On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Ben Sturmfels <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/05/11 11:20, Adrian Colomitchi wrote: > >> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ben Sturmfels<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 02/05/11 15:34, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Diomidis D. Spinellis's latest IEEE Software column "Choosing and Using >>>> Open Source Components" is up at his blog >>>> http://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20110501 >>>> and may interest. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out Rodney. Hope we see you at the upcoming >>> discussion group! >>> >>> >> My apologies for the question: haven't had enough time 'til now to attend >> any of the meetings. Can you please update me with date/time/location for >> the next meeting? >> > > Thurs 19 May, 6:30pm at State Library. Look forward to meeting you! :) > > For dates beyond that: > http://www.softwarefreedom.com.au/free-software-melb/ > > > It's a well written article, but does seem to be a little >>> freedom-agnostic. >>> I also worry about Spinellis' slightly twisted interpretation of the GPL: >>> >>> Others (licenses), like the GNU licenses, play well with other >>> software licensed as open source but make life difficult for >>> proprietary offerings. This is especially true if you want to >>> distribute your work to others as a shrink-wrapped package, such as >>> Microsoft Office, or as an embedded software product, like a set-top >>> box. In such cases the only GNU-licensed components you can easily >>> use are unmodified dynamically linked libraries licensed under the >>> so-called GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). You get >>> considerable more leeway with GNU-licensed software if you don’t >>> distribute a product but instead offer a service (like Google) or >>> simply use your system privately within your organization. >>> >>> The GNU GPL says that you can't incorporate GPL licensed code into >>> proprietary programs. >>> >> >> Slight correction here: yes, you can/may, as long as you don't distribute >> the result of incorporation in any kind. And I'd argue that this is *not* >> outside the spirit of the free software. >> > > The difference here is just terminology. For me, a program can't be > proprietary until it has been distributed. So I think we agree there. With this choice of terminology, total agreement. This settles the matter. > > > I'd argue that running/providing a GPL-ed software *as a service* and >> asking >> money in return is still in the spirit of free software and, to some >> extent, >> beneficial for the free software that is used (exposure) and/or for the >> "consumers" of such a service. Examples: heaps of hosting providers >> offering >> LAMP (on quite low prices) - are they operating outside the spirit of free >> software? Are they even "hurting" the spirit of free software? >> > > I encourage people to provide network services using free software. I do it > myself in my business. I object to turning free software into a network > service specifically to get around the requirements of the GPL (as the > article suggests). [...] > > Perhaps networks services would be an interesting topic for the next > discussion group. Yes, it would be interesting. You see, I can't believe that "turning a GPL-ed software into exclusively a service *just to get around the GPL*" would be indeed a risk to worry about: most of the time, the "pain" of operating a consistent service at a non-trivial level of usage/security exceeds the effort to develop/maintain the software (sort of saying: the cost of developing particular customization is far exceeded by the cost of operating the customized software... ). But I have a hunch that there are other risks (for the free software) that comes with "service-alization" > > > Finally, I'm more worried about the following in the blog: >> <quote>Although it’s tempting, try to avoid modifying the open source code >> to fit your needs; you don’t want to end up maintaining another large >> component on your own.</quote> >> Now, this *IS* outside the spirit of free software (at least the way I see >> it). I can see the angle Spinellis is coming, but I do have huge issues >> with >> the form he expressed it. >> It is one thing to say: "If you develop your own customizations, you face >> the risk of broken compatibility with future releases of the free >> software" >> and a different thing to say: "Stay out of customizations! Believe me, you >> don't want to spend anything in making the software better *even for you* >> much less for anyone else". >> The first is a fair warning. The second is bordering FUD of the same sort >> as >> Microsoft's "get the facts right" campaign. >> > > That's a good point. There is a trade-off between maintaining > customisations and having to use software that doesn't fit you. Customising > is the best solution in some situations. Perhaps Spinellis' wording was a > little off. Customising may be an important way a free software evolve to cover a broader set of needs (as long as the same needs are shared by a larger user base): discouraging effort in this direction *is* contrary to the spirit of free software (sort of saying that, in my personal opinion, the wording is not a bit but way off). > > > Ben > Adrian
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
