Lots of open standards are patent-encumbered with RAND terms on patent licensing, including the MPEG family, and various hardware standards such as DDR. The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software. If it is only one or the other, then there may be problems.
The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software
Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.
There could be additional encumbrances on a patent other than royalties. A common one is that each user has to obtain permission from the patent holder. Even if this permission is easy to obtain and costs nothing, that would still be encumbered from the GPL's perspective because it would impose restrictions on those who receive the software.
Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.
You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy.
Yes, *you* can, *you* are obviously trying to, but *you* shouldn't.
Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open", and they have the might and force of some of the biggest entertainment, marketing, and consumer electronics companies behind them. We should not let them.
If MPEG is "open", then the term "open" has lost any useful meaning.
Did you even read that link? From the second paragraph:
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage
The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments
This is a very new definition. Look at the citation at the end of the article; this definition was adopted by the EU in 2004, after several decades of use of the term with other meanings. The other citations for this definition also date from 2004. From the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia entry:
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T...
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open. These organisations have been issuing open standards with this definition since 1947 and 1986, respectively.
The fact that, around 2004, a number of groups decided that they would only accept open standards that were also royalty free as being 'real' open standards does not alter the fact that the this has, historically, not been part of the definition. A large number of patented standards were published and described as open standards before 2004, and retroactively changing the definition means that these suddenly go from being open to non-open.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion. Why not call open, royalty-free, standards Free Standards or something which does not have historical meanings associated with it?
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open"
You'll note that I didn't mention the MPEG-LA as people describing MPEG as an open standard. Do the IEEE (which is, among other things, a standards body) and BBC (which has produced a patent-free video CODEC that is due to become VC-2) have a vested interest in redefining 'open'? Or are they just using the definition in the same way that it's been used for decades. MPEG-1 was described as an open standard back in 1988, 16 years before the EU decided on a definition that excludes it, and it certainly wasn't the only standard with RAND-licensed terms, just one of the most well-known.
Even if that were true (it is not), so what? It is the current definition, and it's the only meaningful and useful definition.
Just because we accepted slavery, lack of voting rights for women, throwing people in jail for their sexual orientation, or mixing church and state in the past doesn't mean we have to continue to do so. And it's the same with the misuse of the term "open".
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open.
Yes: old bodies dominated by big corporate interests. In the past, they have been able to get away with it. Today, we don't let them anymore.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion
Nothing surprises me. I'm just saying that enough is enough. Don't use the term "open" to describe standards that are clearly proprietary. That kind of misuse and deliberate confusion may have been fine in the 1970's, but it is unacceptable today, period.
Because it was NOT done so that kilo means the same everywhere. It WAS done so that HDD manufacturers could bone you by saying a drive is a Gb when it was actually 900 and something Mb.
You see children, once upon a time, or as my oldest puts it "when dinosaurs ruled the earth", there was this little thing called the "race to a gigabyte" which equaled big cash to the company that won the race. That was because data was beginning to explode and bigger is better, especially when we are talking megabytes of storage. So a company said "Hey, we can use metric instead of computer jargon and win the race!" and so they did.
If this was about fixing the metric system for computers then the ONLY thing you would see on hard drives boxes is MiB or GiB, but you don't. In fact you would be hard pressed to even find anything other than a "formatted size may be different" hidden in tiny print on the back somewhere. Folks don't like getting boned by bullshit, especially when it complicates everything and the only "good" it does is giving a marketing drone another bullet point on his hard drive PPT.
So lets just call a spade a spade, shall we? The whole screwed up Gb VS GiB was cooked up by a bunch of butt monkey marketing drones to win the size race. If they find a bullshit reason for labeling 1Tb as 5Tb and actually get away with it, how fast do you think they jump on it? The definitions of Kb, Mb, and Gb had been made in the 1960s. So don't buy the bullshit. Either demand that they go back to being honest, or demand that the ONLY thing they label is GiB and MiB. Because otherwise you are just falling for marketing speak.
Some GPL software is patent encumbered. IBM, for example, donated some of their patents for Open Source projects.
So it's patented, but probably unencumbered, then.
Hint: "encumbered" means restricted or blocked or limited. If the patent license is consistent with the FOSS license requirements (for example the GPL requires no restrictions on right to distribute modified versions, etc.), then the fact that some part of it is patented does not mean it's encumbered from the FOSS point of view.
Proprietary software is usually copyright-encumbered - your license may not allow copying it, and may not even give access to the source code. Many FOSS licenses also make restrictions - when you modify, you may not remove the names of previous contributors, for instance. Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?
You don't have to give away the source code with every copy to comply with the GPL. You have to make the source available. This could be as simple as putting up a tarball of the source code on your web site and including a note with the binary notifying users that they can download the source code from your site if they wish to do so.
GPL is certainly not the end-all be-all of openness, but we need to define our terms somewhere. When defining static terms in a non-static world, the line is always going to be arbitrary and cases that are close to that line will always highlight this fact readily. Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term. If you are going to retain patents on your software, it is not open. Period. End of story. There is no legitimate argument that can be made here, the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard. The GPL has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case.
the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard.
Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.
Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term.
nonsense, Microsoft's new definition of the term open simple refers to the inclusivity of the number of people who are affected by their licences. If the definition of openness means it is available to everyone equally, then the new definition from MS makes perfect sense.
Their software is completely open: absolutely anyone can do nothing with it.:-)
If you want the source of all derived works to be available to all, and encourage more community development, then you want GPL.
If you want the source of the original work to be available to all, but allow the option of closed source for derived works (give more options to the authors of/direct/ derivatives, allow it to fit into more business and distribution models), MIT and BSD are "more open".
So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.
No, but being patent encumbered does unless the patent holder declares the patent is free for anyone to implement under any terms they wish (ie they use the patent totally defensively and agree never to initiate any legal action against anyone over it).
Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?
- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).
- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).
- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.
From the gpl-isn't-really-open-either-ya-know dept.
What is up with that? The majority of people that go around saying this about the GPL complain that you can't include the GPL in proprietary software or other unfortunate obscure issues. The GPL is designed to keep software licensed under it Free (or open if you prefer). Sure sometimes that causes unfortunate problems with other Free Software licenses, but while there are those that would like to take away the freedom that users and developers get with the GPL, it's a cost I'm happy with.
Thank you very much for proving my case better than I would have done it myself:
The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code?
At least, a sponsored GPL reimplementation of this code would become the common good of humanity. The mere fact that it would be needed just proves that CDDL is not concerned by the end user rights.
The user becomes more free by not being able to give their friend a copy of the binary without remembering to include a written offer for the source code, even though their friend (if they actually wanted the source) could still get it from the upstream source?
Providing a friend with a binary only module is a bad gift indeed. What if he further needs to port it ? What if he changes from processor ? Should he be deprived of your gift ? Your friend in that case is the end user, and you should treat him as well as you've been treated yourself before, because he's the one the GPL intends to protect now.
[...burps...] GPLv2 [more burps] GPLv2 [even more burps] The GPLv3 [and on and on]
I'm sure you know the difference between specifications and implementations, and pointing out defects of a specific version of a products merely show bugs that are therefore corrected upon identification. It does nothing to prove the underlying scheme right or wrong.
And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.
I'm not sure what IAL means, I Am Legend maybe? Or did you mean to say that you are a lawyer, in which case I am not surprised by your skill at doublethink, just disappointed by it. Interesting that you don't specify which of the (mutually-incompatible) versions of the GPL you prefer.
Yes, I'm a lawyer. My personal choice is for the current version with provision you can relicense under any later revision (GPL v3+). Your sacarstic style (for a missing 'A', which is just a typo) just hints that you need to revert to ad hominem arguments when you clearly lack basis for your claim.
The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible
Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.
Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.
Does this have anything to do with losing the ability to get government contracts because of FOSS requirements? Remember the stink ?last year? when M$ got their proprietary document format declared a standard so they could bid on contracts that required open document standards? They must have another contract coming up for renewal.
Sometime back in the late '80s, Digital Review (or a similar industry newletter) ran an article in which Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect that Microsoft's operating system was an "open system" because you could buy a computer from a large number of vendors that it would run on. (So long as you were talking about computers based on Intel chips, I suppose he could could sort of get away with saying that, as self-serving as it was.) Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.
"Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys."
Gates claiming whatever he feels will strengh his bussiness is an old story (not that any other company owner wouldn't do the same): remember when Gates was strongly against patents? He didn't own a large patent portfolio back then.
the DEC Alpha was the absolute epitome of 64 bits processing in its times, a fabulous cpu running loops around what intel had to offer, and head and shoulders above the competition from Sun and IBM. The Alpha was emulating a top of the line Ppro faster than the ppro could run natively. And those retards at MSFT just ported a 32 bits NT to it, and moreover were unable to provide native software for it (MS Office can't run on the Alpha).
Allegedly, the bulk of the work on the 64 bit version of NT (call it 2K_64, XP_64 or whatever, it's never been released) was conducted on Alpha hardware for the lack of competent Itanium platforms at the time.
In short, MS benefited from the Alpha while doing their very best to kill the product, by not delivering the promised goods for it. They created high public expectations and their shoddy behaviours finally put DEC in a bad light.
It makes me sick to read such statements. I still run a PWS under Linux for the good old days memories, and the only comforting thoughts I have are that AMD managed to build upon DEC expertise to create the Athlon 64 after DEC had been swallowed by Compaq and their R&D disbanded.
Someone ask these idiots when you are willing to allow the usage without royalty why on this earth you want a patent on it ? Why cant we modify the law to ensure that any patented technology can be used without royalty when it becomes part of an open standard ? Infact the US patent law allows government to use any technology without paying patent fees to anyone, so why cant the same be applied to open standards which are going to be useful for a wider number of humans on this earth ?
This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.
This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.
Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)
Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.
The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.
Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.
As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.
After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.
It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license [dwheeler.com]; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one [digistan.org].
The OSI are not a recognised standard body or industry authority - they are little more than recognised banner wavers and supporters of open source but they carry essentially no weight. Their definition is all very well and good, but its not *the* definition.
OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.
I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.
Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.
I thought the same thing. Only after did I realize the word shift in the summary:
Also, Matusow didn't say they want all open standards to be able to include RAND, just that he considers some RAND standards as open to him. The article writer even seems to agree with most of his points, and then turns a 360 and brings up the OOXML to bash on them a bit. On the side of openness, I think the article writer misunderstood Matusow's main point about patents and standards, which is that if a patentable idea could be used in more then one way (his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac) that the owner should be able to grant use of the patent for a protocol standard, but should not be required to give up rights to license separately use as an aphrodisiac. Doing so might make the contributor less likely to contribute, which make sense because if that were required, the cost of the contribution might outweigh the benefit.
And even if you go for the $200 "ultimate edition", there's still a 5% chance that it won't do any good and Microsoft's advice would be "shoot yourself, reincarnate and try again".
Intentionally tying patent encumbered software into open source would be one of the worst things you could do. The patent system in the US seems exceptionally broken, and this at best would start dragging open source companies into courts to define 'reasonable' on a case by case basis. It would get rid of the 'free' part of FOSS in two ways, not just one.
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).
Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness, and the benchmark of "open" is not necessarily "compatible with the GPL".
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Patent-encumbered definitely means NOT open.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software
Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.
There could be additional encumbrances on a patent other than royalties. A common one is that each user has to obtain permission from the patent holder. Even if this permission is easy to obtain and costs nothing, that would still be encumbered from the GPL's perspective because it would impose restrictions on those who receive the software.
Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, you seem to be using a different definition of 'open standard' to the rest of the world.
I'm using the definition of the EU, half a dozen EU member states, by Bruce Perens, and even Vijay Kapoor of Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard [wikipedia.org]
You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy.
Yes, *you* can, *you* are obviously trying to, but *you* shouldn't.
Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open", and they have the might and force of some of the biggest entertainment, marketing, and consumer electronics companies behind them. We should not let them.
If MPEG is "open", then the term "open" has lost any useful meaning.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:4, Insightful)
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage
The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments
This is a very new definition. Look at the citation at the end of the article; this definition was adopted by the EU in 2004, after several decades of use of the term with other meanings. The other citations for this definition also date from 2004. From the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia entry:
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T...
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open. These organisations have been issuing open standards with this definition since 1947 and 1986, respectively.
The fact that, around 2004, a number of groups decided that they would only accept open standards that were also royalty free as being 'real' open standards does not alter the fact that the this has, historically, not been part of the definition. A large number of patented standards were published and described as open standards before 2004, and retroactively changing the definition means that these suddenly go from being open to non-open.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion. Why not call open, royalty-free, standards Free Standards or something which does not have historical meanings associated with it?
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open"
You'll note that I didn't mention the MPEG-LA as people describing MPEG as an open standard. Do the IEEE (which is, among other things, a standards body) and BBC (which has produced a patent-free video CODEC that is due to become VC-2) have a vested interest in redefining 'open'? Or are they just using the definition in the same way that it's been used for decades. MPEG-1 was described as an open standard back in 1988, 16 years before the EU decided on a definition that excludes it, and it certainly wasn't the only standard with RAND-licensed terms, just one of the most well-known.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very new definition.
Even if that were true (it is not), so what? It is the current definition, and it's the only meaningful and useful definition.
Just because we accepted slavery, lack of voting rights for women, throwing people in jail for their sexual orientation, or mixing church and state in the past doesn't mean we have to continue to do so. And it's the same with the misuse of the term "open".
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open.
Yes: old bodies dominated by big corporate interests. In the past, they have been able to get away with it. Today, we don't let them anymore.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion
Nothing surprises me. I'm just saying that enough is enough. Don't use the term "open" to describe standards that are clearly proprietary. That kind of misuse and deliberate confusion may have been fine in the 1970's, but it is unacceptable today, period.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it was NOT done so that kilo means the same everywhere. It WAS done so that HDD manufacturers could bone you by saying a drive is a Gb when it was actually 900 and something Mb.
You see children, once upon a time, or as my oldest puts it "when dinosaurs ruled the earth", there was this little thing called the "race to a gigabyte" which equaled big cash to the company that won the race. That was because data was beginning to explode and bigger is better, especially when we are talking megabytes of storage. So a company said "Hey, we can use metric instead of computer jargon and win the race!" and so they did.
If this was about fixing the metric system for computers then the ONLY thing you would see on hard drives boxes is MiB or GiB, but you don't. In fact you would be hard pressed to even find anything other than a "formatted size may be different" hidden in tiny print on the back somewhere. Folks don't like getting boned by bullshit, especially when it complicates everything and the only "good" it does is giving a marketing drone another bullet point on his hard drive PPT.
So lets just call a spade a spade, shall we? The whole screwed up Gb VS GiB was cooked up by a bunch of butt monkey marketing drones to win the size race. If they find a bullshit reason for labeling 1Tb as 5Tb and actually get away with it, how fast do you think they jump on it? The definitions of Kb, Mb, and Gb had been made in the 1960s. So don't buy the bullshit. Either demand that they go back to being honest, or demand that the ONLY thing they label is GiB and MiB. Because otherwise you are just falling for marketing speak.
Parent
FOSS-type patent license != encumbered (Score:5, Informative)
Some GPL software is patent encumbered. IBM, for example, donated some of their patents for Open Source projects.
So it's patented, but probably unencumbered, then.
Hint: "encumbered" means restricted or blocked or limited. If the patent license is consistent with the FOSS license requirements (for example the GPL requires no restrictions on right to distribute modified versions, etc.), then the fact that some part of it is patented does not mean it's encumbered from the FOSS point of view.
Proprietary software is usually copyright-encumbered - your license may not allow copying it, and may not even give access to the source code. Many FOSS licenses also make restrictions - when you modify, you may not remove the names of previous contributors, for instance. Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
That's absolutely true.
I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to give away the source code with every copy to comply with the GPL. You have to make the source available. This could be as simple as putting up a tarball of the source code on your web site and including a note with the binary notifying users that they can download the source code from your site if they wish to do so.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard.
Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term.
nonsense, Microsoft's new definition of the term open simple refers to the inclusivity of the number of people who are affected by their licences. If the definition of openness means it is available to everyone equally, then the new definition from MS makes perfect sense.
Their software is completely open: absolutely anyone can do nothing with it. :-)
Parent
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on what you want to be open.
If you want the source of all derived works to be available to all, and encourage more community development, then you want GPL.
If you want the source of the original work to be available to all, but allow the option of closed source for derived works (give more options to the authors of /direct/ derivatives, allow it to fit into more business and distribution models), MIT and BSD are "more open".
So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.
Parent
GPL is not the *only* open license (Score:3, Insightful)
And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.
Re:GPL is not the *only* open license (Score:5, Informative)
No, but being patent encumbered does unless the patent holder declares the patent is free for anyone to implement under any terms they wish (ie they use the patent totally defensively and agree never to initiate any legal action against anyone over it).
Parent
Ya gotta love Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
They'll never miss a chance to try and bend you over the dining room table.
Embrace, Extended, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?
- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).
- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).
- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.
Parent
From the... (Score:5, Informative)
From the gpl-isn't-really-open-either-ya-know dept.
What is up with that? The majority of people that go around saying this about the GPL complain that you can't include the GPL in proprietary software or other unfortunate obscure issues. The GPL is designed to keep software licensed under it Free (or open if you prefer). Sure sometimes that causes unfortunate problems with other Free Software licenses, but while there are those that would like to take away the freedom that users and developers get with the GPL, it's a cost I'm happy with.
Open is the wrong word (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL isn't "open" and never claimed to be.
Re:The freedom in GPL. (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you very much for proving my case better than I would have done it myself :
The end user becomes more free by having to pay someone to write a reimplementation of a CDDL algorithm to use with some GPL'd code?
At least, a sponsored GPL reimplementation of this code would become the common good of humanity. The mere fact that it would be needed just proves that CDDL is not concerned by the end user rights.
The user becomes more free by not being able to give their friend a copy of the binary without remembering to include a written offer for the source code, even though their friend (if they actually wanted the source) could still get it from the upstream source?
Providing a friend with a binary only module is a bad gift indeed. What if he further needs to port it ? What if he changes from processor ? Should he be deprived of your gift ? Your friend in that case is the end user, and you should treat him as well as you've been treated yourself before, because he's the one the GPL intends to protect now.
[...burps...] GPLv2 [more burps] GPLv2 [even more burps] The GPLv3 [and on and on]
I'm sure you know the difference between specifications and implementations, and pointing out defects of a specific version of a products merely show bugs that are therefore corrected upon identification. It does nothing to prove the underlying scheme right or wrong.
And, yes, IAL, and I read the GPL from top to bottom, every version of it.
I'm not sure what IAL means, I Am Legend maybe? Or did you mean to say that you are a lawyer, in which case I am not surprised by your skill at doublethink, just disappointed by it. Interesting that you don't specify which of the (mutually-incompatible) versions of the GPL you prefer.
Yes, I'm a lawyer. My personal choice is for the current version with provision you can relicense under any later revision (GPL v3+). Your sacarstic style (for a missing 'A', which is just a typo) just hints that you need to revert to ad hominem arguments when you clearly lack basis for your claim.
Parent
Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this surprising? TFA explains it best:
The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible
Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.
Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:5, Interesting)
"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
Don't be so sure: dinos didn't have corporate lawyers.
Parent
Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:4, Funny)
"But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos."
Everlasting fame and the undying love of children everywhere?
Parent
Sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.
losing contracts (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this have anything to do with losing the ability to get government contracts because of FOSS requirements? Remember the stink ?last year? when M$ got their proprietary document format declared a standard so they could bid on contracts that required open document standards? They must have another contract coming up for renewal.
They're still at this? (Score:4, Informative)
Sometime back in the late '80s, Digital Review (or a similar industry newletter) ran an article in which Bill Gates was quoted as saying something to the effect that Microsoft's operating system was an "open system" because you could buy a computer from a large number of vendors that it would run on. (So long as you were talking about computers based on Intel chips, I suppose he could could sort of get away with saying that, as self-serving as it was.) Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Claiming that whatever that Microsoft does is in any way "open" is sort of old hat with those guys."
Gates claiming whatever he feels will strengh his bussiness is an old story (not that any other company owner wouldn't do the same): remember when Gates was strongly against patents? He didn't own a large patent portfolio back then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that makes things so easy!
1 - Define 'open' as 'made by your freaking money-grabbing company'
2 - Impose your definition to everyone else
3 - Profit!!!
Win NT on Alpha... (Score:4, Interesting)
OMG, what a sad joke it was !
the DEC Alpha was the absolute epitome of 64 bits processing in its times, a fabulous cpu running loops around what intel had to offer, and head and shoulders above the competition from Sun and IBM. The Alpha was emulating a top of the line Ppro faster than the ppro could run natively. And those retards at MSFT just ported a 32 bits NT to it, and moreover were unable to provide native software for it (MS Office can't run on the Alpha).
Allegedly, the bulk of the work on the 64 bit version of NT (call it 2K_64, XP_64 or whatever, it's never been released) was conducted on Alpha hardware for the lack of competent Itanium platforms at the time.
In short, MS benefited from the Alpha while doing their very best to kill the product, by not delivering the promised goods for it. They created high public expectations and their shoddy behaviours finally put DEC in a bad light.
It makes me sick to read such statements. I still run a PWS under Linux for the good old days memories, and the only comforting thoughts I have are that AMD managed to build upon DEC expertise to create the Athlon 64 after DEC had been swallowed by Compaq and their R&D disbanded.
Parent
balanced in favour of microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:balanced in favour of microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.
No, this is the "Extend" phase. If they can get people to accept patent encumbered software as "open", then they can move into the Exterminate phase.
Parent
Is anyone suprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)
GPL is great, but not for everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.
Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.
The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.
Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.
As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.
After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.
"Standard" incompatible with "software patent" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license [dwheeler.com]; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one [digistan.org].
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:5, Informative)
Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.
Nope, OSI defines open source software as software that:
A. Free Redistribution
B. Includes Source
C. Allow Derived Works
And a lot of other stuff. See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [opensource.org] for more info.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Insightful)
OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.
I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.
Parent
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.
Parent
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, Matusow didn't say they want all open standards to be able to include RAND, just that he considers some RAND standards as open to him. The article writer even seems to agree with most of his points, and then turns a 360 and brings up the OOXML to bash on them a bit.
On the side of openness, I think the article writer misunderstood Matusow's main point about patents and standards, which is that if a patentable idea could be used in more then one way (his two examples were protocols and an aphrodisiac) that the owner should be able to grant use of the patent for a protocol standard, but should not be required to give up rights to license separately use as an aphrodisiac. Doing so might make the contributor less likely to contribute, which make sense because if that were required, the cost of the contribution might outweigh the benefit.
Parent
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. Letting Microsoft define "open" is like a bunch of sheep letting the wolf define "vegetarian".
Parent
Re:You guys would bitch if (Score:5, Funny)
You guys would bitch if MS was giving out free blowjobs.
Knowing Microsoft, the free blowjobs would come with a free dose of the clap.
Parent
Re:You guys would bitch if (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:You guys would bitch if (Score:5, Funny)
And even if you go for the $200 "ultimate edition", there's still a 5% chance that it won't do any good and Microsoft's advice would be "shoot yourself, reincarnate and try again".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You guys would bitch if (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure they'd fail at that too. In fact, it might be the first time in history that they didn't suck.
Parent
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
Parent
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).
Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?
Parent
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:5, Interesting)
No bashing is occurring.
Facts are being discussed and reason is attempting to be made. In 2006/7 Microsoft explicitly claimed that they would kill open source. Later Ballmer claimed that open source was a cancer on the software industry. Recently Microsoft stated they would kill Google like they did Netscape. These aren't attempts to compete, they attempts to use their monopoly power to kill the competition. You compete based on the merits of your product.
Clearly and unequivocally this is nothing more than "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft is using their PR arm to attempt to make this out as a makeover while it is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the efforts of Open Source so that businesses look differently at it with less willingness to use it if there is an alternative.
It is no coincidence that Ballmer and Microsoft see open source as a bigger threat today in a sliding economy. They see the inroads that open source has made. It is no coincidence that this is happening at the largest slide in their revenue/profits. They see no other competition other than Linux and the Mac (and they have the Mac in hand as they develop some pretty strong software there).
Parent