headers
Olin Lathrop | 8 May 21:28

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

Mark Rages wrote:
> There are no restrictions on running the software under the GPL.

That may be true, but not relevant since we're talking about source code
which you can't run anyway.  Building the source and then running it is only
one of many things you might want to do with source code.

My original point was that much software that is generally considered "open
source" has restrictions on what you can do with it.  If software under the
GPL is "open source", then you have to allow that my USBProg software is
also open source.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Rages | 8 May 21:52

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist <at> embedinc.com> wrote:
> Mark Rages wrote:
>> There are no restrictions on running the software under the GPL.
>
> That may be true, but not relevant since we're talking about source code
> which you can't run anyway.  Building the source and then running it is only
> one of many things you might want to do with source code.

The GPL is only concerned with copying.  It doesn't address how you
use the software once you have it (compiling it, linking it against
other software, etc.)   It only addresses distribution.

>
> My original point was that much software that is generally considered "open
> source" has restrictions on what you can do with it.  If software under the
> GPL is "open source", then you have to allow that my USBProg software is
> also open source.
>

While your software is open source in the sense that the source code
is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source
Initiative's definition: (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) nor does
it embody the four freedoms of the FSF.
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  Therefore is not "open
source" in the accepted usage of the term.

Regards,
Mark
markrages <at> gmail
--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
M. Adam Davis | 8 May 22:14

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On 5/8/08, Mark Rages <markrages <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> While your software is open source in the sense that the source code
> is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source
> Initiative's definition: (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) nor does
> it embody the four freedoms of the FSF.
> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  Therefore is not "open
> source" in the accepted usage of the term.

It's true that some of his open source software does not meet the
criteria defined by these two groups.

That doesn't mean it's not open source.  It means that if they had
their way the term "Open Source" would be trademarked and owned by
either of them and they could prevent its usage outside of their
_very_ narrow definition.

Olin can call it open source all he wants.  He makes it clear in the
license what is open about his source and what is closed.  Even the
two organizations mentioned above encourage people to read and abide
by the license included with any software.

Unless someone has it trademarked and enforces it, then there's no
need to force everyone to adopt a particular definition, especially
when that definition is so narrow given that the words are merely
"open" and "source".  If they want to force a particular usage, they
need to get a trademark on a phrase they can control, use it, enforce
it, and settle down instead of telling everyone what open source is
and isn't.

-Adam
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Rages | 8 May 22:26

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM, M. Adam Davis <stienman <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/08, Mark Rages <markrages <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>  > While your software is open source in the sense that the source code
>  > is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source
>  > Initiative's definition: (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) nor does
>  > it embody the four freedoms of the FSF.
>  > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  Therefore is not "open
>  > source" in the accepted usage of the term.
>
>  It's true that some of his open source software does not meet the
>  criteria defined by these two groups.
>
>  That doesn't mean it's not open source.  It means that if they had
>  their way the term "Open Source" would be trademarked and owned by
>  either of them and they could prevent its usage outside of their
>  _very_ narrow definition.

Wikipedia: "Perens attempted to register 'open source' as a service
mark for the OSI, but that attempt was impractical by trademark
standards.
...
Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is widely
accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to
refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which
may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more
often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term
coined by Microsoft in opposition to open source."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Wouter van Ooijen | 8 May 23:12

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> Unless someone has it trademarked and enforces it, then there's no
> need to force everyone to adopt a particular definition, especially
> when that definition is so narrow given that the words are merely
> "open" and "source".

I don't want to enforce anything, but IMO "open source" should at least 
  imply that you are free to compile and use (including sell) the 
unmodified software any way you want. This gets a bit hazy when the 
software can't be used without associated hardware, but in my opinion 
something should not be called "open source" when its use is limited by 
proprietary hardware.

Everyone is free to use words in a way he want, but calling something 
that uses magnetic levitation on a railroad-like track and uses rockets 
for propulsion a "bike" is not very helpful in a conversation. But it is 
legally allowed (at least in my country, in the USA it might be 
un-american?).

I think Olin's license is similar is spirit to my Wisp648 firmware: Do 
with it what you want if it is for your own use, or when used with 
hardware bought from me (or him). But I call this "source available", 
not "open source".

PS I am still looking for a good "open source" license that
- has the usual legal bullshit about the author not being responsible 
for anything
- permits *all* use of the *compiled* version of the code (no need to 
publish modified sources, mention contributors, etc)
- forces the use of that sane license for all distributions of the 
source (modified or not, gratis or for a fee, etc).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Byron Jeff | 10 May 09:12

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:14:13PM -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On 5/8/08, Mark Rages <markrages <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > While your software is open source in the sense that the source code
> > is available for reading, it does not meet the Open Source
> > Initiative's definition: (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd) nor does
> > it embody the four freedoms of the FSF.
> > (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  Therefore is not "open
> > source" in the accepted usage of the term.
> 
> It's true that some of his open source software does not meet the
> criteria defined by these two groups.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's not open source.  It means that if they had
> their way the term "Open Source" would be trademarked and owned by
> either of them and they could prevent its usage outside of their
> _very_ narrow definition.
> 
> Olin can call it open source all he wants.  He makes it clear in the
> license what is open about his source and what is closed.  Even the
> two organizations mentioned above encourage people to read and abide
> by the license included with any software.

Where's the license? I looked on EmbedInc's software page, and downloaded
the development software. The only license reference I found was in the
aspic files:

;   ***************************************************************
;   * The contents of this file may be used in any way,           *
;   * commercial or otherwise.  This file is provided "as is",    *
;   * and Embed Inc makes no claims of suitability for a          *
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane