I'm always on the lookout for apps that can ease my workload or free up some room in my budget, and open source applications are an excellent way for me to accomplish both.

If you're in the same boat as me, hopefully you're already utilizing some open source options. If not, I've put together this list of two dozen great applications that I can depend on to keep things running smoothly on my office LAN and customer systems as well.

Some of these you'll recognize, but I hope that there are some that are new to you as well.

1. PING - I may be beating a dead horse here with my love of PING, but it's just a great piece of open source. Drive imaging with network and spanning support, password blanking, it's just an excellent app.
   
   
2. NTRegEdit - The Windows Registry editor hasn't seen many changes over the years. NTRegEdit offers some great additional features like recursive export, color coding, improved searching, and quick edit window below the values list.
   
   
3. Safarp - A portable alternative to appwiz.cpl (add/remove programs), it provides a few extra useful features - like silent uninstalls and repairs of Windows Installer-based apps. It also opens in a flash, unlike the clunky appwiz.
   
   
4. WPKG - Maintaining software installs on computers in a small business environment can be a little frustrating sometimes. WPKG gives you push/pull installs and it can run as a service, so silent installs run transparently with no user ineteraction.

Over the past few years, we've seen a number of artists, software developers and others release their work under non-traditional copyright licenses. Historically, copyright laws have been used to prevent others from redistributing your work. But Creative Commons and the GNU General Public License allow content makers to distribute their work for free -- while insisting upon certain conditions.

For example, there are Creative Commons licenses that would let you write a poem and allow anyone to publish that poem on their web site as long as they provide proper attribution. Or you can use the GNU GPL to release a piece of software that others can distribute for free, or even charge a fee for -- as long as they continue to make the source code available for free.

Up until now, the validity of these licenses hasn't really been put to the test. But on Wednesday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a San Francisco court ruling dealing with just these issues. Basically, a software developer who published model train software was using code that had been released for free. But he did not give credit to the developers of the original software, despite the fact that the license required him to do so.

When the guy who developed the open original application filed suit, the San Fransisco court ruled that the terms of the license were too broad to be enforceable. But this week's ruling overturns that decision which means that software developers, musicians, artists, and others who release their work under an "open source" license have a reasonable expectation that the terms of the license will be enforceable -- at least until some schmuck comes along and takes the case to the Supreme Court.

We can't deny some of us here at Download Squad love open source software. But there's not a damn fool here that will disagree with the statement: "Bill Gates is an extremely intelligent man." We won't disagree that he's done amazing things for technology as a whole. And yes, we even wish heartily we had the faith in ourselves to say if we had that much moolah, we'd be even half as charitable with it.

But right now we're all kind of standing around scratching our heads and saying, "Wha?"

Today Techdirt points out a nice little quote by the venerable Mr. Gates in a Wired article. It seems as though Gates says that open source created a licensing situation "so that nobody can ever improve the software." All right, now, that would be a self-defeating license, wouldn't it? What have the brain-sucking aliens done with the Bill Gates we all know and love whose intellect we respect greatly?

Of course, we're willing to throw poor Bill a bone. The Wired quote is not a complete quote. It very well could be out of context. They then quote him saying that pharmaceutical companies who invent drugs should be able to charge for them. Well, yeah. Duh. And people who develop open source applications can also charge for them.

Open source doesn't necessarily mean it's free as in beer. Conversely, just because the local brewery is giving away free lager, it doesn't mean you'll get anywhere asking for the recipe.

We're wondering if Wired slipped up, or if Bill Gates is truly puzzled about the distinctions between free software and open software? Has he read the GPL? There are quick versions on their site... so even those of us who aren't as smart as Gates can get the general idea.

[via Techdirt and Wired]

The folks who brought you the original SimCity nearly 20 years ago have now brought you the free edition of that game. Not necessarily free as in beer, but free as in speech. The SimCity source code has been released for anyone who wants to port it run on other devices or operating systems, or wants to modify the game to create their own version.

The decision to release the the SimCity source under a GPL license is due to plans to add the game to the OLPC's XO Laptop which currently runs all open source software.

Because EA, the game company that owns the rights to SimCity and other Sim games wants to protect its trademark, there have been a few changes to the original source code. All references to SimCity have been replaced with "Micropolis," which was the original working title for the game.

[via Slashdot]

Just a few days after open-source developers took Monsoon Multimedia to court over alleged copyright violations, Monsoon has admitted guilt and has begun negotiating a settlement.

What makes this interesting is that the copyright Monsoon Multimedia violated was technology protected by the General Public License or GPL. In other words, Monsoon had every right to use the open source technology. What they were not allowed to do was release a closed source product based on the open source technology.

Monsoon makes the Hava place-shifting box, which lets you stream audio and video content from your TV/cable box/DVD player etc to any internet connected PC. It works much the same way as a Slingbox.

The company used a modified version of the BusyBox software in its Hava software. As part of the settlement, Monsoon will make that code available on its website soon. This was the first copyright case that had gone to court involving the GPL license. Since the case is being settled out of court, the question of whether all the provisions in the GPL are enforceable will have to wait for another day.

It's no secret that a lot of consumer electronics devices are built using Linux and other open source software. That includes well known products like TiVo, and somewhat lesser known items like Monsoon Multimedia's Hava place-shifting device (it's a lot like a Slingbox, but there's a wireless model).

Open source software is often powerful, stable, and most importantly, available. The open source community has developed a wealth of code that developers can draw from in order to build robust consumer oriented products.

But while the software is often free, meaning you can use it without paying, it's also free as in speech. In other words, once you incorporate code that has been published under the General Public License, you have to allow others to see the source code for your device. And that's not something a lot of companies like to do. You know, trade secrets and all.

So when the folks that developed the open source BusyBox software, which is used in the Hava, asked Monsoon Multimedia for a peek at the company's source code and Monsoon failed to comply, two open source developers filed suit against the company.

This is apparently the first time anyone has filed a copyright infringement suit in the US involving an alleged violation of the General Public License. It should be interesting to see if the case goes to court where it could set precedent, or if Monsoon Multimedia decides to settle out of court.

[via CNet]

MySQL's VP of community relations Kaj Arno's he explains in his blog that MySQL has changed its license from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", so MySQL doesn't have to be forced to use the GPLv3, which as you know is not so widely adopted yet. MySQL may very well move to the new v3 license once it becomes more commonplace, but for now, they don't want to put users and developers in a tight spot with a new license, so they are opting to use the older version exclusively for now. Seems like a good move to stay put but help with the future license progress as well.

[Via Slashdot]

Later today Sun Microsystems is expected to release the source code to its Java platforms after years of speculation and urging by the open source community. Unlike Solaris and J2EE, which were released under the Common Development and Distribution License, Sun has opted to release the source code for Java Platform Standard Edition (J2SE) and Mobile Edition (J2ME) under the venerable GPL. It will be taking the "classpath exception" to the license, however, which will allow companies and developers who make Java programs to release their software under different licensing, including closed-source ones. Sun's Jonathan Schwartz and Rich Green will be making a webcast at 9:20 a.m. PT today, which can be seen at sun.com/opensource/java, which is also where you'll be able to find the source code and other resources. Sun's Tim Bray provides a few more details on what's in store in his blog.

Last week CACE Technologies, creator of the WinPcap packet capture utility, announced its hiring of Gerald Colms, creator of the immensely popular Ethereal network analyzer software. Along with Colms came Ethereal itself, and CACE has rebranded the tools as Wireshark. Wireshark is still a multi-platform, open source team, and CACE's FAQ calls it "almost (but not quite) a fork," because Colms has also brought with him "every member of [Ethereal's] core development team." Having used Wireshark on occasion to troubleshoot some thorny network issues, I'm glad the almost-fork is retaining its GNU license and development team, and I'm curious (and eager) to see where CASE will take the project.

I put a question at the end of that title because I'm not sure if this is really kosher or not. Let your conscience be your guide. It's pretty obvious that, using p2p, you can get the Pro version of LimeWire (or nearly any other app) for free. But using the GPL to allow for the pro version to download for free anyway? Pretty obvious as well, since the pro version is open source, you could just download the source, compile it, and there ya go. Maybe the folks at LimeWire should have considered the terms of the GPL before charging for their app... Or maybe not. Seems like they have a right to earn a living making the application. Personally I don't like LimeWire, but most of my students use it. So yeah, Webby's World has the details on acquiring LimeWire Pro for free, along with a little jab at Java (which I'd agree with a commenter, is NOT generally buggy). Or you could be brave and go to this freaky site where they claim you can just download the thing for free. Free? Maybe. Guilt free? I'll let you decide.

[Via digg]

Linus Torvalds, creator of the most famous GPL software project ever, has stated on several occasions that the Linux kernel will never be released under GPLv3, the next version of the GNU General Public License currently under development. NewsForge has rounded up a couple of Torvalds' posts to the Linux Kernel Mailing List in which he describes some of his objections to the new version of the license. He takes issue with GPLv3's new restrictions on DRM and the digital signing of code. Torvalds believes that fighting DRM should not be the GPL's mission and that that battle should be fought by content producers. "The GPL already does have an anti-DRM clause as far as the software is concerned," says Torvalds. "If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to create non-software content, and fight it there." He concludes by saying, "I'm not arguing against the GPLv3. I'm arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for me, and it's not the license I ever chose."

As reported last month, this year will see the first update of the GNU General Public License—the license employed by, depending on who you ask, half to three-fourths of all free software—since 1991, and the Free Software Foundation has posted the first draft of the new GPLv3. It's no easy read, but luckily there's a Rationale Document that describes all of the changes in the new version of the license and the rationale behind them. The GPLv3 attempts to fill the gaps that were beginning to show as the march of technology, and even moreso, law left the fifteen-year-old document behind. The FSF is soliciting comments from the public on the changes in GPLv3, so go ahead and tell them what you think.

[Via Slashdot]

While Forrester might have its pick, the folks at Electric Mail are choosing ClamAV for the bulk of their AntiVirus needs. Granted, it isn't designed to do all the things McAfee's suite does, but when it comes to the speed in which it detects virus-laden email, apparently ClamAV is the fastest. Why should this matter? Well Electric Rain happens to provide email service to a bunch of folks, and I'm guessing most of them would rather not get viruses passed along. So while the rest of the AV gang is trying to figure out what's going on, ClamAV has found the virus already.