What is Digg?25 Comments
- wildfire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10They're too busy eating open source donuts.
- bieber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9So, I know the GPL is copyright the FSF, and the MPL is probably copyright by Mozilla Corp. I know that the FSF, at least, forbids modifications of the GPL without permission (for obvious reasons), so it looks like Motorola has managed to infringe copyrights just trying to put together a damn license. Wonder how long it will take the FSF to make them either go GPL or get rid of the GPL-excerpted portions...
- veza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What is this "OpenSAF" ?
- RevEng, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Ironic then how you just claimed your own definition of open source.
- schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Is the OSI police on this case yet?
- autoatsakiklis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Their mobile kernel also uses proprietary modules. Hopefully some people are making open source kernel and later will make open source ui (check openezx project)
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I blocked your ass. Why the ***** do I still see your comment on stories? Trolls like you and flag564 does nothing other than clog up the comment system.
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3But you are under obligation to learn the difference between "there," "their," and "they're."
- Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Open Source currently has a well defined meaning in the software field. That meaning is spelled out in great detail by the OSI's Open Source Definition. Using the term to mean something else - especially for a player like Motorola who can be expected to know what they're talking about - is deliberately dishonest.
- fryguy1013, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't have posted if the article headline was "Motorola's open source Service Availability Framework breaks GPL licensing" or something similar. I'm saying the zealots are claiming their own strict definition of open source, which excludes things which have open source. I'm saying that their redefinition is overly strict. To them, anything that's not FLOSS isn't open source. FLOSS is definitely open source, however things which aren't FLOSS are open source as well. It would be like saying that Shasta Cola is a great cola.. then a cola zealot comes and says "No, that's not a cola. Only Coke is a cola."
I'll quote something from GNU (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html):
"However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating."
I did read the article and do understand the point of it, even though it doesn't completely support what I'm saying. I am just angry about how open source zealots have bastardized this word and say that anything that they believe isn't "good enough" to be what they believe is open source.
It's equal to my angriness over how GPL zealots believe that GPL is more free than other licenses, even though it is more restrictive. I'm not saying that it is worse per se, just that more restrictive is not the same as having more freedoms. Specifically, how GPLv2 allows consumers of free software to reuse it, but intermix code that has patents, yet GPLv3 does not allow consumers to do this. I got dugg down a lot for that comment as well. I understand that the idea is that the producers of the original code have more freedom to reuse consumed code, but really that isn't a freedom. I could have a different license that said consumers cannot redistribute code, and any modifications require sending the changes to the original developer. That would have a lot of freedom for the original developer, but not a lot for the consumer, and definitely would be less "free," don't you think? - daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And we can bitch if we want. It isn't your prerogative to go around cleaning up their image for them unless you are paid to do so.
- Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Site is down for the count. Duggmirror caught it though!
http://duggmirror.com/linux_unix/Motorola_s_open_source_Service_Availability_Framework_is_not_open_source/ - schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2That's pretty funny!
- Chandon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Open Source is a term that was coined (and trademarked) by a specific group of people, who went on to form the OSI. Their definition of the term is widely accepted in the software field. Words have meanings, and in this case warping that meaning is either fraud or trademark infringement - depending on who complains about it.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Oh god, karma at its best.
- Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0It is open source, it just doesnt fit the authors narrow view of what open source should be,
The source, is open. - fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4At first I thought that was a funny joke, then I realised it's you Schestowitz, and you're probably serious.
That made it even funnier. - fryguy1013, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Subject should be "Motorola's open source Service Availability Framework is not 'open source'"
I hate how zealots can claim their own definition of open source.. it's sickening. If they're giving me the source, the source is open. - Heavy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4As i'm under no obligation to buy there crap.
- SlantyEyes, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Who cares. But that snorg tees girl is so hot.
- Arrakistor, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Motorola can release whatever they want under any license they want. It isn't anyone's prerogative to criticize them, they could keep it fully closed it they so desired; and who cares if it isn't FOSS? Is FOSS planting all these stupid license stories? Because articles like this make the writers come off as sounding like a adolescent socialist regime demanding that the evil software developers surrender their intellectual property rights for wealth redistribution. Motorola could distribute their warez under the NAMBLA Loves Unicorns and Gay Elves license and it still wouldn't matter.
- ickyfreak, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0doesnt it make this not "free source" but is open source (as in its open to see the source)
- OhFrak, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2No one gives a ***** what the OSI has to say.
- Heavy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2As i'm under no obligation to buy there crap.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3If you don't like it, don't use it. Motorola's providing you with certain freedoms, they're not under any obligation to give you complete freedom. They're actually under no obligation to give anyone anything.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is