Peter, Thanks for your corrections, you're absolutely right. I went back to "Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" to try and figure out how I had gotten this part so backwards and rediscovered a few interesting things. It's strange how things get twisted in you head over time, has anyone ever seen that Kids In The Hall sketch "Don't Put Salt In Your Eye", its completely related to that phenomena. Anyway, here are the sources of my bogus "facts" about licenses. There is a fair amount of irony in my mistakes which I think is interesting enough to share. Bogus fact 1: GPL is not Open Source: My confusion comes from reading Bruce Perens' annotated analysis of the Open Source Definition in his chapter in "Open Sources". His annotation is of course mixed in with the actual definition, his comments are in italics, the definition itself is in regular face. In his annotations and the license analysis sections afterward cleary show his preference for BSD style licenses. Any mention of GPL terms comes with his explanation of why it is a disadvantage. As he and Eric created the Open Source Definition because they didn't agree with a few specific aspects of the GPL, it's understandable why his chapter reads more persuasively than purely informational. The Ironic part: Right there in section 10 of the Open Source Definition, it lists GNU GPL as the very first example license. Further more, if you read the Open Source Definition without Bruce's own commentary, it has a completely different tone. Bogus fact 2: Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond don't get along. This turned out to be a very interesting part of open source folklore, but one that isn't entirely without grounds. In Richard's chapter in "Open Sources", he of course promotes the free software ideal and license. Any time he refers to Open Source, he puts it in quotes as if to say so-called, or not-quite, or blatantly question it's legitimacy. He even has this to say about "Open Source", Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when part of the community decided to stop using the term free software and say "open-source software" instead. Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of "free" with "gratis"--a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many of whom hold and ideology that places profit above freedom, above community, above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of "Open Source" focuses on the potential to make high quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle. --Richard Stallman, Open Sources, O'Reilly 1999, p. 69 Come on Richard, tell us what you really feel ;) I'm quite sure he and Eric could get together for lunch and have a good time, but it's quite obvious how Richard feels about the path his former free software disciple has chosen. Eric doesn't really give his side of the story in so many words, but Bruce (Open Source co-founder) addresses the issue directly. When Bruce describes how the Open Source Initiative, Definition, and the Open Source service mark was born, he does so in a much different tone than Richard. Richard Stallman later took exception to the campaign's lack of an emphasis in freedom, and the fact that as Open Source became more popular, his role in the genesis of free software, and that of his Free Software Foundation, were being ignored--he complained of being "written out of history." This situation was made worse by a tendency for people in the industry to compare Raymond and Stallman as if they were components of competing philosophies rather than people who were using different methods to market the same concept. I probably exacerbated the situation by pitting Stallman and Raymond against each other in debates at Linux Expo and Open Source Expo. It became so popular to type-cast the two as adversaries that an email debate, never intended for publication, appeared [in] the online journal Salon. At that point, I asked Raymond to tone down a dialog that it had never been his intent to enter. --Bruce Perens, Open Sources, O'Reilly 1999, p. 174 The most interesting part of Bruce's statement is that he explains part of the reason for the Stallman vs Raymond mindset, is due to "people in the industry" viewing them both as competing philosophies. This is quite ironic as Richard Stallman's own words, in the very same book, promote that exact idea. I do not think that Eric or Bruce would describe the Open Source Initiative as a group that "shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle." I just can't help but imagine their relationship as anything more than a mutual toleration. Perhaps one side is more willing to burry the hatchet than the other. -David > -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Peter Clark > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 3:46 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Getting started with an open source project > > > On Friday 21 December 2001 17:06, you wrote: > > A final thing to consider is license. To be clear, GPL is _NOT_ Open > > Source(sm). The Open Source Initiative (Eric Raymond) and the Free > > Software Foundation (Richard Stallman) are two opposed groups, > they don't > > get along too well. > > > > Apache, FreeBSD, and Mozilla have true Open Source(sm) licenses. > > Anything GNU is GPL free software, though the source is open, > it's not an > > Open Source(sm) approved license -- nor will it ever be as long > as Richard > > is alive. > > One glitch to an otherwise excellent post: the GPL *IS* an > Open Source(tm) > approved license. In fact, if you go to the "approved licenses page" at > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/, you'll see that it is the very FIRST > license listed. > And there's not that much hostility between the FSF and OSI--just > philosophical disagreements. > And AFAIK, RMS is still alive and kicking--although maybe > not kicking as > hard as he was before, ever since he got a lot of flack over his > comments on > the Skylarov case... > Hmm--is there any page that succinctly describes the > differences between the > licences? I'm quite familiar with the GPL, LGPL, BSD, and QPL, but not so > well with the others. The legalese tends to make my eyes cross > and my vision > blur... > :Peter > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. > Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list