[p2p-research] FW: [NetBehaviour] When Free Software Sucks

Tue Dec 21 09:11:41 CET 2010

Sam, 

Thanks for the details.  I stopped looking deeper into Pentaho when it was
obvious at first glance that they must be abusing "Open".

I am satisfied that Macko was not talking about this problem but about the
over-reaching claim that Free software (that is, F/LOSS) can never suck
because Freedom guarantees that someone can (not will, can) fork it.  That's
not much consolation to someone not in a position to arrange that to happen.
(The same is true for non-F/LOSS open-source software of course, but
overstatement of the significance of being able to monkey with it yourself
or find support from other than the originators seems to be a unique mantra
of F/LOSS advocates.

re #1. I went back and did find an attribution requirement in the Zimbra ZPL
1.3.  It is this clause:

 "3.2 In any copy of the Software or in any Modification you create, You
must retain and reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices that are included in the Software in the same form as
they appear in the Software. This includes the preservation of attribution
notices in the form of trademarks or logos that exist within a user
interface of the Software."

This is much weaker than the requirement that Karl Fogel was quoting and
objecting to in 2007, and while it is still applicable to notice in the UI,
it is about attribution notices and that can be done in polite ways (e.g.,
as part of Help ... | About ... as is often done in commercial products that
are based on licensed components).  I can believe that 3.2, above, is still
worrisome and it definitely doesn't fit the bill for F/LOSS, but it is not a
F/LOSS license in any case.  

ZPL 1.3 might pass muster with the OSI, depending on how much room there is
for flexibility in compliance.  I would certainly word that 3.2 in a way
that is easier to comply with and that doesn't suggest in any way that a
contributor's logo is forced onto the main window or even the splash screen
of an application built with a derivative of the code.

I'm not sure about the details that John Locke's more-recent post is based
on, so I don't know how to calibrate his assessment of Zimbra.  I do think
he steps over the small matter of Free as in Freedom being tied to
reciprocity.  I think people understand as "freeware" (as in beer) something
that can be installed and used without encumbrance, whether or not source
code is available under any conditions at all, and certainly if there is no
intention to ever acquire or use the source code.  That already-built
open-source software programs might be regarded as freeware is harmless,
even if it means the ideology of open-source and especially F/LOSS
development is little appreciated in that common case.

I also think it is weird for Locke to claim that the OSI is simply providing
a relabeling of Free software that doesn't scare the commercial types.  I
have heard that before, but I don't understand the logic of it at all.  The
original contributor to the Open Source Definition was Bruce Perens, the
originator of Debian, and I am pretty certain that Bruce was undertaking
that in a principled way and not to pander to commercial interests.  Maybe
some of the OSI leaders have been more cynical, but it seems doubtful and I
can't imagine the current board thinking that is their purpose in life.

Thanks for helping in the fact checking of the abuse of "open source."

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Rose [mailto:samuel.rose at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 21:48
To: dennis.hamilton at acm.org; p2p research network
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] FW: [NetBehaviour] When Free Software Sucks

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton at acm.org> wrote:
>  1. The Zimbra ZPL 1.3 appears to satisfy the Open Source Definition and
> applies to the Zimbra product that is identified as freely downloadable
and
> open-source (though not all of the products are so available).  ZPL 1.3 is
> not reciprocal and apparently not GPL compatible (although the freedom to
> modify and have free access to the source code is provided for).
>

http://www.rants.org/2007/06/26/when-is-open-source-not-open-source/

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/open_source_almost_alway
s_free

A couple of the many arguments along the lines of what I am talking about

>  2. I've never seen an Atlassian claim that any of their products are
> open-source, so I am not sure what brings them to this list.
>

I could be wrong, thought they were doing something similar to zimbra.
perhaps not

>  3. Pentaho seems to use "Open Source" as adjectival seasoning on every
> service and product they offer.  I didn't dig deeper.
>

http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/no-open-source-decision-needed-fo
r-pentaho/
is worth reading

>  4. Not sure if Socialtext was ever open source.  They apparently had a
> Community Edition license that was not satisfactory in terms of
attribution
> requirements and I don't know if it qualified under the Open Software
> Definition otherwise.
>

https://www.socialtext.net/open/?socialtext_open they used to be, but
deprecated

>  5. OpenFire has their GPL 2.0 License in plain sight on their download
> pages so I don't know what the beef is there.  The source code seems fully
> available, though I didn't complete the download that I requested to see
> what is included in detail.  OpenFire also uses a public, open standard
> (XMPP) which is nice to see.
>

Openfire *is* F/LOSS, you are correct as far as I can see, and I am
just behind on the times on this one (which used to have a psuedo open
source license, but apparently went fully F/LOSS over a year ago. They
used to be an example of what I am talking about if I can recall
correctly)

>  - Dennis
>

-- 
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://futureforwardinstitute.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan