Related link: http://www.macromedia.com/v1/handlers/index.cfm?ID=23075

Macromedia, makers of such beloved programs as Flash, Shockwave, and Dreamweaver have applied to the Open Source Initiative to have their proposed open source license approved as conforming to the Open Source Definition.

Though it’s a vanity license, the draft license is here.

I’m not entirely sure it will meet with approval with a stipulation of “if Macromedia includes its own open source in its products, Macromedia does not have to state in its documentation where the source code version of the open source material is made available”, but it looks like a solid first attempt at a license.

Perhaps we should all write to Macromedia to show our support of their first step in attempting to adopt open source methodology. email Macromedia’s PR dept.

I’ve just recently discovered something that blows my mind: many people (who should) don’t know what open source really means. I am truly surprised. The way everyone talks about it, writes about it, argue over it, flame each other about it, it just doesn’t seem possible.

When I write ‘people’ I mean programmers, sys admins, users, and others who I specifically thought would know what open source means. Many don’t. It is as though some are making up their own definition.

Like when you read a book & read a word that you don’t know the meaning of. You skip over it anyway figuring that the context of the rest of the sentence will give you the general idea. You think you understand the general idea, but unless you go look it up, no dice.

Look it up now. Bruce Perens wrote it & it’s right here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html

The most common errors people make when thinking about open source are: that if you distribute the source code the program is open source, and that you can somehow restrict to whom the code is open source.

Firstly people think: “So if I give away the source code the program is open source, right?” No. While that is the most important characteristic of open source, that isn’t the whole thing. What you can and cannot do with that code is every bit as important as having access to it. If people can download the new Mozilla source code, but not change it, play with it and experiment with it as they like the code will not evolve.

The second misconception is that you can somehow restrict to whom your code is open source. You cannot redistribute the code without giving access to everyone and call it open source. That is to say you, “must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.” While distributing the software, you must include the source code, and you must not restrict to whom you grant rights.

In this vein, people ask: So, can I distribute my code as open source, but restrict commercial use of it? Again, no. I see this one a lot. I think this spawns from people’s mistrust of certain software companies. I understand their mistrust, but it’s just not open source or free software with this kind of restriction.

“..the definition is there to make receiving, using, and developing a program as hassle free as possible to the benefit of having better software”

Think about this way for a minute. Let’s assume that everyone’s favorite software company to dislike didn’t exist. Would restricting the use for commercial entities still make sense to you? Not when you really thing about it.

I would like, nay pray, that my ISP would use Linux or a *BSD. Wouldn’t you? It doesn’t make sense that if you want the best code possible that you should shutout or inhibit someone who could potentially help. When most people want to restrict commercial entities they simply say the program will cost you for use if you are using it commercially. Perhaps you’re still allowing them use, but you are restricting their use more than others. Some don’t want commercial entities to use it at all. This is not open source.

One thing to keep in mind is that the definition is there to make receiving, using, and developing a program as hassle free as possible to the benefit of having better software. It is not there to pick a fight ‘against the man”, or to protect your personal interests aside from having a better program. If you decide to open source a program you are doing so to the benefit of others and your code. Of course if you have better code, you’re better off too.

There are other misconceptions, but these, I’ve noticed, are the most widespread and potentially damaging to the prospect of having better software.

That URL again is http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html

Give it to me straight….

While at the O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference I fell in love with the MacIntosh ibook. I felt slightly ashamed. I’ve been telling everyone that Linux runs great on my laptop, it does, & that they should try it too. I tried to suppress my desire for the ibook. I lost.

While at the conference I tried my hardest to get a wireless connection going. Everyone around me was hooked up, surfing, emailing, blogging, irc’ing while at the conference. In the conferences, at tutorials, during keynote speeches. How arcane, I thought, I was not connected. I had to stick to listening to what the presenters were saying. Ok, that’s joke. I wanted on the network. Bad.

I don’t count myself as a serious hacker. I’m an above joe-average guy using linux as my OS & love using open source. So, I did what joe-average guys do who want to figure something out. No, I didn’t get someone else to do it for me. I read the manual, howtos, and bought a ‘wireless networking’ book to coach me through. Four days later I was still out in the cold.

I spoke of my envy for the ibook to a colleague there who nodded his head and spoke the no more truer words quoting Larry Wall, “Easy things should be easy and hard things should be possible.” Amen.

Surely a wireless connection should be somewhere between easy and possible, I thought.

So, I fibbed a bit. At the end of the conference I did ask a guy to see what he could do to get my wireless working. Hey, I needed to make sure I was’t doing *something* stupid that was getting in the way of my linux-lappy and wireless nirvana. “Ah ha,” he exclaimed, “this isn’t working.” Ok, I wasn’t stunned. That took some of the sting out of my cable-tethered wound.

After getting home & looking into my wireless predicament I’ve come to realize that it is just plain difficult. It is possible though. Others have done it and I’m sure it will get easier. However; the ibook had shown me the way. I hope.

Mine should arrive today. I ordered it on my last day of the conference. I’m going to delve into its mysterious ways of running FreeBSD (Darwin & open source) under that slick GUI (I’m not sure that this is open source). If it is the darling that everyone else claims it is & it looks like it is, this will be my new recommendation to people who want to take a first plunge into the open source world.

Let’s find out…

Will my open source side be disappointed or exuberant?

Related link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_2023000/2023127.stm

As reported at the BBC, Germany has opened the doors for their ‘Interior Ministry” to buy IBM servers loaded with, made in Germany, SuSE Linux.

As Germany’s Interior Minister is quoted saying, “the move would help cut costs and improve security in the nation’s computer networks.” Amen.

It struck me this morning how powerful wireless connectivity can be. Specifically, how wireless connectivity is the killer app without being an app.

I’m pondering this quite a bit lately as I’m slowly making my switch from being tethered to the net to wireless freedom. And it occurred to me that not only can being wireless free me from cable bondage, but it can free me from application bondage.

Let me give you a ‘for instance’; Microsoft Office. While online webservices are still outpaced by the functionality of the stand-alone office suite we all know and love to hate, the locally installed app’s real usefulness is that while not connected to the net you can work anywhere you can lug you computer. But, what if you can publish straight to the net everywhere?

Consider that at this very moment I am blogging straight to the net. There is no office application assisting me in writing out my thoughts. These words go straight to the net, sans office suite. That is because I am wireless.

If I were not connected to the net at this moment I would be forced to work locally on my machine. I would need a client of some kind installed on my laptop. I can save this piece as a draft to the server that is acting as my webservice without an intermediary. How cool is that? I don’t need MSOffice or any other office app. At least for what I do. Just a browser.

However; consider this, as more people can connect straight to the net, via wireless connectivity, the functionality of these webservices will only increase. You know the drill, demand begets supply.

Wireless kills apps. At least on your local machine and moves them to the net. Sign me up for more of that!

Does wireless connectivity decrease your dependence on locally installed apps?