From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 1158e3,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gid1158e3,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 18:08:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: ewill@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,ccomp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software References: <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g840k$qjt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <40gfitgrvd8cgu27r3vfib6eptmapb3pfl@4ax.com> <9g8lrk$37c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9ganmu$pj5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:08:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.180.70.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sea-read.news.verio.net 997146506 63.180.70.154 (Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:08:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:08:26 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11432 comp.lang.java.programmer:87806 comp.lang.pl1:1279 comp.lang.vrml:4213 comp.lang.java.advocacy:25833 Date: 2001-08-07T01:08:26+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Roedy Green wrote on Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:09:41 GMT : >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:32:21 GMT, Ted Dennison >wrote or quoted : > >>"Open" doesn't quite reach it, because there's no implication that >>the right to redistribute is present, only the right to inspect. > >Let's see what we can come up with for a less ambiguous term for "free >software". The FSF license is inherently viral. While allowing for a number of operations on the source code, the following requirements must be met: [1] The authors of previous modifications must be preserved. You can of course put your name in there for your bug fixes -- in fact, you have to. [2] The source code of the GPL portion must be available on a machine-readable medium to anyone who is sold the derived work. For example, if one uses the GNU-licensed readln library, one must make it available to anyone who uses your product. (This in itself isn't too onerous, but...) [3] If your work can be shown to be a derived work of the GPLed software, then the entire work must be published under the GPL. (Hence the term "viral".) There might be some issues here, of course -- is a proprietary, sophisticated CAD program which happens to depend on the GNU readline library a "derived work"? Or merely a user of the readline library's functionality, which happens to solve a particular subproblem? Of course, if one takes, say, geda (which is a GNU-licensed CAD program), and modifies it by adding a sophisticated but minor input method (assuming it hasn't done such already), and releases it, then that is most definitely a derived work. At least, I for one would think so... Of course, this may be a feature; one nice thing about GNU-licensed stuff is that one does have the opportunity to inspect and if necessary modify it, and then release the modifications back to the pool. With so many eyes, bugs can't hide too well, but there is the issue that, if interest wanes, the software will have problems. One might call it software evolution in action.... > >Basically the only right you have is to inspect the software. You may >still be restricted from selling it or modifying it. You may still >have to pay to look. I'm not sure how, unless you're talking about a different license (e.g., the Sun Community-type deal). Mozilla's license is also slightly strange -- part of that might simply be the fact that Netscape was originally proprietary. > >"white box" software as opposed to "black box" software is my top >choice. > >The term has some unwanted NeXT connotations. It also might me >confused to mean generic cheap packaging. It's also confusable with a specific testing method, although I'm not sure if the term is precisely enough defined or not; "black box" testing can only use public interfaces, but "white box" can use anything and everything it can lay its hands on. A rough analogy would be testing a (populated?) PC board by only electrically probing the fingers which plug into the motherboard, versus probing anywhere it makes sense to on the board itself. I can't say anything about NeXT, although I've been exposed to it; it looked neat at the time, :-) although quite underpowered by today's standards. (Then again, that's a hardware issue; NeXT could probably run on today's computers without problem, especially since there is (was?) an x86 version floating around.) > >some other possibilities: > [rest snipped] If one wants to be ultra-pedantic about it, how about "[license-name]-licensed software"? E.g., readline is GPL-licensed software. It's not free, although it's designed to be very easy to work with. (A lot more so than, say, Microsoft Word's EULA. It's not even legal to disassemble the darned thing, and one wonders whether one can even disassemble its output -- a Word-formatted file.) -- ewill@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 25d:20h:07m actually running Linux. Most likely, no neutrinos were found during this message.