On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 01:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Evan Leibovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|As for licemses, we need to set a boundary of what we consider |acceptable. Nobody here (I hope) is going to champion the Microsoft |Shared Source initiative, so we're not *that* inclusive ;-). |The two commonly used yardsticks are the Open Source Definition at |opensource.org and the free software definition maintained by the |FSF. They are largely similar but have some subtle differences; one |clear example if the Apple Darwin license, which meets the open |source definition but doesn't pass muster with the FSF on matters |of privacy. Sorry to sound so anal about this but IMO just saying |"inclusive" is a bit too ambiguous. Fair enough. The point is to be broad enough and neutral enough to 'get over' the licence wars that you quite rightly point out are painful. Much of the rhetoric and animosity between the OSF and the FSF dates back to when ESR left the FSF. If we could set this personality conflict aside we could take a giant step forward in matters of licencing. (I realize development is another domain, but one step at a time. ) I think business has to learn to respect freedom, in both senses, and freedom has to recognize that business needs to make a profit. This isn't too difficult, as distros have no problem using 'free' kernels, and FSF allows for 'distribution fees'. A lot of the rhetoric here is often blown way out of proportion. It is in CLUE's interest to minimize licence conflicts and to be as 'inclusive' as possible. A statement of licence principles and a list of 'approved' licences would certainly do it. But here's a wrinkle. What's our domain? If CLUE is conceived as a professional, end-to-end, Linux umbrella organization, how does it relate to proprietary licences such as SCO, Solaris, AIX etc.? If we limit ourselves to Linux, we restrict our influence, our voice and our domain. We need to define how we relate to other licences, (BSD for example). There are definitely areas of overlap and common cause here, and we ought to be open to broader cooperation rather than turf wars based on licencing. |CLUE can provide a forum for companies to work together with |community groups for the general betterment. The companies can |provide resources and the LUGs can provide people -- it *can* be a |very symbiotic relationship so long as no one side tries to |dominate. Having learned from the mistakes of the Unix wars, |companies such as IBM and HP are willing to work together to |jointly advance Linux, and CLUE can provide them with the conduit. We are the table, and we provide each of our team members with their own chair - rather than a park bench. It's useful to maintain a degree of separation sometimes, to avoid the perception of shoehorning people into awkward positions. The point is to facilitate conversation and cooperation - and keep it that way! One size rarely fits all - especially in the nix community - so we have to look for the areas of common cause and work with those. Diversity can make for a stronger team. Respect diversity and allow people to contribute as they can. I think this is especially important regarding the freedom side. We do not want to alienate freedom. It's important we recognize their space as distinct. |And here we get into the subtle differences between the "open |source" approach (as personified by Torvalds) and the "free |software" ethos as expressed by Stallman. Linus folks say that it's |a good idea for solid business reasons. Stallman says using GPL |software should be advocated because it's the Right Thing To Do. And as a vendor neutral, distro neutral, licence neutral organization CLUE should not take sides. As I said above much of the rhetoric is overblown. Much of it recalls Gates' famous Open letter to Hobbyists. Open source often paints FSF as anti-business on the assumption that it always needs traditional control of copyright. In fact, copyright control is incidental to a great deal of business. You don't need to own the copyrights on Cadilacs to sell them and make a profit. Similarly, distros only distribute software and the copyright doesn't matter with respect the main thrust of their business. I think CLUE's role in the matter is to show business how to work with open licences rather than fan the flames of difference in licence wars. Similarly, if we could get RMS to accept programs that were 99% open, yet allowed developers to keep the '11 secret herbs and spices' secret, then we might resolve the development issue too. From a systems point of view, 99% open is probably good enough. The point is to do better than Open Source. Perhaps a CLUE licence? B->> |> We need to put ethics before profits. |Be careful. To some people (me included), the pragmatic approach to |advocating open source is quite ethical, to some it's not enough. |I recall the holier-than-thou arguments over KDE and the original |QPL and it left scars on all concerned. Well few people ever think that *they* are unethical. It's always 'the other guy' who is unethical. Ask about respect and reciprocity. Does your position allow you to change places with the other guy? Would you? Are you being fair to the other side? Again fractious debate is certainly undesirable, so how 'holy' is 'holy enough'? CLUE's role should be to try and provide guidelines and models to show business how to do it right. Anyone can be proprietary. We can't make a difference there. We can show people how to do it better though. How to be ethical - as well as respect the need to make a profit. The biggest danger is in being afraid to think outside the box and subscribing to ideological divisions as if they were cast in stone. Putting ethics first tries to get beyond this. DAs an example, it may be helpful to conceive of the commercial side as a service industry rather than in traditional terms as a manufacturing activity. The difference, is that you can support even the most demanding licence and charge 'service fees' for value added. FSF allows distribution fees for example, and I think this concept could easily be extended. By keeping the two sides separate it is possible to accomodate both. It's when you think in black and white, and either/or, that 'holier than thou' becomes a problem. As I said earlier, some business people are quite anti-ethical and resent anyone telling them that they are mistaken in any way. |I think you'll find within the community a fairly diverse range of |approaches to the ethics of (for instance) including non-free |software such as Netscape or Acrobat in distributions. If you try |to be too restrictive in your definition of who's "right", your |remaining organization could be too small to accomplish much. Yes. Broad and inclusive. But with minimum requirements. |Indeed, some business think no further beyond this quarter's IT |budget. That's a reality we need to live with, because such as heck |MS and Sun are banging on their doors. Well that's another role for us isn't it? Oversight? The long view? |> And the time is right. The selloramma is over. The vision of an |> information economy, the adventure of the internet, the dream of |> a global infosphere have all been done. Those days will not come |> again, regardless of what certain interests would like. Their's |> is a vision of the past. |Maybe. More likely it'll happen anyway, but so slowly that nobody |will notice intil it's too late ;-). And we may be dead by then. B->> |> The door is open to Linux. Linux ought to be the cure for |> Klondike Fever - not the carrier of a new strain of the disease. |> Free software is about bits and brains not bits and bucks. |It could be both. If use of free software makes a company more |efficient(and more profitable) than its competitors using |proprietary technology, is that not a win? Yes. Bits AND Brains AND Bucks. Emphasis on synthesis and separation - not division and domination. |I think that many who take the pragmatic approach suggest that |Linux's appeal to greed (its lower cost to own, maintain and copy) |gets the foot in the door. Having made the entrance, the other |benefits of software freedom can be much more easily explained and |demonstrated. |Is this approach unethical? I certainly don't think so. Well I would not consider greed to be good. But TCO is not about greed - it's about value for money. There's no point in getting your foot in the door if you've got to be sleazy to do it. Is it unethical? Hard to say. What if your figures were fictitious? Certainly M$ has readily manufactured studies, benchmarks and numbers to suit it's current projects. And let's not forget FUD. With M$ winning is the only thing that matters. If we want to be ethical we will have to be different and show others how to be different too. Sure we want to win, but to win with our integrity intact. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
