-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Saturday 2006-03-25 at 18:44 +0100, houghi wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:47:26PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote: >>>> Disregarding users opinions, even in this respect, may lead to the point >>>> that users dislike the distro or whatever and make it useless. The most >>>> important part of any software is users, not developers. It is users >>>> using a software who make it a success or a failure, regardless of how >>>> good the software is intrinsically. >>> It is however the developer who puts the licence on it and that has to be >>> respected. Ignoring that licence is not an option, unfortunatly. Otherwise >>> MPlayer could easily be included and libdvdcss. > > True. > Look at it this other way, then: > In closed source software, the developers, or their companies, are the > sole owners of the software. They can do what they like. We, users, merely > have the right to use it, and a limited right as that. > In open source software, the developer, in an unprecedented unselfish act, > gives the power to the user to do with the software as they please,
That is not correct ;) > ceasing to be the owner of the software. It is freedom. The users, if they Mmm... nope, they don't. > want, can modify the work of the original developer even beyond > recognition (I'd use a rather colourful expression if writing in my first > language :-P ) Sorry, but you make wrong assumptions here ;) - - the users may not do with the software as they please: OSS licenses are still licenses, and they clearly (well, as clear as a license can be ;)) state what users may do and may not do (for an example of what they may not do, see the next item) - - the developer is still the owner: all OSS licenses I know very clearly state that you may *not* take the source code and claim it your own, you must give credit for the code belonging to the original developer. OSS licenses do *not* give away ownership. Typically, OSS licenses grant the following: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php For examples of what people may not do with the license, look at 4, 5 and 6. > Thus, in OSS, it is the users who are the "boss". No, the "boss" is still the developer (or his employer) who owns the code. The users don't own the code, they totally don't. They are granted many more rights as opposed to closed source software, but still. The only form of "giving away" I know of is putting source code under "public domain". The problem is, it's not a license, and "public domain" does not exist as a license/legal state in every country. Most notably, the concept of "public domain" does not exist for source code in Germany, AFAICR. Well, at least that's my current knowledge about the "public domain" non-license. If anyone can correct me or bring a few more details, please do so ;)) > In the opensuse case, it seems to me that we are classifying software to be > either totally OSS, or if not, be "relegated" to the last cd, putting > together privative software and those middle-land software. As a user, I > might not want to use closed source software (like acrobat, for instance), > but might want to use Pine, which is somewhat open. I'd like a more broad > classification. I don't like the implication that saying Pine is not OSS, > it is then closed source software. Life is not so black and white, there > are grays, reds, blues, yellows and infinite colours. Well, you said it: pine is "somewhat" open: - - yes, you get the source code - but there is also a great number of proprietary software where you get the source code, albeit it's still proprietary (and no, I'm not saying pine is proprietary) - - you don't get the rights to do whatever you want with the source code; more specifically, the U&W license states a number of restrictions that "violate" those of OSI's OpenSource definition Now, that's fine and all, I mean, U&W can put their software under whatever license they prefer. I'm not criticising U&W by any means (well, maybe: if they just want to make pine opensource, they'd better put it under one of OSI's approved licenses and be done with it, why have yet another license...), they can do whatever they want with the code they own. Also, of course it's great pine isn't under a proprietary and closed source license. It's just not an OpenSource license (as by OSI's definition). The point is (again, I think I'm writing this for the 4th time or so): when we say the 5 first CDs are "100% OSS", do we mean OSS as by OSI's definition, or do we have our own definition of "OSS", like: "if we have the source code and can redistribute it, then it's OSS" ? When I say "we", it's actually Novell/SUSE, as there doesn't seem to be much influence we can take on this decision (or everyone is too busy to comment) :\ PS: reading my mail again, I do sound so picky... it's not my intention, I just wanted to clarify a few things, as opensource and free software are often misunderstood, it's really more FYI than "cutting hairs in 4" (and IANAL, I'm far from being an expert in that area) cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEJb+Sr3NMWliFcXcRAp6PAJ49ZJ5mn6+J3JY7Rquzh3rDNtRTTQCgqVcQ hgrgM2lqC3YqX1C/ug3t/M0= =WN9M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
