headers
Olin Lathrop | 8 May 23:02

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

Mark Rages wrote:
> 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.

But distribution is one of various uses of source code, so the GPL does
restrict how it can be used.

> 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:

So?  I don't remember them getting ordained the Official Keeper of the Open
Source definition.  The Open Software Foundation puts restrictions on what
you can do with their source.  I think some of them are rather onerous and
actually hurt the wide accessibility of software for end users.  They do
this because they have a particular agenda they want to push.  The widest
accessibility of software for end users isn't their goal.  I agree they have
the right to put whatever restrictions on their software they want, as does
the owner of any software, but I totally disagree that they have some sort
of moral high ground and get to define what "open source" is.

> Therefore is not "open
> source" in the accepted usage of the term.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  I don't accept their definition of
"open source", nor do I agree that their exact definition is accepted usage.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Rages | 8 May 23:36

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist <at> embedinc.com> wrote:
> Mark Rages wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But distribution is one of various uses of source code, so the GPL does
> restrict how it can be used.
>
>> 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:
>
> So?  I don't remember them getting ordained the Official Keeper of the Open
> Source definition.  The Open Software Foundation puts restrictions on what
> you can do with their source.

You are confusing OSI ("open source" people), the FSF ("free software"
people), and the OSF (which isn't really "open" at all, like you
pointed out.)

I am not interested in arguments over the GPL.  I am just trying to
correct what I read as misleading statetments.

> I think some of them are rather onerous and
> actually hurt the wide accessibility of software for end users.  They do
> this because they have a particular agenda they want to push.  The widest
> accessibility of software for end users isn't their goal.  I agree they have
> the right to put whatever restrictions on their software they want, as does
> the owner of any software, but I totally disagree that they have some sort
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tamas Rudnai | 9 May 01:20

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

"Open source software" is more like a "Public house" (also known as pub).
It's public, so you can go inside free, but it does not mean that you can do
whatever you want to do. There are certain rules you have to keep, otherwise
you "free" to go :-) For example here in Ireland you not supposed to smoke
inside. If you want to do that you have to go out - and as you not supposed
to drink outside we have the "Don't drink and smoke" rule. Other countries
have different rules with public houses, so if you go abroad you have to
study those if you do not want to be in trouble.

You have to study the license of the open source software as well. (Open as
you can see its source) You have to keep those rules in order to legally
using it. If you use Olin's code, you have to agree whatever he says. If he
let's you see the source, that software is definitely open, if does not,
it's called closed or proprietary. If he let's you use it free, then it's
free as well. But I doubt if you can do with that source whatever you want
to do - even GPL does not let you do that. Many people involved in
developing software for free of charge just because they learn a lot on
these, but they do not want you to "steal" their work. Other people like
Olin wants back some money for their time pushed into it, and for their
other costs - quite understandable, and still you can learn a lot from their
work, I really appreciate it!

Tamas

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Mark Rages <markrages <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist <at> embedinc.com>
> wrote:
> > Mark Rages wrote:
> >> The GPL is only concerned with copying.  It doesn't address how you
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
William "Chops" Westfield | 9 May 02:14

Re: [EE]: semantics and definitions: "Open Source"


On May 8, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> If he let's you see the source, that software is definitely open

There's something not quite right about that.  LONG before "open  
source" was a buzzword, it was common for computer companies to  
provide source code to universities and/or paying customers, under  
"license agreements" of varying fierceness.  And the universities and  
customers would customize things, fix bugs, and etc, sometimes  
providing the new code and/or patches back to the owner and/or to  
other source licensees.  It was sweet, as long as you were on "the  
list" of people with source access.  The most (in)famous example was  
unix itself, which was essentially free to most universities, and  
essentially inaccessible to commercial firms.

So I think the MINIMUM requirements for "open source" have to include:
1) ANYONE can see the source.
2) For free.

Usually we add:
3) Anyone may compile/etc and USE the SOURCE "locally."  Preferably  
without undo trouble.  I've a bit of a sore spot for things where you  
have to provide additional source to get something to work, even in  
its original environment. (BASIC52 seems to be like this, last time I  
looked.  The source is available, but it doesn't include the low- 
level IO routines, even for the original target CPU.) (This gets  
complicated in embedded environments, of course.  See below.)

Most of the annoyances show up when we start talking about re-selling  
the open source software in some form.  This used to be not much of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vasile Surducan | 9 May 06:19

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

On 5/8/08, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnai <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> You have to study the license of the open source software as well. (Open as
> you can see its source) You have to keep those rules in order to legally
> using it.

Just a thought: in this time when you've spent time and bandwith
discussing about differences between open source and free software,
1.000.000 of various clones left China to be sold worlwide. That is
real world and not what are you talking about here.
Open source or free softfare ? Who cares?
--

-- 
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
Jinx | 10 May 01:09

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> open source

Gadgets threaten to unravel the world wide web, says expert

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10509015

Professor Jonathan Zittrain says the latest must-have devices are
sealed, "sterile" boxes that stifle creativity and turn consumers into
passive users of technology

The Future of the internet and How To Stop It, futureoftheinternet.org

--

-- 
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
Peter Todd | 10 May 02:05

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?


On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:09:58AM +1200, Jinx wrote:
> > open source
> 
> Gadgets threaten to unravel the world wide web, says expert
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10509015
> 
> Professor Jonathan Zittrain says the latest must-have devices are
> sealed, "sterile" boxes that stifle creativity and turn consumers into
> passive users of technology

The readers of MAKE might disagree: http://makezine.com/

Frankly I think due to the internet, and the hugely increasing usage of
software in devices, the ability for people to become active users of
technology is far greater than ever before. Sure changing the hardware
side of, say, a cellphone is daunting, but the software is increasingly
hackable and the tools, and information resources, to make your own
hardware are more accessible than ever. Also I really think people in
general are more excited about the types of projects you can do these
days, electronics constrains you to the sort of things electronics is
good for, input and output. But software can do anything given an
appropriate IO device.

Electronic art for instance has exploded ever since microprocessors
became available to the general public, especially stuff like PICAXEs
and Arduino boards.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jinx | 10 May 05:13

Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

> > Professor Jonathan Zittrain says the latest must-have devices are
> > sealed, "sterile" boxes that stifle creativity and turn consumers into
> > passive users of technology
> 
> The readers of MAKE might disagree: http://makezine.com/

I'll keep an eye on that site, go back when I have more time

I see they have a piece there on the BBC Radiophonic Workshop.
The studio (under the name White Noise) album, An Electric Storm,
is just stunning. Even more so considering it was 'hand-made" and
predated many electronics and studio techniques that made it so
much easier for those who followed. My original copy was bought
at the time it was first released on vinyl, now I have it as CD and
MP3 and never get tired of hearing it. There are actual songs, as
opposed to the "mood" music of Wendy Carlos and Tangerine
Dream. And what songs they are

> Electronic art for instance has exploded ever since microprocessors
> became available to the general public, especially stuff like PICAXEs
> and Arduino boards.

I wish I had time to pursue my interest in kinetic art. Always plotting
and scheming but opportunity just isn't my friend lately

--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane