No. 1 Story
Construction needs cloud flexibility
Australia’s embattled construction sector could benefit from cloud based information systems that can be switched on and off in lockstep with individual projects – with the exception of those organisations based in remote areas like the Kimberleys.
read moreWhen licences clash
Sam Varghese
Tuesday, 12 September 2006 06:11
Page 1 of 2
By March next year at the latest, if all goes according to schedule, the differences between the open source and free software camps will be on open show.
March is the last date set for the Free Software Foundation's release of the third revision of its General Public License. The open source camp has already made its opposition to the licence fairly clear; the FSF, while admitting that the draft for GPL Version 3 is not yet finalised, is unlikely to compromise on key changes from the existing licence, the very changes that are the major sticking points between the two camps.While the terms free software and open source are often used as synonyms, there are fundamental differences - in order for software to meet the definition of "free", the FSF says it should provide four freedoms - freedom to run the program for any purpose; to study the source code and then change it if one wishes; helping one's neighbour and rights of distribution.
Open source software, while giving the idea that it will always include source code, does not always adhere to this; there are many open source products which include software that is under licences which do not meet the FSF's definition of a "free software" licence. To quote the FSF itself: "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."
Why is the GPL being changed? There are some manufacturers who have managed to adhere to the word of GPL Version 2 - and at the same time evade it. With increasing use of digital rights management (DRM) - or digital restrictions management as some put it - and patents, to corner and control market segments, changes have been deemed necessary to prevent the public being denied what the FSF considers to be essential freedoms.
A case in point is the time-shifting recording device, the Tivo. It runs on a modified version of the Linux kernel; the source for this, and all other software that goes to make up the gadget's operating system, are provided to a buyer. But there is no way that one can recompile the kernel and get it to function because the Tivo is designed to shut down if code which has been modified and not authorised by the company is used to try and run it.
You think you have a disaster recovery plan?
Think again. Most businesses only have PART of a DR plan - and this spells business disaster in the event of an IT disaster.
Download The Seven Sins of Disaster Recovery White Paper now and find out how you can prevent this happening to you.
