This is a bit of a departure from my usual rants against MS Office and extolling the virtues of OpenOffice.org and other open source programs. However, I gotta call stupid acts stupid when and where I see them regardless of who is making them. So we come to the politics of licenses, specifically in open source licenses.
There are already an abundance of open source licenses ("license proliferation") available, that are mostly incompatible with one another and the code sharing they supposedly promote. The FSF (Free Software Foundation) has been busy revamping the GPL into GPLv3 amid much heated discussion between supporters and detractors, that has its own politics and evangelism attached to it. So along come two stories via NewsForge about modified GPLv2 licenses.
The first "Extending the GPL for application service providers" is an attempt to make everyone distribute their modified GPL code, even though the compiled binaries are not being released to the public. This is so total asinine I'm not even sure where to begin to comment on it.
The second story "Open source project adds "no military use" clause to the GPL" is almost worse in its stupidity...No, it is vastly worse. Basically, the program is made available to use for only those that are willing to "fight" for pacifism. No conflict my ass.
to be continued...
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The real issues behind MS Office and OpenOffice
Microsoft's Alan Yates would like you to believe that you need the latest MS Office because OpenOffice is (to paraphrase) "where MS Office was 10 years ago". Read his comments here for the full story from IT Wire.
A rebuttal article from OpenOffice user Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, has a headline that says "OpenOffice is ten years behind MS Office? That's just fine!" So is it?
After reading both articles, I really have to agree with Steven. There is nothing new in MS Office that hasn't already been done by any of the competitors, including OpenOffice. Nothing new has been added to the basic word processor in 10 years for a simple reason, there was nothing to add. MS would have you believe that a "new and improved" user interface (UI) is worth spending a few hundred bucks for. My quick looks at the new UI in MS Office 12 (or whatever they want to call it) is nothing more than eye candy that gets in the way of doing what you open Word for in the first place, to write! Imagine that, being able to get to the functions and tools that you need to write whatever document it is you need to write. OpenOffice has that functionality. It is simple and just plain works. MS Office 12 might have that functionality, but why should I spend any extra time to learn a new UI just to do what I could already do in previous versions of MS Office? 'Cause I can look cool doing it? I don't think so.
Are there any compelling reasons for me to pay to upgrade my MS Office XP/2003 installations? So far, the answer is no. I can make Portable Document Format (PDF) files with Acrobat or OpenOffice, or any number of other tools designed to do just that. I can do mail merge, labels, charts, graphs, drawings, newsletters, technical reports, research papers, letters, notes, etc., with OpenOffice and not have to worry about being able to open them again 10 years from now or have my intellectual property (things I have created) come into doubt because of using a proprietary file format. I can even convert my old MS Office files into Open Document Format (ODF) files, although imperfectly at times, shedding another layer of MS dependency and making those same files more accessible in the process. But with OpenOffice, not anything new from MS Office. Hmm...I didn't have to pay anything extra for this either...
Mr. Yates would have you believe that the integration of MS Office with Outlook, Internet Explorer, Exchange, and Windows server is a good thing as well. Why hell, I have OpenOffice, Pegasus (or Thunderbird), Firefox (or Opera), and at least one FreeBSD server somewhere where I can host and exchange my OpenOffice files with my writing/business partners and not have to worry about some new worm or macro virus trashing it all up. Oh yeah, and it doesn't cost me anything for all of that software.
Of course the choice is your's, but it seems pretty clear to me - pay now and pay more later via MS Office upgrade lock hell, or don't pay now and still not be paying later for OpenOffice and other FOSS. My wallet thanks me.
J*
A rebuttal article from OpenOffice user Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, has a headline that says "OpenOffice is ten years behind MS Office? That's just fine!" So is it?
After reading both articles, I really have to agree with Steven. There is nothing new in MS Office that hasn't already been done by any of the competitors, including OpenOffice. Nothing new has been added to the basic word processor in 10 years for a simple reason, there was nothing to add. MS would have you believe that a "new and improved" user interface (UI) is worth spending a few hundred bucks for. My quick looks at the new UI in MS Office 12 (or whatever they want to call it) is nothing more than eye candy that gets in the way of doing what you open Word for in the first place, to write! Imagine that, being able to get to the functions and tools that you need to write whatever document it is you need to write. OpenOffice has that functionality. It is simple and just plain works. MS Office 12 might have that functionality, but why should I spend any extra time to learn a new UI just to do what I could already do in previous versions of MS Office? 'Cause I can look cool doing it? I don't think so.
Are there any compelling reasons for me to pay to upgrade my MS Office XP/2003 installations? So far, the answer is no. I can make Portable Document Format (PDF) files with Acrobat or OpenOffice, or any number of other tools designed to do just that. I can do mail merge, labels, charts, graphs, drawings, newsletters, technical reports, research papers, letters, notes, etc., with OpenOffice and not have to worry about being able to open them again 10 years from now or have my intellectual property (things I have created) come into doubt because of using a proprietary file format. I can even convert my old MS Office files into Open Document Format (ODF) files, although imperfectly at times, shedding another layer of MS dependency and making those same files more accessible in the process. But with OpenOffice, not anything new from MS Office. Hmm...I didn't have to pay anything extra for this either...
Mr. Yates would have you believe that the integration of MS Office with Outlook, Internet Explorer, Exchange, and Windows server is a good thing as well. Why hell, I have OpenOffice, Pegasus (or Thunderbird), Firefox (or Opera), and at least one FreeBSD server somewhere where I can host and exchange my OpenOffice files with my writing/business partners and not have to worry about some new worm or macro virus trashing it all up. Oh yeah, and it doesn't cost me anything for all of that software.
Of course the choice is your's, but it seems pretty clear to me - pay now and pay more later via MS Office upgrade lock hell, or don't pay now and still not be paying later for OpenOffice and other FOSS. My wallet thanks me.
J*
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
What is IP?
The number of recent Slashdot articles (sorry, no links here, just read /. on a regular basis) on copyright, IP (intellectual property), and open standards got me thinking about what IP really is and how it is being "protected" via the US Patent Office. This just may be a long article, so please bear with me. First off, IANAL (I am not a lawyer)! However, I have enough English smarts to figure out what words mean. I can also look them up in the dictionary if I still need more clarification. So, a couple of definitions via dictionary.com:
intellectual - basically having to do with intellect and intelligence, of the mind, a thought or idea.
property - something owned; a possession
they add:
in·tel·lec·tu·al property
/"in-t&-'lek-ch&-w&l-/
: property that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; specifically : an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program,
data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or application, right, or registration relating thereto
Okay, that is all great. So here is the problem. File formats. Specifically, how a program stores the user's data onto some storage medium. Think about what each part of the process is; first is the user's data, second is the process of encoding that data into the file format, third is the process of storing that file to the storage medium, and fourth is the process of retrieving that file from the storage medium. I've simplified it somewhat to keep the discussion on file formats and intellectual property, though we could add in the process (program) used to create the data (what you write into, draw into, etc.). I'll add this into the encoding, storage, and retrieval processes. So let's look at what intellectual property we have going for us.
* the user's data - belongs to the user, is what the user writes, draws, composes, etc.
* the encoding process - belongs to the person, group, company that creates the format for the file and the process of encoding the user's data into that format.
* the storage process - belongs to the person, group, company that created the process of taking a file and storing it to the storage medium.
* the retrieval process - belongs to the person, group, company that created the process of taking a file from the storage medium and providing it to the requesting process.
In really simple terms, the first process is the user, the second process is the program the user is working with, while the third and fourth processes are a part of the operating system. Let's look at this using an example: I am writing a letter or note using a simple text editor and I am going to store it on a floppy disk.
In a perfect world (which is actually almost common now), the process is going to involve a number of open standards: the text encoding (getting the keystrokes into code that the computer can understand) is taken care of by ASCII (or Unicode, etc.), the text editor will store that in a file format that encodes only the keystrokes into a text file, with the storage and retrieval processes using standardized write and read methods built into the operating system. Even though I working with at least four different pieces of intellectual property, the actual data still belongs to me because the intellectual properties I am using are based on open standards. As long as I am using a text editor (any will do) that understand how to read and write basic ASCII text, I can always view and edit my words. Likewise, anyone else that I give the letter or note to can read and edit what I have written as long as they use any text editor that follows the open standards I used to create the file. Cool, right? Except that this isn't a perfect world and here's why in two words, intellectual property.
Intellectual property affects not only what you write, draw, or create, but how you do it. In the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) world, the means of creation of your work is not subjected to another's intellectual property rights. What you create will still belong to you - the means of creation are usually open standards. In proprietary software, the intellectual property rights exerted on your creation might mean that you give your creation IP rights to the maker of the proprietary software you use to create your work. How dumb is that? Typically, you are at the mercy of the proprietary software maker to continue to support file formats, design tools, etc. for you to be able to retrieve your original work. Worse, in order for others to be able to view your work, they must subject themselves to the will (whims) of the propriety software maker you used to create your work and either purchase the same software, or find some sort of viewer program that can handle the proprietary file format.
Intellectual property laws were created just recently (really, they started to be developed in the 1970s) in the grand scheme of things legal. Supposedly, they were to keep others from taking your idea and moving it to market before you were able to, thus getting the lions share of the money to be made from your idea. This well-meaning legal situation was quickly perverted into something that stifles innovation and rewards the holder of the intellectual property rights (typically, not the person who came up with the idea). In the music and motion picture industries, the artists receive only a few pennies per purchase of their work, while the corporate entity that holds the artist's IP gets the most money per sale. This is being justified by saying the distribution and marketing of the artist's work, as well as for the protection of the artist's IP. Of course, the corporation can pick and choose which artists they want to promote and protect - the bottom line being what the corporate entity thinks is going to make them the most money. Once the artist is "in", that artist has been locked into to a proprietary format that takes more money and lawyers to ever be able to get them out, let alone to be able to get back the rights to their own IP. We are seeing the same thing happening in the software industry - it's called vendor lock in.
intellectual - basically having to do with intellect and intelligence, of the mind, a thought or idea.
property - something owned; a possession
they add:
in·tel·lec·tu·al property
/"in-t&-'lek-ch&-w&l-/
: property that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; specifically : an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program,
data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or application, right, or registration relating thereto
Okay, that is all great. So here is the problem. File formats. Specifically, how a program stores the user's data onto some storage medium. Think about what each part of the process is; first is the user's data, second is the process of encoding that data into the file format, third is the process of storing that file to the storage medium, and fourth is the process of retrieving that file from the storage medium. I've simplified it somewhat to keep the discussion on file formats and intellectual property, though we could add in the process (program) used to create the data (what you write into, draw into, etc.). I'll add this into the encoding, storage, and retrieval processes. So let's look at what intellectual property we have going for us.
* the user's data - belongs to the user, is what the user writes, draws, composes, etc.
* the encoding process - belongs to the person, group, company that creates the format for the file and the process of encoding the user's data into that format.
* the storage process - belongs to the person, group, company that created the process of taking a file and storing it to the storage medium.
* the retrieval process - belongs to the person, group, company that created the process of taking a file from the storage medium and providing it to the requesting process.
In really simple terms, the first process is the user, the second process is the program the user is working with, while the third and fourth processes are a part of the operating system. Let's look at this using an example: I am writing a letter or note using a simple text editor and I am going to store it on a floppy disk.
In a perfect world (which is actually almost common now), the process is going to involve a number of open standards: the text encoding (getting the keystrokes into code that the computer can understand) is taken care of by ASCII (or Unicode, etc.), the text editor will store that in a file format that encodes only the keystrokes into a text file, with the storage and retrieval processes using standardized write and read methods built into the operating system. Even though I working with at least four different pieces of intellectual property, the actual data still belongs to me because the intellectual properties I am using are based on open standards. As long as I am using a text editor (any will do) that understand how to read and write basic ASCII text, I can always view and edit my words. Likewise, anyone else that I give the letter or note to can read and edit what I have written as long as they use any text editor that follows the open standards I used to create the file. Cool, right? Except that this isn't a perfect world and here's why in two words, intellectual property.
Intellectual property affects not only what you write, draw, or create, but how you do it. In the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) world, the means of creation of your work is not subjected to another's intellectual property rights. What you create will still belong to you - the means of creation are usually open standards. In proprietary software, the intellectual property rights exerted on your creation might mean that you give your creation IP rights to the maker of the proprietary software you use to create your work. How dumb is that? Typically, you are at the mercy of the proprietary software maker to continue to support file formats, design tools, etc. for you to be able to retrieve your original work. Worse, in order for others to be able to view your work, they must subject themselves to the will (whims) of the propriety software maker you used to create your work and either purchase the same software, or find some sort of viewer program that can handle the proprietary file format.
Intellectual property laws were created just recently (really, they started to be developed in the 1970s) in the grand scheme of things legal. Supposedly, they were to keep others from taking your idea and moving it to market before you were able to, thus getting the lions share of the money to be made from your idea. This well-meaning legal situation was quickly perverted into something that stifles innovation and rewards the holder of the intellectual property rights (typically, not the person who came up with the idea). In the music and motion picture industries, the artists receive only a few pennies per purchase of their work, while the corporate entity that holds the artist's IP gets the most money per sale. This is being justified by saying the distribution and marketing of the artist's work, as well as for the protection of the artist's IP. Of course, the corporation can pick and choose which artists they want to promote and protect - the bottom line being what the corporate entity thinks is going to make them the most money. Once the artist is "in", that artist has been locked into to a proprietary format that takes more money and lawyers to ever be able to get them out, let alone to be able to get back the rights to their own IP. We are seeing the same thing happening in the software industry - it's called vendor lock in.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Google Values
Since Google has decided to do business in China and follow the Chinese government's rules - namely that certain content searches will be blocked - there seems to be an outcry that "Google has sold out" or "sold their soul". Couple of links to show you the arguments:
Slashdot
The original article from Yahoo's Net Stocks
While this moral high ground is certainly great fodder for picking over, including the idea that Google may not be "doing no evil" by doing business in China under the PRC rules, there is the simple fact that China is allowing Internet access to the world. Yes, it has been filtered to the PRC's standards, but there is still access. If Google and other companies followed the extreme belief that they shouldn't do business in China if they can't do it their own way (no PRC restrictions on content), you have the same results as just taking away all access to the world from China. Imagine that, no Internet outside what is available within the borders of China. Censorship at its best. Instead, Google managed to get some content allowed through to the Chinese people. When you are trying to break down the walls of a repressive government, small steps and little leaks do far more than building another wall beside their's and exclaiming "we will remove our wall when you remove your's". Doesn't that make sense to anyone but me?
J*
Slashdot
The original article from Yahoo's Net Stocks
While this moral high ground is certainly great fodder for picking over, including the idea that Google may not be "doing no evil" by doing business in China under the PRC rules, there is the simple fact that China is allowing Internet access to the world. Yes, it has been filtered to the PRC's standards, but there is still access. If Google and other companies followed the extreme belief that they shouldn't do business in China if they can't do it their own way (no PRC restrictions on content), you have the same results as just taking away all access to the world from China. Imagine that, no Internet outside what is available within the borders of China. Censorship at its best. Instead, Google managed to get some content allowed through to the Chinese people. When you are trying to break down the walls of a repressive government, small steps and little leaks do far more than building another wall beside their's and exclaiming "we will remove our wall when you remove your's". Doesn't that make sense to anyone but me?
J*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)