[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:34:21 +0100, Kevin Walsh <kevin at cursor.biz> wrote:
> I'm not sure which three letters you are talking about.  My first
> thought was "arse", but that's clearly four letters so you can't
> mean that.  "Mouth" is five letters long, so you can't mean that
> either.  Perhaps you mean "ear".  Yes, that's probably it.

:-)

> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource
> >
> There's something I didn't know.

fair enough.

> Thanks for pointing that out.
> I'll take Apple off the "just like Apple and Microsoft" list then.

It would seem Apple could improve their PR to make sure more people
know about Darwin and the fact it's open source. Also, did you know
that you can run Darwin natively on your x86 PC? I reckon this would
be an easy way to verify and ensure that the current CVS compiles out
of the box on MacOSX, but everybody I have told about this seemed
rather surprised.


> > The companies that should be singled out for bashing are those who
> > violate the license terms, like Microsoft, who are using the BSD
> > TCP/IP stack in Windoze without attribution to Berkely University; and
> > SCO, who have still been distributing their own Linux distro while at
> > the same time claiming that the GPL was null and void.
> > 
> Yes.  I thought that Apple were in the same camp, so I apologise for
> that.  The underlying points in my previous articles still stand - just
> with Apple removed from the list.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily have a problem with your views but I
think it would help a great deal if you were to articulate them in a
way that acknowledges that there are two different angles:

one is legal

the other is ethical

>From what I gather reading the thread, a lot of the "heat" in the
discussion would seem to stem from the boundaries between the legal
and the ethical angle being somewhat unclear, if not mixed up.

For example, let's assume for argument's sake that Apple had indeed
taken the BSD code from open source to closed source.

>From a legal angle, this would be OK as long as they also made the
required attribution to Berkely University. One could not say that
they had stolen the code.

>From an ethical angle though the situation is much different. Ten
years ago, it might have been ethically perfectly acceptable for any
company to take the entire BSD code as a base for their own
proprietary and closed source operating system as long as they abided
by the BSD license, but in this day and age, our ethical standards
have changed and any company using the BSD code would be expected to
not only abide by the license, but also contribute something back.

In this respect, Apple did the right thing, not only legally, but also
ethically.

Other companies, who have used the BSD code for their proprietary
systems at a time when ethical standards were different, probably have
done what was legally and ethically right at the time, but it might
not feel right today.

Fortunately, most of those companies have given back to community in
other forms. For example, IBM have contributed a lot of code to Linux.
Thus, in most cases there will still be a balance between how much a
company has received and how much they have given back, thus they are
still working within the boundaries of ethical standards even as those
ethical standards are changing.


So when you say that somebody is "stealing the code" in relation to
the BSD license, I believe what you really mean to say is that they
are unethically taking advantage of a gift without giving enough back
in return.

Not everybody will be able to read between the lines though and if you
say "stealing" then it will not only lead to confusion but it can also
be offending. Thus, my advice would be to make a clear disctinction
between what is the right thing to do legally and what is the right
thing to do ethically.

I think if you do that, then you will find that most people will agree
with you on what the right thing to do ethically is and should be.


As far as the BSD license is concerned, I don't think that it is any
more inviting to anybody to take advantage and do the unethical thing
as is the GPL. The evidence would seem to suggest something different.

Companies who have used BSD code for proprietary systems have mostly
done so at a time when the ethical standards were different and as
those standards changed, they have contributed back in other ways.

Companies like Apple who have come to the BSD party much later, have
done the ethically right thing and open sourced their improvements
even though the license didn't mandate that.

On the other hand, companies like Microsoft have no respect of the law
nor ethics regardless what the license says. We only know that they
are using BSD's TCP/IP stack from behavioural analysis. They didn't
make the required attribution to Berkely University and never admitted
that they are actually using the BSD code, so we have no way to tell
other than through behavioural analysis.

So if they have stolen the BSD code where it would have been so simple
to make an attribution to Berkely University, who is to say that they
haven't stolen GPL code as well? If they did care about what the
license says, then they would have made the attribution, but they
didn't. So, we can conclude that they don't care about what the
license says. If they don't care what the BSD license says, then how
can you say that they would care about what the GPL license says?

All I can see is that they don't care either way and I wouldn't be
surprised if they have "borrowed" GPLed code somewhere in their
proprietary software.

Companies who think they can get away with theft will think they get
away no matter what the license is, BSD, GPL or any other license.
Before this background, I have to say that I tend to disagree with the
view that BSD invites misappropriating code anymore than any other
license. I don't think it does, and it would take hard evidence to
proof otherwise.


As to which license is ethically more appropriate, well, that is
clearly a matter of opinion and I would say it also depends on the
circumstances. But what matters most in this respect is what the
author of the software thinks is the right license. If they feel the
BSD license is their best choice, then so be it and their choice
should be respected. Likewise, if they feel the GPL is their best
choice, then so be it and their choice should be respected.


Finally, in respect of whether or not there is a place for closed
source, that is a matter for the market to decide. The current trend
is quite obviously in favour of open source software and I believe
this trend will continue. However, nobody can tell for sure what the
distant future will bring. It could well be a matter of a swinging
pendulum, where the ratio of open source and closed source software is
changing perpetually. Or it could be that closed source will only play
a niche role at some point in the future and the situation will then
more or less stay that way.

I personally think that closed source will remain to have a role but
not in the way this discussion has suggested it would. The challenges
described regarding security and safety can probably be solved even
with open source software, so I don't think that this is what defines
the raison d'etre of closed source, if there is such a thing,

To understand why closed source probably has its place even in a world
dominated by open source, one has to look at what's called product
lifecycles. Every product has its lifecycle, at the start of which it
is innovative and at the end of which it is a commodity. The more a
particular software becomes a commodity, the more the open source
model will apply because standardisation and mass production
efficiency will become dominant factors.

Take operating systems as an example. After half a century of research
and development, operating systems have become commodities in the
sense that they are far less a means to distinguish one product from
another than it was 10 or 20 years ago. As a consequence, companies
move to other areas to distinguish their products from others. Apple's
move to an open source operating system with a proprietary GUI
reflects their acceptance of operating systems as a commodity and
their vision of the GUI as one of their main competitive advantages.

At some point in the future, GUIs may have reached a similar stage in
their product lifecycle and there may then not be much room left for
any company to distinguish their product from others through a GUI. At
that point, Apple would have to find a new area in which to seek their
competitive advantage.

>From an economist viewpoint the advent of open source is a sign that
the software industry is becoming mature because it reflects
commoditisation. It can be seen as the equivalent of using
standardised off the shelf components in manufacturing,

Of course this is not to say that there can be no innovation that
starts right away with open source. There are clearly examples of that
happening. However, it is still early and only time will tell whether
this will become the norm.

In my opinion, economic activity should always be as diverse as
possible. Diversity means progress will be ensured and disadvantages
of any particular model will be balanced out by alternative models.
Any discussion that weighs one particular model against another should
always be aware of how important diversity is.

I'd therefore lilke to ask all license warriors for tolerance and
respect of other opinions.

rgds
benjk

-- 
Sunrise Telephone Systems, 9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya,
Tokyo, Japan.

NB: Spam filters in place. Messages unrelated to the * mailing lists
may get trashed.