Is Linux the high moral ground?

[kvonb]

I wish more Chinese people would take up Linux, it could wipe out Microsoft's market dominance in one fair swoop!

Plus we would get the benefit of more drivers, as most of the hardware is made there!

[KIAaze]

Yes, it IS true that you can sell it, but you must ALSO provide it for free. The Free software foundation sees no place for apid or closed software within its ranks, and that is the main difference between the open source model and the free source model.

No, you don't have to provide your software for free when using the GPL.

You are only forced to make the source code available (you can even charge money for that).
The only thing is of course that the people who bought the software as well as the source code must be free to do whatever they want with it.
This effectively means that once somebody has bought the source code, he can redistribute the software for free.

I think this is a great way to keep the price of the software at a reasonable level. It's clear that it's impossible to build up an empire like Microsoft by using a license like the GPL.
But companies like Novell, Red Hat or Mozilla show that it's still possible to make money of it.

In my opinion the two should co exist. The programmer should have the RIGHT to release or not release his code if he or she chooses. In the very mindset of an open society one should be free to do that, and one should be free to mix the two as they see fit. Just my opinion folks, but I would like to see a society where the two can coexist peacefully instead of all the bickering that exists now. Until it is that way proprietary software will continue to beat down the free software movement. I believe the Open Source model is the best way to move forward.

They are already coexisting. And personally, even tough I prefer the GPL, I won't kill you for using a simple open-soure license like BSD. ^^
I just think that the GPL is a better choice because it keeps the open-source open-source.
With a BSD-like license, improved code isn't given back to the community.

[Jhongy]

In my opinion the two should co exist. The programmer should have the RIGHT to release or not release his code if he or she chooses.

They do -- they don't have to release their code under the GPL

But, of course, as soon as you make use of any other programmer's hard work that was released under the GPL, then that changes.

Although I am convinced that, as I posted above, FOSS is the way to go, the two can coexist just fine (in the software ecosystem; not in a single product) -- and most open source programmers recognise this. If anything, it's people on the proprietary side of the fence that have trouble recognizing this.

[lancest]

Great comments. Social system? I think Linux is more capitalist than socialist because it offers complete freedom. Rampant piracy is going to help solve the problem. Can you say WTO? I know for a fact computer shops here in China are being inspected several times every month for illegal software. Lets see if the noose tightens with WTO enforcement.

[stanjam]

They do -- they don't have to release their code under the GPL

But, of course, as soon as you make use of any other programmer's hard work that was released under the GPL, then that changes.

Although I am convinced that, as I posted above, FOSS is the way to go, the two can coexist just fine (in the software ecosystem; not in a single product) -- and most open source programmers recognise this. If anything, it's people on the proprietary side of the fence that have trouble recognizing this.

On that point I will have to agree, it is the proprietary side that doesn't get it.

[mech7]

My personal opinion is that selling software is illogical and cannot be sustained.

For the simple fact that a computer file or any data cannot be a unique object. You cannot 'steal' information in the traditional definition.

No resources are consumed in the creation or deletion of computer information.

So why would you pay money for software?
-The simple answer is that most people wouldn't; many people don't; and some people can't.

To me, open-source software is the only logical approprach to software-distrobution. People have a moral right to know what they own. Eg: They want/need to know what their computer is doing.

To a certain extent you can't even do it. Reverse engineering is always possible. Look at the first IBM-clone PCs, and look at how it spawned an industry.

Sorry but that is the most stupid thing i have ever heared and obviously does not come from a programmer.

[weblordpepe]

Sorry but that is the most stupid thing i have ever heared and obviously does not come from a programmer.

OK well instead of making a completely useless post like that - why don't you prove me wrong?

DRM has been introduced as a way to give the impression that data is a unique object. Cryptography has also been introduced. Of course I am correct. To state otherwise would only be pushing an agenda of some kind. You cannot rob somebody of their information by copying it. That's not stealing.

And before you make judgements about whether or not I am a 'programmer', try actually validating your argument. For all you know, I could be Bill Gates in disguise.

The basic summary of my argument is that open-source / free software jives with the physical & logical properties of computer information. It does not try to deny that you can copy files. There is no copy-protection built into Ubuntu to try & trick you into thinking your burnt CDR is unique in some way.

[Jhongy]

Great comments. Social system? I think Linux is more capitalist than socialist because it offers complete freedom.

I think that is nonsense, however --- freedom is not synonymous with capitalism. Just because something is more free, does not make it more capitalist.

[lancest]

While there are always grey areas. I don't go around stating other people's (widely held) opinions are nonsense. You have a right to your opinion too. That's what you should have said.

[Jhongy]

While there are always grey areas. I don't go around stating other people's (widely held) opinions are nonsense. You have a right to your opinion too. That's what you should have said.

I said I *THINK* it is nonsense.... I do. I do not *THINK* that simply equating capitalism with a notion of freedom makes any logical sense (outside of market freedom). No logical sense == nonsense. Not forcing my opinion on anything or anyone. Just my thoughts.

Chill! This is in a thread where others are calling each other stupid...!!!