What the MS agreement says... behing the jargon!

[RyanJ]

http://linuxadvocate.org/articles.php?p=1

 

Someone may find that interesting, its a great laugh seeing what they think they can tell you you must do... I found it very funny.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[ecoli]

interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[RyanJ]

interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

No problem, hope others find it as funny as I did

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Sayonara]

That was quite amusing

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I prefer license agreements that say "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing else.

[RyanJ]

I prefer license agreements that say "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing else.

 

Yup, anything along those lines... MS are just money hungry and greedy... Long live free software and better still open source software.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[drochaid]

I prefer license agreements that say "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing else.

I've never seen one of those yet. Would be nice tho..

[drochaid]

Yup, anything along those lines... MS are just money hungry and greedy... Long live free software and better still open source software.

Interesting, most people have the reverse preference ... open source, or better still, free (or Free or FREE depending on level of zealot you're talking to). How about we just use the common FLOSS to save any hassle? (Free/Libre/Open Source Software, which covers all the various options in common use)

[RyanJ]

I've never seen one of those yet. Would be nice tho..

 

 

What do you mean? Anything open souce for one gives you the right to do just that.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[drochaid]

What do you mean? Anything open souce for one gives you the right to do just that.

OOOOOOOOH no it doesn't. Open Source has absolutely NO connotation on cost whatsoever. It also has no connotation on the software actually being available. Admitedly Free sotware doesn't need to be free, but at least it does need to be available (with the odd exception).

 

Two specific examples of Open Source software that goes against your beliefs:

 

1. PGP. The PGP code license allows you to view the sourcecode to ensure peer review is possible, but you are not allowed to use that code, only view it.

 

2. CAcert.org. Also makes its source code available under a similar license to the PGP code license, but you can't use the code nor can you even buy the system as the project exists to provide free web-of-trust authenticated SSL & pgp/gnupg certs.

 

Both Open Source, neither free.

[RyanJ]

OOOOOOOOH no it doesn't. Open Source has absolutely NO connotation on cost whatsoever. It also has no connotation on the software actually being available. Admitedly Free sotware doesn't need to be free, but at least it does need to be available (with the odd exception).

 

It does not say anything about costs, no-one ever said it did. it does however enshure that the source code is always available to anyone that wants it without question.

 

Two specific examples of Open Source software that goes against your beliefs:

 

1. PGP. The PGP code license allows you to view the sourcecode to ensure peer review is possible' date=' but you are not allowed to use that code, only view it.[/quote']

 

Only if you want to contribute the project as a whole. You can download the code and modifty it yourself if you were so eager This is for a good reason, don't want people injecting evil code into the mix. Firefox and Open Office use the same method.

 

Open source is free... do you see me paying to use Firefox and get a key to make it work...? Nope. Same for open office. They can choose to make you pay, there is no law against it but why pay when you can download and compile yourself anyway?

 

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

 

^ Read it any time you like, if its open source then it follows those rules, if it does not then its not open source. The code must be freely downloadable (or distributed with the product) and as its open source you can use any part of the code as and how you like as long as you say where it came from (and if the copyleft clause is used then any changes must be sent back too).

 

People ask why MS don't simply buy mozilla and shut it down to stop Firefox... it would not work because the open source lisence says it will remain open source in any case so anotehr group of developers could take up the job without any problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[drochaid]

It does not say anything about costs, no-one ever said it did. it does however enshure that the source code is always available to anyone that wants it without question.

Uh, no. It ensures the code is available for the period of time the copyright holders choose to make it available for.

Only if you want to contribute the project as a whole. You can download the code and modifty it yourself if you were so eager This is for a good reason, don't want people injecting evil code into the mix. Firefox and Open Office use the same method.

If you download and modify the PGP code, you are in breach of the license. This is theft.

 

As for Firefox and OpenOffice.org (I assume that's what you mean rather than Open Office which is actually a trademark owned by a German company and nothing to do with the popular office suite) you can edit the code in any way you see fit, that's what THEIR license allows. Please stop confusing the issues.

Open source is free... do you see me paying to use Firefox and get a key to make it work...? Nope. Same for open office. They can choose to make you pay, there is no law against it but why pay when you can download and compile yourself anyway?

No, free is free, Free is Free and FREE is FREE .. each is quite different in terms of legality and license allowances. While all of these are Open Source, not all Open Source is free (or Free or FREE). That is entirely down to the license (existing or custom written) the developers choose to release under. If you use Open Source software which is released under a commercial license which requires you to pay, and you do not pay, you are a thief.

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

 

^ Read it any time you like' date=' if its open source then it follows those rules, if it does not then its not open source. The code must be freely downloadable (or distributed with the product) and as its open source you can use any part of the code as and how you like as long as you say where it came from (and if the copyleft clause is used then any changes must be sent back too).[/quote']

Yes, I'm well aware of Perens attempt at defining Open Source (more than two decades late). Sadly, choosing to define OS from an FSF viewpoint (even tho Stallman rejects Perens OS view) does nothing to diminsh the very strong existing and common OS use and legality. Perhaps a little more research would be advised before you offer such a blatant and easily dismissable source next time.

People ask why MS don't simply buy mozilla and shut it down to stop Firefox... it would not work because the open source lisence says it will remain open source in any case so anotehr group of developers could take up the job without any problem.

It wouldn't actually be that difficult. They would only need to buy AOL and remove all the funded developers from the project. Same option if they bought Sun and removed their funded developers from OOo. Or Skrix and removed their funded developers from OGo. The simple fact is, in many of the most high profile projects out there, the "community involvement" at code level is apallingly small. The OOo OSX is just 4 people, because Sun have no interest in OSX.

 

Oh, and don't forget MS now operates an Open Source option to certain select clients, but with the expected end point of those clients being unable to do anything except look.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I've never seen one of those yet. Would be nice tho..

The point is that most software distributed under an open-source license is available freely and may be freely redistributed. Of course, that's not quite in the license (I wasn't really clear in what I meant) but it's often an implication of it.

[the tree]

I've never seen one of those yet. Would be nice tho..

http://creativecommons.org/

[drochaid]

The point is that most[/i'] software distributed under an open-source license is available freely and may be freely redistributed. Of course, that's not quite in the license (I wasn't really clear in what I meant) but it's often an implication of it.

I know

[drochaid]

[url']http://creativecommons.org/[/url]

I was waiting for someone to post that, thanks for not dissapointing.

 

Uhm, have you ever actually LOOKED at CC? I mean properly, not just a passing glance and general idea of what it's about?

 

This is the specific page you want:

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

 

Even the overview definition of each option is a great deal more than "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author". And then you "View the Legal Code" for the *actual license*. CC is a great idea, it simplifies things nicely to a level people can understand easily in most cases, but the license is every bit as long and complex as any of the others.

[the tree]

You meant, a license with no comment on other rights then? What'd be the point?

[drochaid]

You meant, a license with no comment on other rights then? What'd be the point?

Well it was the capn that made the point, I was the one who said he'd never seen one that simple...

[RyanJ]

Uh' date=' no. It ensures the code is available for the period of time the copyright holders choose to make it available for.

 

If you download and modify the PGP code, you are in breach of the license. This is theft.[/quote']

 

Then its not open source, open source puts no limits on its use at all, if it does then its not open source. (Not quite true but its close enough) Shure the developers can ask you to pay a price to download the code for bandwidth or whatever but they can't ask you to pay for the code its self. There are things like the copyleft clause that if invoked ask the user to contribute somehting back but thats about it.

 

As for Firefox and OpenOffice.org (I assume that's what you mean rather than Open Office which is actually a trademark owned by a German company and nothing to do with the popular office suite) you can edit the code in any way you see fit' date=' that's what THEIR license allows. Please stop confusing the issues.[/quote']

 

Actually I believe you are confusing the issue here. I know exactly what I'm taking about, open source is open source is open source, its ecactly what it says on the tin, software you can download, edit and contribute too without having to pay.

 

No' date=' free is free, Free is Free and FREE is FREE .. each is quite different in terms of legality and license allowances. While all of these are Open Source, not all Open Source is free (or Free or FREE). That is entirely down to the license (existing or custom written) the developers choose to release under. If you use Open Source software which is released under a commercial license which requires you to pay, and you do not pay, you are a thief.[/quote']

 

Again its not open source. By definition the open source lisence allows you to download / have the code freely available. There is no room for argument here, the legality of open source is clear. Firefox and Open Office are clear examples of open source software, software you can download, modify and use parts of as and where you like given credit.

 

Yes, I'm well aware of Perens attempt at defining Open Source (more than two decades late). Sadly, choosing to define OS from an FSF viewpoint (even tho Stallman rejects Perens OS view) does nothing to diminsh the very strong existing and common OS use and legality. Perhaps a little more research would be advised before you offer such a blatant and easily dismissable source next time.

 

It wouldn't actually be that difficult. They would only need to buy AOL and remove all the funded developers from the project. Same option if they bought Sun and removed their funded developers from OOo. Or Skrix and removed their funded developers from OGo. The simple fact is' date=' in many of the most high profile projects out there, the "community involvement" at code level is apallingly small. The OOo OSX is just 4 people, because Sun have no interest in OSX.

 

Oh, and don't forget MS now operates an Open Source option to certain select clients, but with the expected end point of those clients being unable to do anything except look.[/quote']

 

Yes where it suits them... they are too damn greedy to make everything open source because they fear competition and thats one reason why they will fail in the end.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license

 

An open-source license is a copyright license for computer software that makes the source code available under terms that allow for modification and redistribution without having to pay the original author. Such licenses may have additional restrictions such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and the copyright statement within the code. One popular (and sometimes considered normative) set of open source licenses are those approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) based on their Open Source Definition (OSD).

 

I know enough about the open source lisences because I spent a year of study in ICT studying the effects, uses and benefits of open source software.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[drochaid]

I know enough about the open source lisences because I spent a year of study in ICT studying the effects, uses and benefits of open source software.

Oh wow, a whole year. Well that certainly pales my two decades of knowledge and fifteen years of actively studying, selecting and using various commercial and non-commercial licenses. I'd better race out and alter all the software I've written and let the projects I've been involved in know what a big mistake we've all been making by following reality instead of your closed minded view of such a large and complex field.

 

Oh wait a minute, I've just been remembering some of the other false opinions you hold about computing and how much of a joke you come across as at times. I'm still laughing at your ability to use IP without actually using IP.

 

Ho hum, back to reality and people who know what they're talking about.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then its not open source, open source puts no limits on its use at all, if it does then its not open source. (Not quite true but its close enough) Shure the developers can ask you to pay a price to download the code for bandwidth or whatever but they can't ask you to pay for the code its self. There are things like the copyleft clause that if invoked ask the user to contribute somehting back but thats about it.

No. The GPL is not the only open-source license, and even then, GPLed products can be sold. Take, for example, X-Chat for Windows. X-Chat is released under the GPL, but for Windows you must pay $20 due to the time it takes to port it. Others have taken the time to port it as well, and are free to give away their ports without violating the license.

 

By definition the open source lisence allows you to download / have the code freely available.

Right.

There is no room for argument here, the legality of open source is clear. Firefox and Open Office are clear examples of open source software, software you can download, modify and use parts of as and where you like given credit.

They're not the only open-source software. You can't redefine open-source as "freely downloadable and redistributed" - copyleft clauses are not present in all of the open-source licenses.

[RyanJ]

Oh wow' date=' a whole year. Well that certainly pales my two decades of knowledge and fifteen years of actively studying, selecting and using various commercial and non-commercial licenses. I'd better race out and alter all the software I've written and let the projects I've been involved in know what a big mistake we've all been making by following reality instead of your closed minded view of such a large and complex field.

 

Oh wait a minute, I've just been remembering some of the other false opinions you hold about computing and how much of a joke you come across as at times. I'm still laughing at your ability to use IP without actually using IP.

 

Ho hum, back to reality and people who know what they're talking about.[/quote']

 

I've written plenty of projects - I think the people who actually wrote the drafts for the original OS definitions known best about what it says you can and can't do. Put simply OS says that the code is freely accessible to everyone, can be downloaded and modified without restriction and can be re-used as part of other projects. Anything not following those is not open source even if they lable it as such. The Mozilla lisence for example is an extension to the lisence but it can't change the original definition.

 

There are lots of lisences that all do the same job with slight variations depending on the project but the idea remains the same.

 

- Ryan Jones

[RyanJ]

No. The GPL is not the only open-source license, and even then, GPLed products can be sold. Take, for example, X-Chat for Windows. X-Chat is released under the GPL, but for Windows you must pay $20 due to the time it takes to port it. Others have taken the time to port it as well, and are free to give away their ports without violating the license.

 

Yes, as I said earlier it puts no limit on nwhat you can chanrge for it. As is the case with anything, you could download the Linux version and modify it to work under Windows yourself - you'r not paying for the code but the work that has been done.

 

 

They're not the only open-source software. You can't redefine open-source as "freely downloadable and redistributed" - copyleft clauses are not present in all of the open-source licenses.

 

Yup, I know that - I only know of a few that actually use it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, as I said earlier it puts no limit on nwhat you can chanrge for it. As is the case with anything, you could download the Linux version and modify it to work under Windows yourself - you'r not paying for the code but the work that has been done.

The Reciprocal Public License, approved by the Open Source Institute, puts limits on what you can charge for your modifications and requires you to tell the original developer before publishing a modified version.

[RyanJ]

The Reciprocal Public License, approved by the Open Source Institute, puts limits on what you can charge for your modifications and requires you to tell the original developer before publishing a modified version.

 

In that case I stand corrected on that part.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones