On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:34:21 +0100, Kevin Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure which three letters you are talking about. My first > thought was "arse", but that's clearly four letters so you can't > mean that. "Mouth" is five letters long, so you can't mean that > either. Perhaps you mean "ear". Yes, that's probably it.
:-) > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource > > > There's something I didn't know. fair enough. > Thanks for pointing that out. > I'll take Apple off the "just like Apple and Microsoft" list then. It would seem Apple could improve their PR to make sure more people know about Darwin and the fact it's open source. Also, did you know that you can run Darwin natively on your x86 PC? I reckon this would be an easy way to verify and ensure that the current CVS compiles out of the box on MacOSX, but everybody I have told about this seemed rather surprised. > > The companies that should be singled out for bashing are those who > > violate the license terms, like Microsoft, who are using the BSD > > TCP/IP stack in Windoze without attribution to Berkely University; and > > SCO, who have still been distributing their own Linux distro while at > > the same time claiming that the GPL was null and void. > > > Yes. I thought that Apple were in the same camp, so I apologise for > that. The underlying points in my previous articles still stand - just > with Apple removed from the list. Fair enough. I don't necessarily have a problem with your views but I think it would help a great deal if you were to articulate them in a way that acknowledges that there are two different angles: one is legal the other is ethical >From what I gather reading the thread, a lot of the "heat" in the discussion would seem to stem from the boundaries between the legal and the ethical angle being somewhat unclear, if not mixed up. For example, let's assume for argument's sake that Apple had indeed taken the BSD code from open source to closed source. >From a legal angle, this would be OK as long as they also made the required attribution to Berkely University. One could not say that they had stolen the code. >From an ethical angle though the situation is much different. Ten years ago, it might have been ethically perfectly acceptable for any company to take the entire BSD code as a base for their own proprietary and closed source operating system as long as they abided by the BSD license, but in this day and age, our ethical standards have changed and any company using the BSD code would be expected to not only abide by the license, but also contribute something back. In this respect, Apple did the right thing, not only legally, but also ethically. Other companies, who have used the BSD code for their proprietary systems at a time when ethical standards were different, probably have done what was legally and ethically right at the time, but it might not feel right today. Fortunately, most of those companies have given back to community in other forms. For example, IBM have contributed a lot of code to Linux. Thus, in most cases there will still be a balance between how much a company has received and how much they have given back, thus they are still working within the boundaries of ethical standards even as those ethical standards are changing. So when you say that somebody is "stealing the code" in relation to the BSD license, I believe what you really mean to say is that they are unethically taking advantage of a gift without giving enough back in return. Not everybody will be able to read between the lines though and if you say "stealing" then it will not only lead to confusion but it can also be offending. Thus, my advice would be to make a clear disctinction between what is the right thing to do legally and what is the right thing to do ethically. I think if you do that, then you will find that most people will agree with you on what the right thing to do ethically is and should be. As far as the BSD license is concerned, I don't think that it is any more inviting to anybody to take advantage and do the unethical thing as is the GPL. The evidence would seem to suggest something different. Companies who have used BSD code for proprietary systems have mostly done so at a time when the ethical standards were different and as those standards changed, they have contributed back in other ways. Companies like Apple who have come to the BSD party much later, have done the ethically right thing and open sourced their improvements even though the license didn't mandate that. On the other hand, companies like Microsoft have no respect of the law nor ethics regardless what the license says. We only know that they are using BSD's TCP/IP stack from behavioural analysis. They didn't make the required attribution to Berkely University and never admitted that they are actually using the BSD code, so we have no way to tell other than through behavioural analysis. So if they have stolen the BSD code where it would have been so simple to make an attribution to Berkely University, who is to say that they haven't stolen GPL code as well? If they did care about what the license says, then they would have made the attribution, but they didn't. So, we can conclude that they don't care about what the license says. If they don't care what the BSD license says, then how can you say that they would care about what the GPL license says? All I can see is that they don't care either way and I wouldn't be surprised if they have "borrowed" GPLed code somewhere in their proprietary software. Companies who think they can get away with theft will think they get away no matter what the license is, BSD, GPL or any other license. Before this background, I have to say that I tend to disagree with the view that BSD invites misappropriating code anymore than any other license. I don't think it does, and it would take hard evidence to proof otherwise. As to which license is ethically more appropriate, well, that is clearly a matter of opinion and I would say it also depends on the circumstances. But what matters most in this respect is what the author of the software thinks is the right license. If they feel the BSD license is their best choice, then so be it and their choice should be respected. Likewise, if they feel the GPL is their best choice, then so be it and their choice should be respected. Finally, in respect of whether or not there is a place for closed source, that is a matter for the market to decide. The current trend is quite obviously in favour of open source software and I believe this trend will continue. However, nobody can tell for sure what the distant future will bring. It could well be a matter of a swinging pendulum, where the ratio of open source and closed source software is changing perpetually. Or it could be that closed source will only play a niche role at some point in the future and the situation will then more or less stay that way. I personally think that closed source will remain to have a role but not in the way this discussion has suggested it would. The challenges described regarding security and safety can probably be solved even with open source software, so I don't think that this is what defines the raison d'etre of closed source, if there is such a thing, To understand why closed source probably has its place even in a world dominated by open source, one has to look at what's called product lifecycles. Every product has its lifecycle, at the start of which it is innovative and at the end of which it is a commodity. The more a particular software becomes a commodity, the more the open source model will apply because standardisation and mass production efficiency will become dominant factors. Take operating systems as an example. After half a century of research and development, operating systems have become commodities in the sense that they are far less a means to distinguish one product from another than it was 10 or 20 years ago. As a consequence, companies move to other areas to distinguish their products from others. Apple's move to an open source operating system with a proprietary GUI reflects their acceptance of operating systems as a commodity and their vision of the GUI as one of their main competitive advantages. At some point in the future, GUIs may have reached a similar stage in their product lifecycle and there may then not be much room left for any company to distinguish their product from others through a GUI. At that point, Apple would have to find a new area in which to seek their competitive advantage. >From an economist viewpoint the advent of open source is a sign that the software industry is becoming mature because it reflects commoditisation. It can be seen as the equivalent of using standardised off the shelf components in manufacturing, Of course this is not to say that there can be no innovation that starts right away with open source. There are clearly examples of that happening. However, it is still early and only time will tell whether this will become the norm. In my opinion, economic activity should always be as diverse as possible. Diversity means progress will be ensured and disadvantages of any particular model will be balanced out by alternative models. Any discussion that weighs one particular model against another should always be aware of how important diversity is. I'd therefore lilke to ask all license warriors for tolerance and respect of other opinions. rgds benjk -- Sunrise Telephone Systems, 9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan. NB: Spam filters in place. Messages unrelated to the * mailing lists may get trashed. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users