me like a lot of hand-waving... which I can't blame you for, considering the question, but I still don't much like it.)

Faheem Mitha

@derobert The whole thing?

mikeserv

Probably the definition is left open to interpretation...

derobert

@FaheemMitha Pretty much...

Faheem Mitha

10:08 PM

@derobert Ok. I thought the basic points I was making were pretty reasonable. E.g. why corporations support the Linux kernel.

If you don't like handwaving, you'll hate history and sociology and such.

And I also made the point about why BSD didn't take off. Granted, their were other factors too.

mikeserv

In my opinion - and I'm not one to take thongs very seriously, mind you - but open source software is the only workable means of keeping computer systems working.

derobert

Well, there is handwaving because you didn't feel like doing the research (again, I don't blame you, it'd be months of work!) and there is handwaving because those dastardly ancient peoples didn't bother to write down everything in a media that conveniently lasted many thousands of years.

mikeserv

Computers are stupid - fundamentally, brain- dead stupid.

To a computer it's 1 or its 0 or f*** you. That's all they know.

But they're really really fast at being stupid.

Faheem Mitha

@derobert Oh, god no, I'm not going to do the research. It would be like a thesis.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Okay. Then the major difference would be licenses which permit incorporation into proprietary products. I.e. you release an open source product which someone can then redistribute (perhaps, by licencing it from you for this express purpose) as non-open source, or which can be combined with non-open source parts and redistributed together as a whole. This is the big difference between the GPL 2 and 3, I believe (note linux is GPL2 because of that).

Faheem Mitha

10:12 PM

Those were just by observations. I'm not suggesting I've supported them properly.

@TAFKA'goldilocks' No, that's not true either, as far as I know. Sorry.

derobert

"However, such an operating system would only be useful if it could not in turn be proprietarized. The BSD family of operating systems were not in that category." ... except various BSDs are quite useful. And some are even quite popular (say, Darwin in the form of Mac OS X).

mikeserv

So AND/ORing on a scale of trillions of operations per second simply doesn't work in the long term from a closed source perspective - it eventually cripples the medium due to the sheer volume of eyes required to keep it moving along.

derobert

"Corporations care only about profit and associated strategies." ... I'm pretty sure there is plenty of research showing that not to be true

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Okay, so you are saying there is no difference at all? I'll try and find a thing about GPL 2 vs. 3 for you...

Faheem Mitha

@derobert well, not useful for the purpose described. maybe i didn't make that clear. of course, there would be corporations that would make use of BSDs.

derobert

10:13 PM

@FaheemMitha Yep. You put much more effort into answering that than I ever would have...

Faheem Mitha

@derobert I'd be interested in counter-examples. It is hard to come up with significant ones.

mikeserv

@derobert absolutely - and even if they were, open source wouldn't disappear. Open source and and monetization are NOT at odds.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

The wikipedia article certainly makes it sound like there's no difference, lol:

Free software

Free software, software libre, or libre software is computer software that is distributed along with its source code, and is released under a software license that guarantee users the freedom to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, adapt/modify, and distribute the original software and the adapted/changed versions. Free software is often developed collaboratively by volunteer computer programmers. Free software differs from proprietary software (such as Microsoft Windows), which to varying degrees does not give the user freedoms to study, modify and share the software, a...

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' both GPL 2 and 3 are both free software and open source licenses.

derobert

@FaheemMitha Plenty of individuals run FreeBSD, for example. And the largest users of Linux are what, embedded in routers (e.g, Linksys/Netgear/etc. ones) and hidden under Android?

mikeserv

10:15 PM

Sorry, kind of missed a keyword in that last one.

Faheem Mitha

@derobert well, yes, but that is my point. sure, individuals use FreeBSD, but where is the major corporate support? Why does Google support Linux? Because it can fork it into Android, for example.

mikeserv

Android doesn't hide Linux - it hides Unix. Linux is a kernel, Unix is a philosophy.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

This is more along the lines of what I'm getting at:

36

A: What are the differences between GPL v2 and GPL v3 licenses?

The page linked to in another answer is a good source, but a lot to read. Here is a short list of some the major differences: internationalization: they used new terminology, rather than using language tied to US legal concepts patents: they specifically address patents (including the Microsof...

derobert

@FaheemMitha Google could fork FreeBSD into Android, too. In fact, they'd be able to do that easier...

Faheem Mitha

Corporations with strong proprietary leanings will support BSDs. The notable example these days is Apple, which hasn't "made peace with a level playing field", as I put it.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

10:17 PM

Notice the reference to things like tivo-ization and DRM stuff. GPL 3 is intended to make it impossible to include GPL 3 code in projects which do this (incorporate restrictions on use through a backdoor).

Faheem Mitha

@derobert Sure they could. But it is harder to get a proprietary advantage with a GPLd product, which is why so many people support it in the first place.

derobert

@FaheemMitha That's hard to argue as Google's motivation, when they put the rest of Android (outside of the kernel) under the Apache license.

Faheem Mitha

I mean, if Linux wasn't where it is in the first place, then Google wouldn't be forking it. And it got there because lots of support from lots of people.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

So linux remains GPL 2 because it is used in project which add such a backdoor to restrict the user's right to use the product.

E.g. Android,

Faheem Mitha

@derobert Yes, but other vendors aren't contributing to Android, are they?

derobert

10:19 PM

@FaheemMitha Well, I don't have time to go through them, but scholar.google.com/… starts finding plenty of papers about corporate motivation besides profit.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

Apache would be a major proponent of the non-free open source movement.

derobert

@FaheemMitha I don't know what % of it is Google.

mikeserv

MANY vendors contribute to Android. HTC, Samsung, Motorola - now absorbed - Sony...

derobert

Other people are contributing, but I'm not sure how significantly.

Faheem Mitha

My point was that if the base OS product is proprietary, then it creates lots of problems. And granted if BSD was used it might still work, but it would make it easier for someone to do embrace and extend. MS tried it with Kerberos once.

@derobert Yes, I don't know either.

mikeserv

10:20 PM

All of those that need roll in their HALs contribute to Android.

Faheem Mitha

@mikeserv Oh, phone manufacturers.

Right.

derobert

@mikeserv Sure, but getting it to run on your hardware is a pretty minor contribution. No idea how much they're contributing to other parts of the platform, parts that'd benefit their competitors as well.

mikeserv

Well, sure, who else? Certainly not Fridgidare... Yet.

Faheem Mitha

Does anyone offhand remember the cups web interface?

Via the web interface it is easy. — Faheem Mitha 10 mins ago

derobert

@FaheemMitha localhost:631

Faheem Mitha

10:22 PM

@derobert thanks

mikeserv

I think its a major contribution if little by little it means you're ubiquitous.

derobert

Anyway, time to go. Must go scan more documents in, tax season :-(

Faheem Mitha

@derobert Take care.

mikeserv

Well the point is its become hardware agnostic which means that up and comers are nearly as relevant in the market as the bigname s so long as they have a good product - you? It levels the playing field. And it's only possible because open-source and monetization are not at odds.

Gilles

@mikeserv a configuration file of super, like sudoers for sudo. Super is one of the many programs that grant users limited access to commands with extra privileges, alongside calife, op and a few others. Sudo has become the de facto standard.

mikeserv

10:26 PM

@Gilles - thank you. It looks like a little more than sudo, but it makes more sense now. Of course you can't tr in there - you can't be execing random binaries from a permissions control interface.

Faheem Mitha

@derobert I've heard that coporate law says that the corporate officials have as their main responsibility maximizing profits, and if shareholders can prove they aren't doing this, they can be sued.

I'm not a lawyer, and don't know if this is actually true.

mikeserv

@FaheemMitha it makes sense to me regardless. But again, doing good should not be considered opponent to making money. For instance if a corporation donates to a charity that cleans up the environment it could easily be argued that the corporation is spending that money wisely because otherwise all of its profits would fall off just as soon as its entire employee base dies of mercury poisoning.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Yes, but v2 allows for easier (unintended when the license was written) incorporation into non-free products, v3 is intended to further restrict these possibilities with the intention of making them impossible. By contrast, OSS organizations like Apache are proponents of permissiveness WRT co-operative free/proprietary ventures.

derobert

@FaheemMitha IANAL either, but that can't be true. E.g., charities are typically set up as corporations, as are most other large organizations. Including civic and other not-for-profit ones. They clearly do not have a legal responsibility to maximize profit.

I think their duties are set up in the articles of incorporation and bylaws, which vary by company.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

So maybe the idealized version of the difference between "free" and "open" would be that the intention of "free" is to never permit use in partially proprietary things, whereas "open" is ambivalent in this regard.

derobert

10:33 PM

Anyway, actually leaving now. Might pop in later while feeding the scanner...

mikeserv

And by the way - Android is a major driving source behind Linux kernel dev and has been for a couple years.

We're all benefitting. Even Facebook is - the btrfs team works for Facebook now.

And I f***ing hate Facebook.

The majority of mesa dev is sourced at Intel.

Redhat does most of the Gnome, dbus, and systemd stuff.

The list goes on - but its mostly bought and paid for.

Faheem Mitha

11:05 PM

@derobert Yes, I see the word includes both for-profits and non-profits. However, I think in this context, the word was meant to refer to for-profits. E.g. the Wikipedia article on corporations says

"In American English the word corporation is widely used to describe large business corporations"

@mikeserv Everyone with sense does.

derobert

@FaheemMitha Sure. But legally, they're all corporations.

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' No, I don't think so. The difference is basically between emphasizing the importance of freedom vs not. In the latter case, it is touted as a good development methodology or some such. Per the writings of Raymond. Apparently Raymond at some point declared the GPL obsolete or unnecessary or something.

derobert

/me starts feeding the scanner

Faheem Mitha

@derobert Right, so add for-profit to my sentence.

Random link - esr.ibiblio.org/?p=928

Health warning, reading Raymond may cause brain seizures. You Have Been Warned.

Corporations don't like the word freedom for some reason. Maybe it gives people inappropriate ideas.

derobert

@FaheemMitha is ESR unaware of market failures? That reads as if he is.

(And wouldn't the same argument apply to contracts?)

Faheem Mitha

11:13 PM

@derobert I don't know what he is aware of. He's kind of an idiot. But some of his writings can be entertaining.

To be honest, I didn't actually read the article.

derobert

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Corporate_Law/Directors doesn't mention anything about a duty to maximize profits

Faheem Mitha

Ok, yes, his description of markets is basically nonsense. Apparently he doesn't know anything about how large corporations actually function.

@derobert I don't see anything either.

Yes, maybe it is not true.

derobert

22

Q: Are U.S companies legally obligated to maximize profits for shareholders?

A statement that I've heard over and over, is that U.S. companies are legally obligated to maximize profits for shareholders, and that this explains why companies act socially unresponsible. In this speech at Netroots Nation, Al Franken says: it is literally malfeasance for a corporation no...

hah, found something!

Faheem Mitha

22

Q: Are U.S companies legally obligated to maximize profits for shareholders?

A statement that I've heard over and over, is that U.S. companies are legally obligated to maximize profits for shareholders, and that this explains why companies act socially unresponsible. In this speech at Netroots Nation, Al Franken says: it is literally malfeasance for a corporation no...

united-states law

derobert

ROFLOL

Faheem Mitha

11:18 PM

@derobert :-)

mikeserv

@FaheemMitha nice to hear I have at least a little in common with sensible folk.

Faheem Mitha

@mikeserv how so?

mikeserv

Haha.

So, everyone with sense does was not a reference to my f***ing hating Facebook?

Faheem Mitha

@mikeserv Oh, that is what you meant? You didn't reference my comment, so I wasn't sure what you meant. Do the reply thingy.

mikeserv

But even if they were - and I do believe a shareholder can sue if he/she believes his share have been handled with disregard - it doesn't matter because all a corporation has to do is argue that helping others helped themselves - because it usually does.

And just because you can sue for a thing - which you can do for nearly anything - doesn't make it illegal or anything.

Faheem Mitha

11:23 PM

@mikeserv Actually, a useful way of finding out how this plays out is seeing if a shareholder has ever actually sued a corporation for not making enough profit. Put that way, it does seem unlikely.

derobert

You can sue for anything. Literally. Just ask Jonathan Lee Riches.

mikeserv

You have to get to get a court to take your case - at the very least - so you'll have to convince an attorney to represent you.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha I think that Raymond is more toward the Apache Org end of the spectrum, which TBH if someone asked me to commit myself, I'd probably be too -- I don't like proprietary software, but I think attempts as per the GPL 3 to eliminate by monopolizing leverage are no better than similar attempts to leverage and abuse licencing by Apple, etc. So, e.g., RMS would say ESR is not truly a proponent of freedom (he'd say the same thing about me), which is why he says open source != free.

derobert

@mikeserv no, you don't have to get a lawyer to represent you, at least in the US

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' well, maybe. but that is a separate issue from what the actual defns say, which is what i thought we were talking about.

mikeserv

11:25 PM

@derobert that's true - but I'm talking about practically.

derobert

To win, yes. But not to sue.

mikeserv

You can't take on a corporation in your sweat pants,

Yeah, you do to sue as well - you have to get it into court.

Faheem Mitha

I don't think raymond is trying to represent the "open source movement" if there is such a thing, anyway. He is just giving his personal opinion. Whether that reflects some general concensus or viewpoint among "open source" people is hard to say.

mikeserv

So either you have an obviously very good case, or you're represented.

derobert

@mikeserv No, to sue you just need to file the right piece of paperwork. That gets you into court.

Getting to trial is a different issue

mikeserv

11:26 PM

No, it doesn't get you into court. It might get you a hearing, but that's doubtful.

OK, so we're agreed - and you're more correct. Ia apologize.

casey

@mikeserv you just need to figure out what forms to submit to the clerk. You can represent yourself and it won't be an issue until you go to trial and do enough stupid thing to be held in contempt

Faheem Mitha

@goldilocks again, the open source software defns and free software defns are essentially the same. modulo some possible corner cases. whether these two camps have different viewpoints about what they actually like, that's a separate issue.

casey

winning on the other hand -- you probably do need competent representation to accomplish that

derobert

(Also, a lot of things don't go to trial. E.g., if something settles, that's often before trial. And that can be a win for either side, depending on the terms)

mikeserv

But a judge has to take the case. This doesn't happen just because you have nice handwriting

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

11:28 PM

@FaheemMitha My take on that would be to give RMS the final word on the definition of "free", since giving it to open source types who disagree with him will just render it meaningless in attempt to de-fang/nullify the concept (so that "free" doesn't mean anything different than "open source"). That's pure politics.

mikeserv

Exactly - but settlements don't just happen. They're deserved to some degree.

casey

@mikeserv the merits of the case do not depend on who is presents them.

derobert

@mikeserv It happens because you filed the right piece of paper.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Yes, according to open source types who think RMS is full of shit they are the same, because they have politics with RMS.

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' no, the defns actually are the same. have you actually looked at them?

derobert

11:28 PM

Getting before a judge is very easy. The courts are set up to assume that you have a valid claim, even if you can't manage to articulate it well.

mikeserv

It absolutely does not! You can't just fax off a sheet of paper and take on GE.

casey

The appellate courts are the ones who get stingy about taking cases, not the first level trial courts

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

While I sort of have politics W/ open source, I think that's an underhanded crock.

casey

you give the clerk the right paper, you get on the calendar

mikeserv

The first level trial courts will never get a final ruling against GE.

derobert

11:29 PM

@mikeserv Sure you can. Though I think its probably two sheets. And maybe its mailed, instead of faxed.

casey

@mikeserv true, but you have to start there.

mikeserv

Of course you have to start there, but practically your chances are nil here, unless you're prepared and represented.

casey

@mikeserv and when the appeals happen the judges are going to look at how the trial was conducted and not choose to take it solely based on the lawyers involved

mikeserv

And you have to have a case.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha According to whom? gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html <- There's the upstream source, so to speak, and it makes a big deal of defining "free" specifically in contrast to "open source". If you want to take issue with that, again, to me it is just BS political wrangling.

derobert

11:31 PM

@mikeserv Yes they will. It may be appealed though. Depends on the ruling...

casey

@mikeserv yes, that is required to win, not to get a trial

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' There is something called the open source definition. one sec.

@goldilocks opensource.org/osd-annotated

mikeserv

Are US Companies legally required to maximize profits for shareholders?

I was just saying they can be sued - but they would not lose unless there was some very egregious error.

Faheem Mitha

I think if you compare these to the Debian or FSF versions you will find there is no significant difference. the Debian and FSF ones are practically copies anyway. If you do find a significant difference, I'd be interested to hear about it.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Like, if you want "free" to me exactly the same thing as "open source" when the people who introduced the concept say explicitly it does not mean the same thing, I have to ask: Why do you want to do that? If what you intend to refer to is covered by the term "open source", why isn't that fine? Why do you then need to try and co-opt someone else's party, so to speak? It's crap level politics.

mikeserv

11:33 PM

@casey - we're agreed.

Faheem Mitha

@TAFKA'goldilocks' the rules in question are not defined in terms of free and open source. those are just labels. the rules defines what you can and cannot do with the software

It is really just a functional issue. If you define this thing by these defns or these defns, you will end up with essentially the same set either way.

What is intended by the change in labelling is a different separate issue.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

@FaheemMitha Right, and as I've been trying to say, there is the Apache/ESR end of the spectrum that want to limit the "it" in "what you can do with it" in a way that the libre/RMS end say is a no go for them. They want further limitations that would make, e.g., Android, impossible by saying you can't include our stuff in with that.

Faheem Mitha

It is like calling french fries freedom fries. Either way, it is still a piece of potato. But there may be intention in the labelling.

@TAFKA'goldilocks' Again, I think you are conflating two different things. I was just talking about the defns.

derobert

@FaheemMitha Objection! That ascribes intelligence to Republicans.

Faheem Mitha

@derobert :-) Objection sustained.

Anyway, off to bed now. Take care, guys.

TAFKA 'goldilocks'

11:38 PM

@FaheemMitha No. Here's maybe a good analogy. You raise and sell organic potatoes, so someone can buy your organic potatoes and make fries with them and sell them with a non-organic burger. The libre movement would be more along the lines of saying, if you want to use my potatoes, you cannot do that. Either the meal is 100% organic, or it is not organic at all. Make sense?

@FaheemMitha I'm saying the definition of "free" is either GNU's definition, or there is simply no point in using the word -- because what would be the point? To change the definition? Then why don't you just use a different, e.g., existing, word, such as "open source"?

Keep in mind here I've already said I think the libre thing is it's own kind of monopolization and I don't like that, but to be fair, I won't take cheap shots at it by saying it is meaningless, just a slogan, etc., because it obviously is not -- even thought they are, perhaps, more holier-than-thou than anyone (RMS certainly is).

mikeserv

@derobert the criminal courts are setup to assume your case is valid - the civil courts are another matter entirely.

derobert

11:56 PM

@mikeserv Pretty much only the state brings a criminal case (in the US). They, of course, always have lawyers...

In a civil court, if you can fill out paperwork, you can get at least as far as making the other side respond (as in, file an official response in court).

Transcript for