Code of Conduct-abiding GNU Project/FSF thread

[Chronon]

Question for the GNU, ahem, supporters. How do you feel about the design of electronics and other mechanical devices? Do you feel that if the design blueprints are not provided that your freedoms are being violated?

No, I don't. But I support the idea of open hardware. I think this is an interesting and worthy project:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

Given the choice, I would prefer devices with as much information as possible so that if I want to modify and improve them, I can.

[alaukikyo]

Hmmmm, a legal black hole, that should have been purged ages ago? Yes?

no .

[koenn]

[Originally Posted by zekopeko : The GPL works only when you distribute software. You could take the Linux kernel, modify it, put it on servers and never release your changes]

Hmmmm, a legal black hole, that should have been purged ages ago? Yes?

no. it's intentional. the objective is that he who runs the software, has control over it. In zekopeko's example, that's Google : they are allowed to run linux, modify it, ... They are allowed to distribute it, but have no obligation to do so.

[koenn]

I'm more interested in a pure software model without looking at the hardware-software bundle.

[... ]No I'm not missing the trend but I'm still waiting for companies to make profit selling Free Software targeted at end users.


As of now it looks to me as it's only viable for businesses not end consumer users. It's not like companies are tripping over each other just to contribute to GIMP.

I see no reason to artificially limit the discussion to "software = applications for end users".

You continue talking about the GPL but that is simply an implementational detail in the greater FSF philosophy which is eradication of proprietary software. Simply recommending proprietary products is enough for the FSF to not recommend that project/software.

I mentioned GPL explicitely there to illustrate that the FSF is rather tolerant towards proprietary software in real life situations. The only thing that is binding to users of free software, are their licenses, all the rest is opinion and recommendation. By their licenses they accept the fact that people will use (and distribute) bundles that contain both free and proprietary software.

However, their goal is that people would have the opportunity to use nothing but free software if they'd prefer to do so. As such, it seems logical that they'd promote "fully free" over "free combined with proprtietary".

The FSF's aversion to proprietary software is, ultimately, a side effect of their vision that Free software is about having control over the technology we use, particularly over the technology that processes information about us, or information that belongs to us.
Although I don't always agree with the FSF rhetorics and specific campaign goals, I think that, in general, awareness of these issues is important.

Either way that doesn't solve how to make money from higher level stuff. The whole point of keeping higher level stuff proprietary is to secure a competitive advantage.
I doubt that people would be willing to pay for support of Disk Usage Analyzer or GIMP.

So how is one to make money from Free software?
So that is a "I don't know".

I'm not arrogant enough to assume that the fact that I don't know how means it's impossible.

Otoh, if I was running a company and, for a number of practical reasons, had my employees use free software (as in end user applications), I'd seriously consider financially supporting the software projects I depend on, as it would be in my company's interest that they continue to exist and continue to develop their software.

[cyberhood]

So from FSF's viewpoint how are Free software developers to earn their bread?

The same way nonprofit organizations earn their money, through donations.
Let us not forget cases of free software developers who:
1. Help F/LOSS projects for the joy of doing so. Because they enjoy solving problems creatively as a hobby.
2. People who are working tirelessly for the cause of bridging the digital divide.

Holy nonsensical analogy Batman! You'll have to explain to me how making proprietary software is similar to slavery. Do they own their employees?

There are those, including the most cited living intellectual on the planet, who make the argument that current company models, like the Microsoft® model, are tantamount to wage slavery.

Reading those two statements and assuming we are talking about FOSS companies and proprietary companies (we are right?) you say that proprietary companies are abusing their workers. I ask how do they do that. Where is the abuse?
Looks to me like you simply decided to vilify those companies simply because they dared to make their software proprietary. Ad hominem attack aren't making your arguments convincing.

I don't think it was an ad hominem attack; it was an simply unsourced indictment. Since 3Miro didn't bother to source is indictment I will give some sources here for just one of the companies you listed.

I do want companies to behave ethically but that also means they shouldn't be chastised for making proprietary software as long as they do right by their users.

"Making proprietary software" and "[doing] right by their users" is an oxymoron since proprietary software unjustly strips users of their freedoms.

[cyberhood]

...I support the idea of open hardware. I think this is an interesting and worthy project:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
Given the choice, I would prefer devices with as much information as possible so that if I want to modify and improve them, I can.

+1
Have you ever heard of the VIA OpenBook?

The VIA OpenBook Mini-Note Reference Design brings a unique "open" approach to customization. This open source design flexibility allows you to bring your own innovative style and branding to the VIA OpenBook Mini-Note Reference Design. It also reduces product development costs and speeds up the time-to-market process.

I wonder if the Reprap could be used to make an OpenBook...
I gotta build one! Thanks for the link!

There are a couple of Wikipedia articles on the topic too:
Open-source hardware & Open design