[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> As the proof I give you the Linux kernel.  It now includes JFS, ReiserFS
> and XFS - three journaling file systems that a few years ago were 
> propriety.  Would IBM, Hans Reiser and SGI have been willing to donate their
> code to Linux if Linux was released under the BSD license?  I would suggest 
> they would not.


A good point, however the modified BSD license is indeed a "Free"
license under the terms defined by the Free Software Foundation.  We
would prefer things to be GPL for exactly the benefit you describe,
but we aren't _that_ restrictive.  Did you guys know that Theo De Raadt, the
head of the OpenBSD project, won the FSF's 2004 Free Software Award
for his services to Free Software?

---%<---

> You say that the FSF's definition of Free Software "is not useful in the
> real world".  But the OpenSource's stance on issues such software patents
> is this:
>
>     The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas
>     can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related
>     controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open
>     source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades
>     about it.
>
> I disagree.  By allowing SWpats or any other form software IP allows IT
> players to build vendor lockin.  RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, ... all
> have patches that they apply to the Linux kernel.  Their clients (I'll call
> Debian uses "clients" in this context) are depenant on those patches.  If
> the vendors did not have to share their patches then a client would be just
> as dependant on their Linux distro as Window's users are to Microsoft.
>
> The "moral purity" of the GPL forces share and share-a-like.  A Linux user
> wanting to switch distros knows that everything he is now dependant upon
> *will* also be available which ever distro he switches to.  When moving
> no one considers if their car is going to work as well on the roads built
> by a different county council.  Why shouldn't software be as flexible?

This is a stronger point on the difference between "Free" and "Open".
Again, the point is not that something is licensed under the GPL (or
indeed a GPL compatible license) but that it meets the FSF's
definition of free.  

Something else that escapes people: Some application suites have
non-free components mingled in with a predominantly Free base.
Mozilla, and all it's variants, are predominantly Free, however, the
bug reporting tool distributed with them is not Free.  Almost all
distros include this bug reporting tool and so cannot be Free
distros.  


For reference here is a breakdown of licenses.  The FSF obviously
prefers you to pick from the top of the first list, but anything in
the first two lists is considered "Free":

GPL compatible, Free Software Licenses.
==============

GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short.
GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU LGPL for short.
License of Guile
License of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler
X11 License prior < 1.1
Expat License.
Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License
Public Domain
Cryptix General License
Modified BSD license
University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License.
License of ZLib
License of the iMatix Standard Function Library
W3C Software Notice and License
Berkeley Database License (aka the Sleepycat Software Product License)
OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7
License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions
License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions
License of Perl
Clarified Artistic License
Zope Public License version 2.0
Intel Open Source License (as published by OSI)
License of Netscape Javascript
eCos license version 2.0
Eiffel Forum License, version 2
License of Vim, Version 6.1 or later
Boost Software License
EU DataGrid Software License
The license of Ruby


GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses
========================================

XFree86 1.1 License
Affero General Public License
Arphic Public License
The Condor Public License
Original BSD license
OpenSSL license
Academic Free License, version 1.1.
Open Software License, version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.1
Apache Software License, version 2.0
Zope Public License version 1
License of xinetd
License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions, through 2.0 and 2.1
Old OpenLDAP License, Version 2.3
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Common Public License Version 1.0
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0
Phorum License, Version 2.0
LaTeX Project Public License
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)
Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0
Interbase Public License, Version 1.0
Sun Public License
Nokia Open Source License
Netscape Public License (NPL)
Jabber Open Source License, Version 1.0
Sun Industry Standards Source License 1.0
Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0
PHP License, Version 3.0
Zend License, Version 2.0
Vita Nuova Liberal Source License
Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license)
Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 2



Non-Free licenses claiming to be "Open Source"
==============================================
(Original) Artistic License
Reciprocal Public License
SGI Free Software License B, version 1.1
Sun Community Source License
Old Plan 9 License
Open Public License
University of Utah Public License
eCos Public License, version 1.1
Sun Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License, Version 1.1
YaST License
Aladdin Free Public License
Scilab license
AT&T Public License
Jahia Community Source License
License of ksh93
License of Qmail
The license of PINE
Microsoft's Shared Source License
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA)
The Squeak license








-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org

/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/