[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Sunday 03 October 2004 7:21 pm, M.Blackmore wrote:
Julian Hall wrote:Anyway that's in danger of turning into a political rant which is not what the group is aboutI've long argued that open source IS politics of the /most/ serious kind, and we'd better stop hiding our heads in the sand about it.
So did you agree with the earlier post about increasing the GNU element of the group? http://www.dclug.org.uk/archive/2004/09/msg00407.html What about open source contrasted with free software? I feel that the politics of open source are flawed and weak because open source itself is easily absorbed into proprietary lock-in programs. We need the protection of free software and GPL-compatible licences to protect the future of our favourite OS. If it could all be absorbed into Mega-Corporate-Monopoly-OS3 tomorrow, it's all a waste of time. There are open source licences that look to prevent this but this is where the use of the term 'open source' is flawed - the same term includes software that can and cannot be locked into proprietary systems. Free software is unequivocal, it's only free if the licence is compatible with the GNU GPL. "Open source promotes software reliability and quality by supporting independent peer review and rapid evolution of source code. To be OSI certified, the software must be distributed under a license that guarantees the right to read, redistribute, modify, and use the software freely." http://www.opensource.org/index.php All sounds fine, but the problem lies at the very end - redistribute [and] modify the software freely - it doesn't sound bad but it gives no protection to the modified code. You can change one character of some open source programs and redistribute the modified code as proprietary software - any further modifications are lost to the community. Free software protects the modified code: "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." Section 3 of the GNU GPL makes sure that anyone who modifies and then distributes free software *must* distribute the modified source code so that everyone else can benefit. The GNU GPL is OSI-certified and therefore: All free software is open source, but not all open source is free software. Political arguments need to come as if from one voice, if 'open source' advocates can have the ground taken away from them by some open source programs being protected and some not, we need to argue from a simple and clear position: freedom. A simple banner to rally behind and a simple message to get across: "Software for Everyone". Open Source fails to deliver software to everyone because only certain elements of the grouping are actually protected from being locked behind firewalls, fees and passwords. As Robin recently discovered, an open source program can be restricted behind fees and barriers and no-one can protest. It comes down to the licence - if the author/developer chooses a GPL compatible licence, why call it open source and risk confusing it with software that is not GPL compatible and which could disappear overnight? If it's compatible with the GPL, it's free software so call it free software. Protected, free and available to all for as long as *anyone* needs it. After many discussions, free software and GNU are going to be promoted on the user group website - a reflection of growing unease amongst some members at the erosion of freedom and lack of awareness amongst those who should be shouting from the rooftops about the freedom we receive from our favourite OS. I believe it is incumbent on any GNU/Linux user to respect and uphold the responsibilities of protecting GNU/Linux for future generations. Part of that is to contribute to the community and part is to promote the ideals that gave rise to the OS in the first place. We are part of the community, nobody else is going to stand up for GNU/Linux so it's up to us as part of the wider GNU/Linux community. The new website is still in development but it's coming along. I will be licencing all content under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. The basic improvement of the FDL is to allow anyone to copy and print the texts, images and other content provided that distributed copies are not locked behind firewalls or passwords. Once it is published as a free document, it must remain free and available to any internet user without restrictions. The archive will not be licenced under the FDL because I cannot expect to get permission from individual copyright holders who have now left the group! However, part of the registration for the new site will be an acknowledgement that all content that you create on the site is licenced under the FDL and that by creating content, you agree to this licence being used for your content. You retain copyright, of course, it's about making your document more accessible and more useful - not about taking rights from the author. As it stands at the moment, every word on www.dclug.org.uk is copyright to the author (me in many cases) and anyone wanting to print or save more than a couple of pages from the site is legally obliged to ask for my permission. I *really* don't want to have to answer all those emails individually! -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.codehelp.co.uk/ http://www.dclug.org.uk/ http://www.isbn.org.uk/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature