Code of Conduct-abiding GNU Project/FSF thread

[cyberhood]

OK, while in theory all threads are initiated as Code of Conduct-abiding I would just like to start this one out by linking to the Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy) first before starting such a thread so that everyone gets a little refresh of the code.

Moreover, maybe -even though he is the founder of both the GNU Project (http://www.gnu.org/) and the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/)- it would be best to try and leave all mention of Richard Stallman (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Richard_stallman) out of this thread.

Therefore, I submit that this thread be about the concepts of the foundational philosophy behind the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/), and not about Richard Stallman's rhetoric and tactics in promoting F/LOSS. So, after taking the poll please post which one you chose and why. Thanks.

[KiwiNZ]

Your thread is a tad confused. Are you just wanting all members to add a link to the Code of Conduct with every thread?

Or are you saying we should include in the COC that all members adhere to the philosophies of GNU Project and FSF?

If the former, that is repetitive and not needed. If the later, ubuntu Forums are for the support of ubuntu not the GNU Project or the FSF, they have their own Forums . It would also be contrary to freedom concepts to force member to believe in and adhere to those philosophies.

[Dustin2128]

I'm guessing he just doesn't want this to degrade into a flame war that you shut down, like every other thread about the FSF. Anyway, I generally like their ideals, but I think that permissively licensed software has a not-small niche in the world. I try to keep proprietary software to a minimum on my machines (which is why I don't use opera), usually just nividia drivers, using open drivers for my two laptops with ATi cards and the rest having intel cards. I do prefer GPLv2 to 3- I hate "tivoization", but GPLv3 comes across as inelegant. I use emacs as my regular text editor as well, if that counts for much ;).

[cyberhood]

Your thread is a tad confused. Are you just wanting all members to add a link to the Code of Conduct with every thread?
Sorry for not making myself clear. I do not want any other members to add anything that they don't want to to their threads. As far as I'm concerned, they can freely create any threads they like and the moderators/admins can decide whether or not they are appropriate here based on the CoC.


Or are you saying we should include in the COC that all members adhere to the philosophies of GNU Project and FSF?
I am asking Ubuntu members about their opinions on the philosophy of the GNU Project and FSF. I am not asking anyone to adhere to any philosophy.



If the former, that is repetitive and not needed. If the later, ubuntu Forums are for the support of ubuntu not the GNU Project or the FSF, they have their own Forums . It would also be contrary to freedom concepts to force member to believe in and adhere to those philosophies.
I'm curious if you read the poll question or the post before posting. I in no way asked -much less forced- any member to believe in or adhere to anything. I'm simply asking my fellow Ubuntu forum members about their opinions on the philosophy of the GNU Project and FSF.

[Bachstelze]

I think what cyberhood meant was that people should review the CoC before posting in this thread, so that it doesn't degenerate into a flamewar like the previous one.

My answer is #2, see this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11011928&postcount=72) (in two parts, I was not responding to myself -_-) for a summary of my thoughts.

[unknownPoster]

It's kind of hard to not mention RMS since his name is synonymous with GNU.

I would imagine that he's the only major GNU supporter that people can call by name without internet research.

[Spice Weasel]

It's kind of hard to not mention RMS since his name is synonymous with GNU.

I would imagine that he's the only major GNU supporter that people can call by name without internet research.

Stephen Fry?

[KiwiNZ]

It's kind of hard to not mention RMS since his name is synonymous with GNU.

I would imagine that he's the only major GNU supporter that people can call by name without internet research.

I understand the OP's reasoning, RMS galvanizes peoples opinions, but excluding him completely from a discussion like this is like excluding Mark Shuttleworth re the starting of ubuntu or Bill Gates re the starting of MSFT and windows.

RMS has set himself up as all things Free in software and pontificates relentlessly the attributes of GNU and FSF.

[jerenept]

It's kind of hard to not mention RMS since his name is synonymous with GNU.

I would imagine that he's the only major GNU supporter that people can call by name without internet research.

Eric S. Raymond?

[cyberhood]

I understand the OP's reasoning, RMS galvanizes peoples opinions, but excluding him completely from a discussion like this is like excluding Mark Shuttleworth re the starting of ubuntu or Bill Gates re the starting of MSFT and windows.

RMS has set himself up as all things Free in software and pontificates relentlessly the attributes of GNU and FSF.

Like a couple people said earlier, it's to avoid turning the thread into an unproductive flame war. Because of his rhetoric, RMS is a very polarizing figure, and based on the videos I've watched of him speaking I personally find the his rhetorical style confrontational and off-putting. That confrontational attitude (action) seems to create an equal an opposite reaction against him, hence causing these flame wars. Although I personally disagree with his rhetorical style, I do admire the GNU/FSF philosophy of freedom. I don't see any contradiction there.
I think whether...
...RMS's rhetorical style is effective,
...GNU/FSF projects are effective,
...and GNU/FSF philosophy of freedom is a viable/logical/justifiable position... are all separate affairs.
Mixing them up is what seems to cause these threads to derail. After all, it's easy to make ad hominem (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ad_hominim) attacks. I started this thread to try and cut around all the crud and have a constructive debate about the heart of the matter, the philosophy.

[Bachstelze]

Eric S. Raymond?

From what I've read, Raymond is more on the "open source" side of things than on the "free software" one. He favours open source mostly because he deems it a more efficient development model (see The Cathedral and the Bazaar), not so much for ethical reasons (though he is also a hardcore libertarian, he seems less vocal about software freedom than about other societal issues).

[cyberhood]

I still don't think I clearly explained my reasons for why I think it would be best to leave rms out of a debate like this; allow me to add a nuance...

I think the final effect of bringing such a controversial figure as rms into the debate of the GNU/FSF philosophy is to censor the debate on freedom in cyberspace, and -by extension- freedom in the 21st century. The flame warmongers, whose primary weapon is the abusive ad hominem fallacy, effectively bring the constructive debate to a standstill and get the thread shut down, ultimately censoring the debate.
Maybe this is a conscious effort made on the part of people who subscribe to two very different definitions of the word “freedom” or maybe it's not.
First, those who use the word “freedom” as it's used in the status quo, by that I mean the so-called “freedom of choice” that we have today. The “freedom to choose” between Microsoft® and Apple®. This may appear to give one the “freedom to choose” within a range of possibilities. But in fact, upon more careful observation, we see that there is no range to choose from; it is really a duopoly (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Duopoly). And looking even more carefully (for instance at the market share) let's be honest here, the real situation is much closer to a monopoly (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Monopoly).
Second, those who use the word “freedom” in the Orwellian (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Orwellian) since of “Freedom is Slavery (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Freedom_is_Slavery)”. In this instance, there seem to be those who actually hold a deep-seated contempt for freedom and use the word not only in a superficial sense, but in a disingenuous sense - they really are referring to the opposite.
People who subscribe to these definitions of “freedom” feel threatened by the GNU/FSF definition of freedom as it applies to cyberspace, hence their resort to ad hominem attacks on rms and supporters of/sympathizers with GNU/FSF philosophy, attacks which go against the Code of Conduct and end up getting the thread shut down. And hence the silence of those who voted "I completely disagree with the philosophy of the GNU Project." here in this thread when their ad hominem weapon is effectively disarmed.

[jerenept]

From what I've read, Raymond is more on the "open source" side of things than on the "free software" one. He favours open source mostly because he deems it a more efficient development model (see The Cathedral and the Bazaar), not so much for ethical reasons (though he is also a hardcore libertarian, he seems less vocal about software freedom than about other societal issues).

Sounds kinda like my views on Free/Open-Source software.

[Spice Weasel]

I voted that I completely disagree, but I do agree that DRM is bad.

[Bachstelze]

I voted that I completely disagree, but I do agree that DRM is bad.

I don't think DRM in itself is bad. Companies don't want people to copy stuff, so they put DRMs. To me it's fair game, but for the game to be actually fair, the law should stay out of it and no one should be sued for cracking DRM. When a DRM is cracked, the industry should accept it and develop a new one. Eventually, when the development of new DRMs costs them more than than the additional sales revenue it brings, maybe they will realise their model is flawed. Wishful thinking, I know...

[koenn]

From what I've read, Raymond is more on the "open source" side of things than on the "free software" one. He favours open source mostly because he deems it a more efficient development model (see The Cathedral and the Bazaar), not so much for ethical reasons (though he is also a hardcore libertarian, he seems less vocal about software freedom than about other societal issues).

There's an other side to that, in that esr is a pragmatist and strategist who very much wants free software/opensource to "win". He's also a unix fan, and he considers linux the current best of breed unix, and it's open source.
So, in order to promote free/open source software in the corporate world, he pushed for a shift from all this talk about "freedom" and social issues towards a more technical aproach (~ the development model) and for a name change, from Free Software to Open Source.

[Quadunit404]

The only thing I agree with Stallmangrad the FSF on is DRM = bad. I am actually glad that I am thousands of miles away from them right now.

@mods: Is it okay if I attack the FSF but justify it in the same post? I'm hoping that by now you know that I don't like RMS or the FSF...

[koenn]

... I completely disagree, but I do agree that DRM is bad.

The only thing I agree with the FSF on is DRM = bad.


question:
you do not agree with the FSF when it opposes restrictive licenses or similar restrictions to users of computers, software, or digital data; but you do oppose, and agree with the FGF opposing, technology that enforces those restrictions.

Doesn't makes sense to me.
What am I missing ?

[cyberhood]

The only thing I agree with Stallmangrad the FSF on is DRM = bad. I am actually glad that I am thousands of miles away from them right now.

@mods: Is it okay if I attack the FSF but justify it in the same post? I'm hoping that by now you know that I don't like RMS or the FSF...
The question -and the point of this thread- is, are you and other (for lack of a better term) "anti-GNU/FSFers" willing to attempt a civilized debate (not an attack) regarding the philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/) of the GNU/FSF Project?
And can you do it without ad hominem attacks against rms and pro-GNU/FSFers? (The answer to the latter question is obviously already clear from your post, btw.)

So what is it about DRM that you (and others) disagree with?

What's the relationship between GNU/FSF principles and anti-DRM principles?

What do you (and all others who voted that they disagree entirely or partly) specifically disagree with regarding the GNU/FSF philosophy?

[cyberhood]

I voted that I completely disagree, but I do agree that DRM is bad.

Why is DRM bad?

Please, by all means elaborate on specific points of the GNU/FSF philosophy that you disagree with... :popcorn:

[Spice Weasel]

question:
you do not agree with the FSF when it opposes restrictive licenses or similar restrictions to users of computers, software, or digital data; but you do oppose, and agree with the FGF opposing, technology that enforces those restrictions.

Doesn't makes sense to me.
What am I missing ?

It's not like the GPL is restrictive at all, right?

[dniMretsaM]

I am in complete agreement with the GNU/free software philosophy. In my opinion, digital freedom is the same as freedom the press or freedom of speech. Completely necessary and very admirable.

[Quadunit404]

The question -and the point of this thread- is, are you and other (for lack of a better term) "anti-GNU/FSFers" willing to attempt a civilized debate (not an attack) regarding the philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/) of the GNU/FSF Project?
And can you do it without ad hominem attacks against rms and pro-GNU/FSFers? (The answer to the latter question is obviously already clear from your post, btw.)

So what is it about DRM that you (and others) disagree with?

What's the relationship between GNU/FSF principles and anti-DRM principles?

What do you (and all others who voted that they disagree entirely or partly) specifically disagree with regarding the GNU/FSF philosophy?

1. Yes, I know that. That doesn't change the fact that I hate the FSF and am glad that I am not in the same state as it for once this year. I can act civil toward the FSF if I want to, but that time has yet to come around.
2. DRM screws over paying customers and not pirates 100% of the time. It's amazing how the big media continues to bother with it when it clearly doesn't work.
3. Defective by Design - ever heard of it? It's one of the FSF's campaigns.
4. Everything that doesn't involve DRM. Forcing "freedom" upon others isn't how I envision freedom. In fact it's actually a bit meaningless once you think about it.

I'd continue arguing, but I'm a better person than that. I declare this argument to end prematurely in a stalemate, with neither side winning. My opinion does not necessarily need to be the same as anyone else's, but that isn't to say that sharing opinions with someone else is a bad thing.

PS: If you want me too I can remove "Stallmangrad" from my OP. I am willing to follow directions if the need so arises.

[dniMretsaM]

4. Everything that doesn't involve DRM. Forcing "freedom" upon others isn't how I envision freedom. In fact it's actually a bit meaningless once you think about it.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "forcing freedom." The US constitutions mandates that all United States citizens have freedom of speech, does that mean it is bad since it's the law to be free in that regard?


Why is DRM bad?

Was that a question used to spark a (civilized) debate, or are you honestly wondering why DRM is bad. I'll give my opinion either way, but I wanted to clarify first. Anyway, I'm all for a non-flaming discussion of the afore mentioned philosophy.

[Dustin2128]

Sometimes I take BSD's side, but the GPL was *instrumental* in defeating proprietary unixes in the 80's and 90's. It was mostly done by replacing proprietary offerings with superior free software offerings. How would that have gone over if they could just take our source code as soon as it's out the door and pass it off as their product? Answer: It wouldn't have.

[jerenept]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "forcing freedom." The US constitutions mandates that all United States citizens have freedom of speech, does that mean it is bad since it's the law to be free in that regard?



The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs.
Says that at the end of the GPL.

Also, this on the FSF web site: (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic")

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

SpiceWeasel didn't mean "forcing people to be free". He meant "forcing people into your narrow view of what 'free' is". In fact, I'll quote him:

It's not like the GPL is restrictive at all, right?

[koenn]

It's not like the GPL is restrictive at all, right?

From an end-user point of view, GPL pretty much says "do as you please";
I don't find that restrictive, especially compared to a typical Apple, Microsoft, .... EULA.

The GPL does impose some conditions or requirements on people who want to distribute modified GPL code or binaries based on it, but at least it does allow reuse, modification and redistribution. That's not terribly restrictive, especially compared to a typical Apple, Microsoft, .... software license.


So, should I conclude from your reply that you do not agree with the FSF's goals and philosophy etc because they're not extreme enough ?

[Spice Weasel]

From an end-user point of view, GPL pretty much says "do as you please";
I don't find that restrictive, especially compared to a typical Apple, Microsoft, .... EULA.

The GPL does impose some conditions or requirements on people who want to distribute modified GPL code or binaries based on it, but at least it does allow reuse, modification and redistribution. That's not terribly restrictive, especially compared to a typical Apple, Microsoft, .... software license.

However, from a commercial software developer's point of view the GPL is like having your limbs chained together, being tied up inside a solid metal box and then being thrown in to the ocean.


So, should I conclude from your reply that you do not agree with the FSF's goals and philosophy etc because they're not extreme enough ?

No, they are too extreme. They treat software like it's a religious crusade. I'm just pointing out their hypocrisy because I find it funny.

[Ozor Mox]

However, from a commercial software developer's point of view the GPL is like having your limbs chained together, being tied up inside a solid metal box and then being thrown in to the ocean.

How is it anything like that at all? (unless you're being ironic of course!) A commercial software developer would not normally be able to even see any code belonging to anyone that they hadn't written. If they want to use something written under the GPL, the licence the developer chose, but they can't because of a restriction in it, well gee I guess they'll have to write their own software and make money off that instead.

When a developer of software chooses a licence for their software, be it proprietary, GPL, BSD, or anything else, that's that as far as I'm concerned. They wrote it, they get to choose the conditions of its use.

[Spice Weasel]

The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself) asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically-linked library is indeed a derivative work. This does not however apply to separate programs communicating with one another.

Free Software Foundation also created LGPL which nearly identical to GPL, but with additionally permission to allow linking for the purposes of "using the library".

Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving it more tools than the proprietary world.

Also: Anyone seen this? http://en.windows7sins.org/


This page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Hypocrisy.

[Grenage]

The GPL is very useful in allowing others to use the code, while maintaining credit and accessibility; it's not for everyone, that's why there are so many licence types.

[santaslittlehelper]

As I understand it the GPL is not about restricting software but about protecting the freedoms and I am unsure what Linux would be without the FSF and the GPL among other things so even though I might not agree with the FSF on all points I find it hard to see why I should be against them. I am not against the the idea of the open source movement or the umbrella of licenses (which also includes the GPL) that they cover because I don't find it agreeable that all should be restricted to one license only. So what is the issue? That the FSF is purely idealists were the open source movement is more pragmatic and willing to compromise with libre/freedoms through supporting less protective licenses and the acceptance of proprietary software? I am not sure if it is possible to not be on either one or the other side of things however I am fine with both sides and don't see why they can't coexist. So when do the FSF lose me at times that's when they get all up in arms about calling it GNU/Linux and that I get the sense at times that the FSF feels that they can't coexist with the open source movement which isn't exactly good for any dialogue. However that's idealism and if that idealism includes getting rid of concepts like “Intellectual Property” (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html) then I do for one not think that would make the world a worse place.

I don't want to restrict myself to only use libre/free software because it would be to uncomfortable and for me none practical but if I could without being uncomfortable I don't see why I would not prefer libre/free software? That might very well be hypocritical I am fine with that I am not preaching. Also as said before this might be an important issue in terms of software and even if libre/free software in my opinion could contribute to a better society in general it is fare from the most important of issues.

If someone what to pick apart what I wrote and tell me how wrong factual or philosophical I am then I am all for that but I would also appreciate if it could be done within the CoC which in my opinion should also make it fully possibly to mention RMS but hopefully no organization is depended on one person alone so maybe he is not even that relevant.

[cyberhood]

1. Yes, I know that. That doesn't change the fact that I hate the FSF and am glad that I am not in the same state as it for once this year. I can act civil toward the FSF if I want to, but that time has yet to come around.
Great, if you can hate the FSF while remaining civil in a dialectic and not resort to ad hominem, then as far as I'm concerned you're welcome in this thread.


2. DRM screws over paying customers and not pirates 100% of the time. It's amazing how the big media continues to bother with it when it clearly doesn't work.
Exactly, just like the restrictive licenses that Microsoft® and Apple® use in order to restrict their code screws over customers.


3. Defective by Design - ever heard of it? It's one of the FSF's campaigns.
I have heard of it, and I'm pretty sure I understand why GNU/FSF opposes it: because it goes against their basic principles (their philosophy of freedom). If you disagree with DRM you are probably in agreement with a great majority of the GNU/FSF philosophy.


4. Everything that doesn't involve DRM. Forcing "freedom" upon others isn't how I envision freedom. In fact it's actually a bit meaningless once you think about it.
I don't think the GNU/FSF Project is forcing anything upon anyone. I don't see them brandishing any weapons enforcing software developers to use GPL licenses. GNU/FSF can't force anyone to do anything really.


PS: If you want me too I can remove "Stallmangrad" from my OP. I am willing to follow directions if the need so arises.
I don't want you to remove anything. I want you to speak your mind. The idea is not to have an argument, or even a debate for that matter. I want this thread to be a dialectic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dialectic) that we can all learn something from. All I ask is that we all try to avoid ad hominem and stay civil so that we can have a constructive conversation about the topic.

[cyberhood]

Was that a question used to spark a (civilized) debate, or are you honestly wondering why DRM is bad. I'll give my opinion either way, but I wanted to clarify first. Anyway, I'm all for a non-flaming discussion of the afore mentioned philosophy.
I want to know in detail the logic behind disagreement with DRM and simultaneous disagreement with GNU/FSF.

[Spice Weasel]

Exactly, just like the restrictive licenses that Microsoft and Apple use in order to restrict their code screws over customers.


How? Most of their customers never read the licences... the licences don't effect them in any way. The DRM does.

[cyberhood]

@ jerenept & Spice Weasel: please, post your definitions of "freedom" :popcorn:

[cyberhood]

How? Most of their customers never read the licences... the licences don't effect them in any way. The DRM does.
To start with they can pass along copies to others...

[Spice Weasel]

To start with they can pass along copies to others...

I believe that is called "getting software for free". Do you want developers to starve?

The average user has no idea how to make a copy of an OS anyway.

[cyberhood]

I believe that is called "getting software for free". Do you want developers to starve?
No, I believe that we need an entirely different system in place in order to pay software developers for their work that doesn't involve stripping users of every bit of their freedom. Remember, many people write software simply because they enjoy it and they want to volunteer.
I for one donate as much as possible to F/LOSS projects. I've actually donated more for F/LOSS in the 3 years that I've been using it, than I have spent in all the years that I've used proprietary software (which is basically all my life).

The average user has no idea how to make a copy of an OS anyway.
This argument is a red herring. This is no justification for stripping someone of their freedom. What if they're a child/adult user who learns how later on in life?
Please, define freedom as you see it.

[spynappels]

I agree with parts of the FSF but am not willing to limit myself to only using Free software, I want to be able to choose to use proprietary drivers if I want to, that feels more like freedom to me.

[Spice Weasel]

No, I believe that we need an entirely different system in place in order to pay software developers that doesn't involve stripping users of every bit of their freedom.

Like what? Look at the current way the open source world is working. The majority of the development is done by developers in their free time. There are still developers that are paid, but they are mostly working on the kernel. Red Hat is the biggest employer of free software developers. They are a support company who are making money by offering paid support. What about programs? How can you pay someone for developing something similar to Photoshop, which users are not going to want to buy support for?

Then there is Mozilla. They make a profit and employ developers to work on Firefox. Mozilla pays developers with the money they recieve from Google. They have a contract with Google stating that if they have Google's search engine as the default in Firefox, Google will pay them. What if you were developing something similar to Photoshop?

Then there is Google, who are paying developers to produce open source software. Google know that their only real worth as a company is in ads and search engine technologies. They encourage developers to spend maybe one or two hours working on side-projects (for example, Chrome) outside of their "real" work. Google's search engine and advertising technologies are proprietary.


This argument is a red herring. This is no justification for stripping someone of their freedom.
Please, define freedom as you see it.

Why should people care about their "freedom" to modify software?

Personally, I don't see proprietary software as stripping users of their freedom because users don't really care if they have the freedom to modify software or not. Software freedom is not important to 99.9% of the population.

Freedom of speech people care about. Freedom to modify software, they don't.

[cyberhood]

Like what? Look at the current way the open source world is working. The majority of the development is done by developers in their free time. There are still developers that are paid, but they are mostly working on the kernel. Red Hat is the biggest employer of free software developers. They are a support company who are making money by offering paid support.
Providing support is one part of the model that makes F/LOSS software economically viable.


What about programs? How can you pay someone for developing something similar to Photoshop, which users are not going to want to buy support for?
You can click here (http://www.gimp.org/donating/).


Then there is Mozilla. They make a profit and employ developers to work on Firefox. Mozilla pays developers with the money they recieve from Google. They have a contract with Google stating that if they have Google's search engine as the default in Firefox, Google will pay them.
You could click here (https://my.fsf.org/donate/) to support the development of this (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/) and other GNU programs.


What if you were developing something similar to Photoshop?
You can click here (http://www.gimp.org/donating/).


Google's search engine and advertising technologies are proprietary.
Then you can click here (http://www.yacy-forum.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=152) to financially support the developers of the alternative to this mega-monopoly.


Why should people care about their "freedom" to modify software?
Why should people care about freedom at all? IMO, because when people are free to create the most beautiful products/acts/concepts/forms/etc. arise, thrive and are nourished.


Personally, I don't see proprietary software as stripping users of their freedom because users don't really care if they have the freedom to modify software or not. Software freedom is not important to 99.9% of the population.
Freedom of speech people care about. Freedom to modify software, they don't.
I still maintain that this point is a red herring, not to mention a clear exaggeration and stereotyping of users.
Two things... firstly, I would argue that a great majority (99.9% is obviously an exaggeration) are not even aware of the issue of freedom as it concerns software. Back when I was in high school I knew quite a bit about computers. I was in no way an IT guy (nor am I today), but back then I knew vastly more about IT than most of of my friends and family. However, I was completely oblivious to the Linux world, community and philosophy, not to mention the issue of software freedom. It took a lot of work to dig up these ideas from the depths of the internet. The reason, IMO, it takes so much work is because of the complete hegemony of the "duopoly" (in reality we all know it's really a monopoly) in the software industry. They effectively abuse (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criticism_of_microsoft) their position of power (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple) in order to maintain that position of dominance, keep Linux and others out of the game, and they end up squashing freedom and the debate all together. No one is aware of it because the hegemony is so complete. If people knew, they would care. Most people I know are highly critical of Windows® simply because of their experience with such a faulty product (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/IE6). Most don't even know there's an alternative. When I can find the time and sit them down and explain/show them the situation and the alternatives, most of them can't wait to make the switch!
Secondly, most people I know don't go to demonstrations. Does that mean they don't care about the right to freely assemble? No.
Does that mean they should be stripped of their right to freely assemble? Of course not.

[Spice Weasel]

@cyberhood - If you think donations are a solid way to earn a living then you need a reality check. Sorry. I don't know the figures for Linux users that donate to software projects and how much, but it's definitely not enough for developers to live on.

--------------------------------------------

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?

[cyberhood]

@cyberhood - If you think donations are a solid way to earn a living then you need a reality check. Sorry. I don't know the figures for Linux users that donate to software projects and how much, but it's definitely not enough for developers to live on.
Most of my immediate family members run a non-profit and live quite comfortably off donations alone.
And again, you're leaving out the very essential mass of people who develop for the love of developing, not to mention those working to reduce the global the digital divide (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digital_divide) among other charitable projects.

[Spice Weasel]

Most of my immediate family members run a non-profit and live quite comfortably off donations alone.


Sorry. I don't know the figures for Linux users that donate to software projects and how much, but it's definitely not enough for developers to live on.

Should I quit my job developing commercial software so I can develop the GIMP for donations money so I don't restrict my user's freedoms?

[cyberhood]

Should I quit my job developing commercial software so I can develop the GIMP for donations money so I don't restrict my user's freedoms?
You should do whatever pleases you.

[Spice Weasel]

You should do whatever pleases you.

Thank you.

[koenn]

However, from a commercial software developer's point of view the GPL is like having your limbs chained together, being tied up inside a solid metal box and then being thrown in to the ocean.
That applies only to developers (commercial or not) that choose to reuse existing GPL'ed code or programs in their own (commercial) application. As Ozor Mox points out, noone is forcing them to reuse existing code. They can simply write their own stuff.

Also, why don't I hear commercial developers complain about the fact that they can't reuse (someone else's) proprietary code ?




How? Most of their customers never read the licences... the licences don't effect [sic]them in any way. The DRM does.
(some) people ignore the license terms, but that doe not mean the license doesn't apply to them. DRM is one of the ways to enforce that.




Why should people care about their "freedom" to modify software?

Personally, I don't see proprietary software as stripping users of their freedom because users don't really care if they have the freedom to modify software or not [...]
it's more that the right to modify software. It's the entire terms of use thing.

Free software, you use it where you want, how you want, you install it where you like and how many times you like, ...

Non-Free software, you get to comply with all sorts of restrictions + possibly jump through a couple of hoops to get the software to work (deal with hardware dongles or licensing servers, deal with hardware ID's that prevent you to move the software to an other machine in a recovery scenario, ...), keep track of license keys, track installed instances of a program and make sure the number doesn't exceed the number of licenses, set up systems that allow you to deploy software to multiple users while still preventing the users from copying the installers (because that would be unlicensed copying), ...

I'm a sysadmin, I do care about that sort of stuff.

[Quadunit404]

Great, if you can hate the FSF while remaining civil in a dialectic and not resort to ad hominem, then as far as I'm concerned you're welcome in this thread.

Danke.



Exactly, just like the restrictive licenses that Microsoft® and Apple® use in order to restrict their code screws over customers.

That statement was more toward games than other software. I'm a gamer myself - a mixed PC/console gamer at that. I always carefully check a game's product page on Steam to see if it comes with any nasty surprises like SecuROM or GameGuard or whatever. The same goes for other media like CDs and DVDs, but I cannot remember the last time I bought a music CD or DVD. I don't want DRM crap on MY laptop.



I have heard of it, and I'm pretty sure I understand why GNU/FSF opposes it: because it goes against their basic principles (their philosophy of freedom). If you disagree with DRM you are probably in agreement with a great majority of the GNU/FSF philosophy.

I'm all for freedom, but not in the sense that RMS views it.



I don't think the GNU/FSF Project is forcing anything upon anyone. I don't see them brandishing any weapons enforcing software developers to use GPL licenses. GNU/FSF can't force anyone to do anything really.

Explain all the handing out of CDs of the distros the FSF cherry-picked during rallies if they don't want to force "freedom" upon people.



I don't want you to remove anything. I want you to speak your mind. The idea is not to have an argument, or even a debate for that matter. I want this thread to be a dialectic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dialectic) that we can all learn something from. All I ask is that we all try to avoid ad hominem and stay civil so that we can have a constructive conversation about the topic.

Your wish is for the most part my command. As long as I am able to speak my mind in a civilized manner I shall continue to participate. After all, I am trying to abide to the CoC as much as I possibly can (some things I shouldn't say slip out from time to time, but that's because I have difficulty controlling my actions sometimes. <--- Not an excuse, I have some trouble with socializing but over the past month or so I've been working on it.)

[dniMretsaM]

Says that at the end of the GPL.

Also, this on the FSF web site: (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic%22)


SpiceWeasel didn't mean "forcing people to be free". He meant "forcing people into your narrow view of what 'free' is". In fact, I'll quote him:

Ok, my bad for misunderstanding him. Anyway, having the requirement in the GPL for all subsequent code to also be GPL'ed is necessary. Other wise, it's like saying "I am free so I should be free to restrict others."


Explain all the handing out of CDs of the distros the FSF cherry-picked during rallies if they don't want to force "freedom" upon people.

Um, they hand out what they endorse. Not doing so would be kind of stupid. And it's still not 'forcing' anyone. If you prefer a different distro, go get one.

[cyberhood]

Danke.
Bitte.


I'm all for freedom, but not in the sense that RMS views it.
How do you view freedom?



Explain all the handing out of CDs of the distros the FSF cherry-picked during rallies if they don't want to force "freedom" upon people.
If someone hands you something, you don't have to take it... and you certainly don't have to load it onto your computer. I still don't get this "FSF is forcing people" point.

[red_Marvin]

I think in general people need to be more explicit in their statements on why
they think GPL forces freedom on anyone;

Making a comparision I think is accurate here:
---
Alice develops application Alpha,
Bob [wants to] develop application Beta, that is based on Alpha,
Gabe [wants to] develop application Gamma that is based on Beta.

Alice puts Alpha under BSD:
Bob can develop the parts of Beta that is not Alpha as open or closed source.
Gabe's development options depends on Bob's license choice.

Alice puts Alpha under GPL:
Bob has to release Beta as GPL compatible code.
Gabe has to release Gamma as GPL compatible code.

---

If one looks at Bob's options, the BSD license permits more choices and
could be cosidered more free than GPL, while possibly leaving
Gabe out of luck. The GPL however is more equal in distributing the
freedoms and redistribution responsibilities.

I think that the GPL has the moral upper hand here, since Bob got to base
Beta off Alpha it is good tone to grant the same possibilities
to Gabe. GPL makes that part of the license.

With a proprietary license for Alpha, Bob's development depends on what
licensing terms can be negotiated with Alice, and Gabe's options depends
on Bob's terms and under wich conditions Alpha code can be sub-licensed.

This also goes for the open source cases; if Dave wanted to develop Delta,
a proprietary program that is based on either of the other applications.
The open source licenses does not prohibit you from releasing a specially
licensed version of your code under another license.

---

In general I think that FOSS is benefical to the computing world but I don't
really have a dislike for proprietary code, except when stuff like file
formats and protocols are kept secret, that I think hinders
innovation, as well as nonsensical patents.

Debating the merits of FOSS without mentioning Stallman is as difficult as
debating proprietary code without slipping into software patents and
greedy lawyers.

Woah, sorry for the wall of text.

[8_Bit]

This is what I think. Developers should ultimately be able to have full freedom to choose what they do with their software. THEY created and toiled over their work, so THEY should naturally have the right to share it in the way they please. To try to dictate how a developer can share his or her own work is just excessively authoritarian, and reeks of a sense of entitlement.

However, I do agree with RMS on a lot of things he says. Like the ability to know we are not being spied on or having our info stolen or sold. You can't have that with proprietary software.

That is why I think certain types of software should always be free and open source. Programs that deal with very personal data, like mail apps and operating systems, should always be Free as in Freedom.

But programs like games? No. GPL is just unnecessary for those types of programs. Nice to have, yes! But not a requirement.

[dniMretsaM]

I do agree that games are not reqiured to be open source. Especially console games. Mainly because you shouldn't be changing them anyhow (except like custom tracks on Mario Kart Wii to play around with your friends on). I do believe the software that operates them should be free though.

[Dustin2128]

I do agree that games are not reqiured to be open source. Especially console games. Mainly because you shouldn't be changing them anyhow (except like custom tracks on Mario Kart Wii to play around with your friends on). I do believe the software that operates them should be free though.
What?! Shouldn't be changing them at all?! Most of the best games are the best games due to available mod tools and mods. Morrowind, for instance. Doom and quake series too. I doubt the latter titles would still be around today if not for modding.

[jerenept]

@ jerenept & Spice Weasel: please, post your definitions of "freedom" :popcorn:


Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.


That is the entire BSD license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). (excepting the warranty disclaimer).
My definition of freedom. No lawyer-speak, and other such foolishness (Have you ever read the GPL?)

[dniMretsaM]

What?! Shouldn't be changing them at all?! Most of the best games are the best games due to available mod tools and mods. Morrowind, for instance. Doom and quake series too. I doubt the latter titles would still be around today if not for modding.

Ok, I stand corrected. I still don't think it's entirely necessary for all games to be open source.

[Quadunit404]

That is the entire BSD license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). (excepting the warranty disclaimer).
My definition of freedom. No lawyer-speak, and other such foolishness (Have you ever read the GPL?)

The GPL is a convoluted mess in my eyes. Hence why I prefer the BSD license: simple, to-the-point and doesn't force you to hand out anything.

[Dustin2128]

Ok, I stand corrected. I still don't think it's entirely necessary for all games to be open source.
I don't either, but I do like the way id runs things. They release the game, then about 5 years later, they GPL the engine. No artwork or textures or anything, but rest assured, the community fills in the rest and then some. Check out freedoom and open arena, for example.

[jerenept]

I don't either, but I do like the way id runs things. They release the game, then about 5 years later, they GPL the engine. No artwork or textures or anything, but rest assured, the community fills in the rest and then some. Check out freedoom and open arena, for example.

Or Nexuiz.

[Dustin2128]

Or Nexuiz.
Nexuiz is as good as they get. Graphics engine might actually be better than idtech4, which won't be released to us until september.

[cyberhood]

I think in general people need to be more explicit in their statements on why
they think GPL forces freedom on anyone;
...
If one looks at Bob's options, the BSD license permits more choices and
could be cosidered more free than GPL, while possibly leaving
Gabe out of luck. The GPL however is more equal in distributing the
freedoms and redistribution responsibilities.
I think that the GPL has the moral upper hand here, since Bob got to base
Beta off Alpha it is good tone to grant the same possibilities
to Gabe. GPL makes that part of the license.
With a proprietary license for Alpha, Bob's development depends on what
licensing terms can be negotiated with Alice, and Gabe's options depends
on Bob's terms and under wich conditions Alpha code can be sub-licensed.
This also goes for the open source cases; if Dave wanted to develop Delta,
a proprietary program that is based on either of the other applications.
The open source licenses does not prohibit you from releasing a specially
licensed version of your code under another license.
In general I think that FOSS is benefical to the computing world but I don't
really have a dislike for proprietary code, except when stuff like file
formats and protocols are kept secret, that I think hinders
innovation, as well as nonsensical patents.

Wow, very enlightening and clear post. Thanks, I appreciate that example.


Debating the merits of FOSS without mentioning Stallman is as difficult as debating proprietary code without slipping into software patents and greedy lawyers.
About my initial post: leaving Stallman out was not an order, just a suggestion. I really think it's the only way that we can constructively get to the heart of the matter: people's different philosophies of what the word "freedom" is, how and why it's relevant to software, and why it's important to have. As 8_Bit mentioned, the fate of personal data is something many of us are rightly concerned about, among many other issues.
I do think that we could probably have a constructive debate about how effective Stallman's rhetoric and methods are (in my opinion, not effective at all) if we could be mature enough not to resort to ad hominem. But I think that would be best left to another thread... another thread that would eventually probably be closed like has unfortunately happened to all the rest. As I mentioned before, I agree with the philosophy, but I do not agree with how rms goes about "promoting" it. But I think those are two separate issues which should be dealt with separately, IMO.
I think that through this dialectic we are reaching some kind of consensus and that is that we should never give military-style orders to a developer about which license they must adhere to. That's not in the spirit of either freedom or egalitarianism.

[cyberhood]

That is the entire BSD license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). (excepting the warranty disclaimer).
My definition of freedom. No lawyer-speak, and other such foolishness
So you prefer the BSD license?

(Have you ever read the GPL?)Yes, I have.

[Spice Weasel]

I prefer the ISC license:


Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.


Simple, to the point, nothing unneeded.

[cyberhood]

I prefer the ISC license: Simple, to the point, nothing unneeded.
The FSF claims (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) that the ISC license (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ISC_license#cite_note-3) is GPL compatible:

"This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License. It is a free software license, and compatible with the GNU GPL."
Does this mean that you agree with FSF on something other than DRM?

[dniMretsaM]

With the posting of the ISC license, I think I'll repost my views on a license requiring/not requiring all subsequent code to be licensed under the same license (in this case, the GPL). Just because you are free (to modify, distribute, whatever) doesn't mean that you should be free to restrict others (by making something proprietary). Doing so, in my opinion, is abusing freedom. That is why I believe that the GPL requiring future code to also be published under the GPL is a good thing.

Now time for a legalities question. If something is registered under an open source license that allows people to make derived code proprietary, can a company take that piece of software, make it proprietary, and then sue the owner of the open source code claiming that the open source code was stolen from them? I don't know if this has, or even could happen, but I've always wondered.


Does this mean that you agree with FSF on something other than DRM?

Someone is poking sticks. :)

[koenn]

Now time for a legalities question. If something is registered under an open source license that allows people to make derived code proprietary, can a company take that piece of software, make it proprietary, and then sue the owner of the open source code claiming that the open source code was stolen from them? I don't know if this has, or even could happen, but I've always wondered.

I think that, at least theoretically, it is possible.


But since the code is proprietary, the company would have to prove that someone had means and opportunity to "steal" (or copy) it.


Then, it source files carry copyright notices and change logs indicating who wrote the code, and when. Most licenses require you to maintain those notices when you copy the code. And open source is usually very visible - in public ftp servers, publicly readable repositories, etc. That would probably help to establish when the open source code was created, and the company would have to prove their code predates the open source code.



I think SCO tried to pull this off in a case against IBM, and failed.

[dniMretsaM]

I think that, at least theoretically, it is possible.


But since the code is proprietary, the company would have to prove that someone had means and opportunity to "steal" (or copy) it.


Then, it source files carry copyright notices and change logs indicating who wrote the code, and when. Most licenses require you to maintain those notices when you copy the code. And open source is usually very visible - in public ftp servers, publicly readable repositories, etc. That would probably help to establish when the open source code was created, and the company would have to prove their code predates the open source code.



I think SCO tried to pull this off in a case against IBM, and failed.

Thanks. I figured it would be hard to pull off. But if it was a small company or just a single developer who owned it, it could potentially cause a lot of problems (like financial issues) and cause them to lose the license. That would really stink.

[3Miro]

With the posting of the ISC license, I think I'll repost my views on a license requiring/not requiring all subsequent code to be licensed under the same license (in this case, the GPL). Just because you are free (to modify, distribute, whatever) doesn't mean that you should be free to restrict others (by making something proprietary). Doing so, in my opinion, is abusing freedom. That is why I believe that the GPL requiring future code to also be published under the GPL is a good thing.


That is my understanding. The only freedom that GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom.

There is a difference between "freedom" and "right". Under "Jungle Law" I have the "freedom" to beat another person. Under Civilized Law (as in most if not all countries), a person has the "right" to not get beaten. If I live under Civilized Law, then I will have less "freedom", but only under Civilized Law can I have "rights". In the "Jungle Law" I can beat, but also get beaten.

BSD gives "freedom". GPL gives "rights", for it not only gives the four "freedoms", it also protects them.

[dniMretsaM]

That is my understanding. The only freedom that GPL takes away is the freedom to take away other people's freedom.

There is a difference between "freedom" and "right". Under "Jungle Law" I have the "freedom" to beat another person. Under Civilized Law (as in most if not all countries), a person has the "right" to not get beaten. If I live under Civilized Law, then I will have less "freedom", but only under Civilized Law can I have "rights". In the "Jungle Law" I can beat, but also get beaten.

BSD gives "freedom". GPL gives "rights", for it not only gives the four "freedoms", it also protects them.

Interesting comparison. But it's to the point. The only comparison I could think of was the white Americans enslaving Africans just because they could. Yours is much better though.

[red_Marvin]

Now time for a legalities question. If something is registered under an open source license that allows people to make derived code proprietary, can a company take that piece of software, make it proprietary, and then sue the owner of the open source code claiming that the open source code was stolen from them? I don't know if this has, or even could happen, but I've always wondered.

No, allowing proprietary derivations is not the same thing as relinquishing copyright ownership of the original code.

[dniMretsaM]

No, allowing proprietary derivations is not the same thing as relinquishing copyright ownership of the original code.

Just because it's not possible within the legal bounds of the license doesn't mean a company couldn't do it through trickery.

[red_Marvin]

Just because it's not possible within the legal bounds of the license doesn't mean a company couldn't do it through trickery.

Yes, it crossed my mind that I should have included something about that case
in my previous post, but I didn't as I meant that there is no support for that
kind of behaviour in the law ...the rest is up to the smarts and domain
knowledge of the people involved in such a lawsuit, and that could vary.

[3Miro]

So guys what are talking about here. We have the intention of a legal document and the actual implementation of it. Often times, the implementation is imperfect.

Are we talking about the intentions of GPL or how well it achieves its goals.

[alaukikyo]

Also: Anyone seen this? http://en.windows7sins.org/



Hypocrisy.

Obviously you have not read much about rms .


When it comes to copyrighted works, Stallman says he divides the
world into three categories. The first category involves “functional”
works – e.g., software programs, dictionaries, and textbooks. The
second category involves works that might best be described as “testi-
monial” – e.g., scientific papers and historical documents. Such works
serve a purpose that would be undermined if subsequent readers or
authors were free to modify the work at will. It also includes works of
personal expression – e.g., diaries, journals, and autobiographies. To
modify such documents would be to alter a person’s recollections or
point of view, which Stallman considers ethically unjustifiable. The
third category includes works of art and entertainment.
Of the three categories, the first should give users the unlimited
right to make modified versions, while the second and third should
regulate that right according to the will of the original author. Re-
gardless of category, however, the freedom to copy and redistribute
noncommercially should remain unabridged at all times, Stallman in-
sists. If that means giving Internet users the right to generate a hun-
dred copies of an article, image, song, or book and then email the
copies to a hundred strangers, so be it. “It’s clear that private occa-
sional redistribution must be permitted, because only a police state
can stop that,”

[alaukikyo]

It's not like the GPL is restrictive at all, right?

It is like someone is giving you a knife under the condition that you can't kill anyone .

[alaukikyo]

That is the entire BSD license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause). (excepting the warranty disclaimer).
My definition of freedom. No lawyer-speak, and other such foolishness (Have you ever read the GPL?)

well all the BSD supporters miss the point by lightyear . BSD does not ensure that every user of that software ( or any modified version) will have the 4 freedoms . GPL on the other hand does Exactly this .

suppose company X has made a hardware product Y now they want to write the driver for it . they see 75% of the code they need has already been released under the BSD license . they take the code complete it and ship it as proprietary software . now if that code was GPL they would have two choices either take that code and release the driver under the GPL or write whole of it and delay the release of the product and give their competitors a edge . most likely they will release it under GPL and everyone will have the 4 freedoms as opposed to the situation with the BSD code .

[dniMretsaM]

Why is Win7 Sins hypocritical?

[alaukikyo]

Why is Win7 Sins hypocritical?

Spice Weasel thinks that because that page is licensed under


This page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. but what he doen't understand is


It also includes works of
personal expression – e.g., diaries, journals, and autobiographies. To
modify such documents would be to alter a person’s recollections or
point of view, which Stallman considers ethically unjustifiable.it woudn't be ethical if i modify that article to be


stallman thinks anyone not using windows 7 is stupid

[dniMretsaM]

Spice Weasel thinks that becuase that page is licensed under



but what he doen't understand is



it woudn't be ethical if i modify that article to be

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, I would consider wrong to modify articles (except maybe for grammar/spelling mistakes and things). That would be like invading somebody's mind and making them say something against their will.

[zekopeko]

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, I would consider wrong to modify articles (except maybe for grammar/spelling mistakes and things). That would be like invading somebody's mind and making them say something against their will.

Except that once you release a modified article you aren't misrepresenting the authors viewpoints but simply adding your own. There is a clear distinction what is made by the original author and what was modified.

[zekopeko]

It is like someone is giving you a knife under the condition that you can't kill anyone .

The GPL doesn't preclude anyone from using Free software to kill people.

[3Miro]

it woudn't be ethical if i modify that article to be:

"stallman thinks anyone not using windows 7 is stupid"



You are right. The thing is that quote mining and misrepresenting what other people have said is a problem that has existed forever and I don't see copyright law making this any better. Claiming that RMS said this or that is protected under the US first amendment.

People dealing with journalism or science can deal with the unethical editing and quote mining without copyright law (which again, doesn't help at all).

[3Miro]

The GPL doesn't preclude anyone from using Free software to kill people.

????? What are you taking about? The analogy is that preventing a person from killing others is not really taking away their freedom. If you with to call it limitation on freedom, then you should distinguish between a "freedom" and a "right". See my earlier posts on the difference.

Preventing you from killing people is not an infringement on your rights. In the same way, preventing you from creating proprietary software is not an infringement on your rights. Rights go both ways, if you have the right to live, then you must give others the same right. The only way to protect the rights of freedom-software is to give everyone else the right of freedom-software.

PS: just to clarify, we are talking about free as in freedom, there is nothing preventing you from charging and making money from GPL code.

[alaukikyo]

Preventing you from killing people is not an infringement on your rights. In the same way, preventing you from creating copyrighted software is not an infringement on your rights. Rights go both ways, if you have the right to live, then you must give others the same right. The only way to protect the rights of freedom-software is to give everyone else the right of freedom-software.

PS: just to clarify, we are talking about free as in freedom, there is nothing preventing you from charging and making money from GPL code.

just a little correction GPL itself uses copyright and the word you are looking for is proprietary software .

[3Miro]

just a little correction GPL itself uses copyright and the word you are looking for is proprietary software .

Thanks! I fixed it.

[zekopeko]

????? What are you taking about? The analogy is that preventing a person from killing others is not really taking away their freedom. If you with to call it limitation on freedom, then you should distinguish between a "freedom" and a "right". See my earlier posts on the difference.

I missed that analogy. Should have let the coffee kick in. I thought that alaukikyo was making a moral analogy . I do agree with you on that.


Preventing you from killing people is not an infringement on your rights. In the same way, preventing you from creating proprietary software is not an infringement on your rights. Rights go both ways, if you have the right to live, then you must give others the same right. The only way to protect the rights of freedom-software is to give everyone else the right of freedom-software.

So where exactly is the problem? I think that most people opposed to the FSF have a problem with their black and white worldview when the world is anything but that.


PS: just to clarify, we are talking about free as in freedom, there is nothing preventing you from charging and making money from GPL code.

This is the weakest part of the whole Free software movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price.

[alaukikyo]

So where exactly is the problem? I think that most people opposed to the FSF have a problem with their black and white worldview when the world is anything but that.


google is an example of a grey company in fsf's worldview .



This is the weakest part of the whole Free software movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price.

well if you put your free software application in the android marketplace it gets popular most people would buy it.

[3Miro]

I missed that analogy. Should have let the coffee kick in. I thought that alaukikyo was making a moral analogy . I do agree with you on that.


Glad to clear things up.



So where exactly is the problem? I think that most people opposed to the FSF have a problem with their black and white worldview when the world is anything but that.


Under the FSF philosophy (or at leas the way I understand it), software freedom is a right, more specifically 4 rights. You either respect them or you don't. There may be gradations on abuse, but almost giving someone a right is not the same as giving them the right.

You can argue that GPL is too restrictive, but FSF does recognize BSD and other licenses as "freedom software".



This is the weakest part of the whole Free software movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price.

How is Red Hat making money, when people can use CentOS for free?

I can think of a few points:

1. A company that respects freedom can benefit from the formation of a community. Canonical and Red Hat benefit from many people contributing to freedom software and neither Canonical nor Red Hat pay for that. Those two can run at a very low cost compared to Microsoft.

2. You can sell support for the software. Red Hat can charge as much as they want for support and access to their servers for timely updates. If you have a company and use a community product like CentOS, then you either have to deal with whatever the community gives you (which in the case of CentOS is not quite the same) or you have to work to build the community yourself. Both alternatives cost you, for a company, the "free" software isn't really free.

3. Drivers in particular should never be proprietary, as free drivers means better hardware support, which means better hardware sales (not so much now as MS controls the market, but then we get in the whole unfair competition thing, which is a different topic).

4. I don't mind paying a few bucks every month/year for access to the Ubuntu or Red Hat servers.

[zekopeko]

google is an example of a grey company in fsf's worldview .

Google is a proprietary company from FSF's view. They distribute proprietary software and provide propriatary services.


well if you put your free software application in the android marketplace it gets popular most people would buy it.

Until somebody takes it and releases it for 0$. People look for lower prices and if the thing is the same as a paid product they will go for free.

[alaukikyo]

You can argue that GPL is too restrictive.

But that would stupid since it has already been used over 9000 times and is flawed . GPL just does not allow you to take away the 4 freedoms and that's it whereas BSD allows that .

[alaukikyo]

Google is a proprietary company from FSF's view. They distribute proprietary software and provide propriatary services.


Wrong.


(http://guiodic.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/richard-stallman-interview/) Google does things which are good, things which are neutral, and things which are bad.
Google distributes non-free programs, including the Google Earth client, and the Javascript programs used for Google Docs and some other services. This is definitely bad.
I think it is most useful to judge these separate activities separately, in the case Google or any other company whose activities include good and bad.

[zekopeko]

Under the FSF philosophy (or at leas the way I understand it), software freedom is a right, more specifically 4 rights. You either respect them or you don't. There may be gradations on abuse, but almost giving someone a right is not the same as giving them the right.

You can argue that GPL is too restrictive, but FSF does recognize BSD and other licenses as "freedom software".

BSD is a Free Software license as defined and recognized by the FSF. It's just not copyleft.


How is Red Hat making money, when people can use CentOS for free?

I can think of a few points:

1. A company that respects freedom can benefit from the formation of a community. Canonical and Red Hat benefit from many people contributing to freedom software and neither Canonical nor Red Hat pay for that. Those two can run at a very low cost compared to Microsoft.

2. You can sell support for the software. Red Hat can charge as much as they want for support and access to their servers for timely updates. If you have a company and use a community product like CentOS, then you either have to deal with whatever the community gives you (which in the case of CentOS is not quite the same) or you have to work to build the community yourself. Both alternatives cost you, for a company, the "free" software isn't really free.

3. Drivers in particular should never be proprietary, as free drivers means better hardware support, which means better hardware sales (not so much now as MS controls the market, but then we get in the whole unfair competition thing, which is a different topic).

4. I don't mind paying a few bucks every month/year for access to the Ubuntu or Red Hat servers.

This is all fine and dandy but you haven't answered my question. How can you sell Free software if anyone can undercut you without investing a penny?

Red Hat has to move a lot of product to make even a fraction of money as the proprietary companies.

[zekopeko]

Wrong.

[URL="http://guiodic.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/richard-stallman-interview/"]

By that definition Microsoft is also in FSF's grey area since they distribute plenty of software as Free software.

EDIT: Actually you said it was in FSF's grey area but the FSF only has a black and white view which RMS's quote nicely shows.

[koenn]

This is the weakest part of the whole Free software movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price.
The money in Free Software isn't in selling bits, it's in added value.

Free software is big in infrastructure and middleware : os kernels, dns and dhcp servers, tcp/ip stacks, implementations of routing protocols, database engines, programming languages, IDEs, libraries, frameworks, ...
The way to make money is treat those as "half finishe products" and use them to build something people are willing to spend money on.

Apple computers and Android smartphones are an example, but there are hundres or thousands like that : HP Networking, Netapp NAS and SAN devices, VMware with ESX and Virtual Appliances, and numerous devices and appliances s.a. routers, access points, gps devices, set top boxes, cars, ...

An other way of adding value is selling expertise and throw in the software as a bonus. That's what IBM does : they sell "IT solutions" and implement them with linux and other open source software. There's a (much smaller) project called Alfresco : they sell their document management expertise (and implement it with alfresco software).


For such companies, it not only makes sense to use free software, but also to support it (with money or contributed code) because it reduces their development costs and potentially increases their development speed
(that may be one reason Windows Phone 7 will have a hard time catching up in the smartphone market)


I think that in the future, the importance of free software will increase, as the trend to commodotize software will expand to include more and mpre end user applications ( "cloud" and software as a service are steps in that direction) - it makes perfect sense, for a provider, to build those on commodity software while the customer is willing to pay for the convenience or the cost-reducing effects of it.

Sucks if your business is based on a 1980s business model of selling bits produced from secret source code - that's free market for ya.

[lucazade]

@koenn
great analysis, I believe there isn't anything to add.

[koenn]

@koenn
great analysis, I believe there isn't anything to add.

There's the whole branch of internet businesses, where you build a web shop on top of open source commodity software, or build a web site or a web service (search, blog, social networking sites, ....) on top op open source infrastructure and make money from membership fees, advertising, etc.

but these seem to be "1 in a million", so I left them out. I don't like too

Post was getting long, and I don't like ads, anyway.

[zekopeko]

The money in Free Software isn't in selling bits, it's in added value.

Free software is big in infrastructure and middleware : os kernels, dns and dhcp servers, tcp/ip stacks, implementations of routing protocols, database engines, programming languages, IDEs, libraries, frameworks, ...
The way to make money is treat those as "half finishe products" and use them to build something people are willing to spend money on.

Apple computers and Android smartphones are an example, but there are hundres or thousands like that : HP Networking, Netapp NAS and SAN devices, VMware with ESX and Virtual Appliances, and numerous devices and appliances s.a. routers, access points, gps devices, set top boxes, cars, ...

An other way of adding value is selling expertise and throw in the software as a bonus. That's what IBM does : they sell "IT solutions" and implement them with linux and other open source software. There's a (much smaller) project called Alfresco : they sell their document management expertise (and implement it with alfresco software).


For such companies, it not only makes sense to use free software, but also to support it (with money or contributed code) because it reduces their development costs and potentially increases their development speed
(that may be one reason Windows Phone 7 will have a hard time catching up in the smartphone market)


I think that in the future, the importance of free software will increase, as the trend to commodotize software will expand to include more and mpre end user applications ( "cloud" and software as a service are steps in that direction) - it makes perfect sense, for a provider, to build those on commodity software while the customer is willing to pay for the convenience or the cost-reducing effects of it.

Sucks if your business is based on a 1980s business model of selling bits produced from secret source code - that's free market for ya.

There are a number of flaws in your argument. First one is that you are actually talking about open source not Free software. One is a development model and the other is a moral/ethical one.

The second flaw is more serious. The industry is already embracing Free software but simply because it makes more economic sense for them and only for low and mid level software not because they believe in the 4 freedoms. The majority of high level software that those companies are selling is proprietary. And if it isn't proprietary then it is simply complementing their main product such as routers, set top boxes, NASs etc.

Lets look at a your examples.

Apple - kernel and userspace tools are AFAIK open source but anything above that is closed. Their main source of revenue is their hardware.

Google with Android - Google pretty much avoided the GPL as much as they could. The only thing that uses GPL in Android (AFAIK) is the kernel. If a phone manufacturer wants to use Google apps and have the OS branded as Android than it has to pay for those (proprietary) apps.

VMware - high level apps are completely closed source AFAICT.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of companies aren't opening their products simply because it would take away their market advantage. That is way Google isn't releasing the source code to Gmail or Maps.

[koenn]

There are a number of flaws in your argument. First one is that you are actually talking about open source not Free software. One is a development model and the other is a moral/ethical one.

I understand the difference between Free Software and Open source.
However, you raised an objection of an economical nature against Free software :
"This is the weakest part of the whole Free software movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price."

From that perspective, Free software and Open source software are synonyms - much as in real life, "free software licenses and programs" and "open source licenses and programs" are categories that overlap almost completely.

eg your claim can also be written as "his is the weakest part of the whole Open source movement. You can't make money if anybody can repackage your software and sell it at a lower price."[





The second flaw is more serious. The industry is already embracing Free software but simply because it makes more economic sense for them and only for low and mid level software not because they believe in the 4 freedoms. The majority of high level software that those companies are selling is proprietary. And if it isn't proprietary then it is simply complementing their main product such as routers, set top boxes, NASs etc.

Lets look at a your examples.
[...]


Again, I was addressing your perceived flaw in Free software, namely that you wouldn't be able to make money from it.

You do have a point that this adoption of Free or Open Source software does not help to promote awareness about software freedom - something the FSF is not happy about, but the Open source fans will argue this is "by design", they coined the term open source to facilitate adoption of free software by businesses.


You did, however, miss 2 points :
1/ there's more in IT than end user applications. It's exactly my point that there is a wide range of markets where software is a complement to hardware, and that this will be one of the markets were free software will is the rational choice.

2/ Over the past 3 decades, you can see the software business evolve from vertically integrated (a typical product would be a mainfraim + all system and user software from one and the same vendor) to horizontally layered cakes, and the layers becoming Free software from the bottom up : operating systems -> databases, IDEs and frameworks -> higher level frameworks and apps -> ...

your "counter"examples are actually examples of this - Mac's userland, VMware's high level apps, ...



The fact of the matter is that the majority of companies aren't opening their products simply because it would take away their market advantage.
Of course they use free software were it's economically beneficial, and try to stick with proprietary where that seems to make good business sense. Turn that around and you have "businesses will use free software whenever they can get competitive advantage out of doing so". And businesses seem to understand that, and appear to be getting more and more creative in finding ways to do just that. Which means adoption and use of free software will continue to increase.

That does not necessarily mean that there can't be some proprietary icing on that cake.

[zekopeko]

You did, however, miss 2 points :
1/ there's more in IT than end user applications. It's exactly my point that there is a wide range of markets where software is a complement to hardware, and that this will be one of the markets were free software will is the rational choice.

This is of no concern to the Free Software movement. Their stance is that as long as there is no distribution among different subjects there is no need to release your changes.


2/ Over the past 3 decades, you can see the software business evolve from vertically integrated (a typical product would be a mainfraim + all system and user software from one and the same vendor) to horizontally layered cakes, and the layers becoming Free software from the bottom up : operating systems -> databases, IDEs and frameworks -> higher level frameworks and apps -> ...

your "counter"examples are actually examples of this - Mac's userland, VMware's high level apps, ...

How is this relevant? The top layers of the cake aren't open.


Of course they use free software were it's economically beneficial, and try to stick with proprietary where that seems to make good business sense. Turn that around and you have "businesses will use free software whenever they can get competitive advantage out of doing so". And businesses seem to understand that, and appear to be getting more and more creative in finding ways to do just that. Which means adoption and use of free software will continue to increase.

Those creative way today are usually revolving around advertasing with ever increasing intrusions in to one's privacy or proprietary centralised services bundled with the Free product. Both of which FSF doesn't want.


That does not necessarily mean that there can't be some proprietary icing on that cake.

Since this is a GNU/FSF themed thread there can't be any proprietary icing on the cake (at least that is what Free software advocated tell us).

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

[3Miro]

This is all fine and dandy but you haven't answered my question. How can you sell Free software if anyone can undercut you without investing a penny?


You say I have not answered your question, yet the first word on the next line is exactly the answer: you can whatever it is Rad Hat is doing.


Red Hat has to move a lot of product to make even a fraction of money as the proprietary companies.

It is true that Red Hat makes a lot less than MS, but I wouldn't call one billion a small profit. It is not only a matter of how much a company can make, it is also a matter of "how" they do it. A company employing slaves would be much more profitable than one paying its worker a fair wage, yet we don't allow slavery, do we?

There are other options as well. Mandrake used to have the policy that you can share it with a friend, but you cannot put it on a public server for anyone to download. IIRC FSF was totally OK with that restriction.

You can make money out of Freedom Software and many people do that every day. It is just that they make a fair amount of money and don't abuse their clients.

[del_diablo]

zekopeko: "This is of no concern to the Free Software movement. Their stance is that as long as there is no distribution among different subjects there is no need to release your changes."
Care to explain what you are attempting to point fingers at?
If I make a device, and use open stuff to get it working, if large enough parts of the driverssection of this "open stuff" requires GPL, then I am also forced to give out the driver for my stuff.
Also: I am forced to give out patches, etc.....
Which is a good thing for the community, because it means that their code gets updates.
Unlike the BSD stuff, where stuff gets ripped, and nothing is returned to the project.

[koenn]

This is of no concern to the Free Software movement. Their stance is that as long as there is no distribution among different subjects there is no need to release your changes.

Selling devices that run free software counts as distribution of those bineries, which in turn are subject to licenses which may require making source code available to the recipients of the binaries. The GPL is one of those.




How is this relevant? The top layers of the cake aren't open.

1/ you missed the scenarios where the icing is indeed open - the "sell expertise" model (eg IBM), the "sell support" model (eg RedHat), the "sell functionality, not software" (Cloud, SaaS, ...), et

2/ you are missing the trend from a closed full stack to layers opening up from below. trends tend to continue, therefore it is to be expected that the upper layers will gradually open up further . this is already the case in the models mentioned under 1/ - we'll see what other models emerge.

It's relevant because it shows free software is a viable option, even for businesses.



Those creative way today are usually revolving around advertasing with ever increasing intrusions in to one's privacy or proprietary centralised services bundled with the Free product. Both of which FSF doesn't want.

Since this is a GNU/FSF themed thread there can't be any proprietary icing on the cake (at least that is what Free software advocated tell us).

So from FSF's viewpoint how are Free software developers to earn their bread?
Free software developers earn their bread working on the lower layers.
That someone bundles their software with proprietary programs is something the explicitly allow in the licenses they use - including the GPL. So you have no point there.

That they, at the same time, advocate for free alternatives over those proprietary solutions is a good thing - re the intrusions into one's privacy you mention and DRM hassle others mentioned earlier in this thread.

If that requires yet another business model for free software, I'm sure one will emerge sooner or later. It's a matter of creativity and entrepreneurship. I'm surprised every day at what people manage to sell, so the average entrepreneur's imagination exceeds mine by far.

[zekopeko]

You say I have not answered your question, yet the first word on the next line is exactly the answer: you can whatever it is Rad Hat is doing.

Apparently that didn't work for Novell and... errr I can't remember any other big company with a similar business strategy. Gee I wonder why.


It is true that Red Hat makes a lot less than MS, but I wouldn't call one billion a small profit.

Red Hat makes $900 million in revenue not profit. Their profit is $90 million. Two different things.


It is not only a matter of how much a company can make, it is also a matter of "how" they do it. A company employing slaves would be much more profitable than one paying its worker a fair wage, yet we don't allow slavery, do we?

Holy nonsensical analogy Batman! You'll have to explain to me how making proprietary software is similar to slavery. Do they own their employees? The (US) Constitution, contract law, worker rights, human right, civil right all go through the window once you get a job at a company that produces proprietary software? Why would anyone want to work there.


There are other options as well. Mandrake used to have the policy that you can share it with a friend, but you cannot put it on a public server for anyone to download. IIRC FSF was totally OK with that restriction.

This is the part I'm fuzzy about. I think that works as long as you provide the source code of the binaries. How you will limit distribution of binaries is another matter.


You can make money out of Freedom Software and many people do that every day. It is just that they make a fair amount of money and don't abuse their workers.

If you have to dabble into defamatory speculation to try and make an argument you have nothing of value to say.

[zekopeko]

zekopeko: "This is of no concern to the Free Software movement. Their stance is that as long as there is no distribution among different subjects there is no need to release your changes."
Care to explain what you are attempting to point fingers at?
If I make a device, and use open stuff to get it working, if large enough parts of the driverssection of this "open stuff" requires GPL, then I am also forced to give out the driver for my stuff.
Also: I am forced to give out patches, etc.....
Which is a good thing for the community, because it means that their code gets updates.
Unlike the BSD stuff, where stuff gets ripped, and nothing is returned to the project.

The GPL works only when you distribute software. You could take the Linux kernel (as Google did), heavily modify it (as Google did), put it on 100s of 1000s of servers (as Google did) and never release your changes.

[3Miro]

Holy nonsensical analogy Batman! You'll have to explain to me how making proprietary software is similar to slavery. Do they own their employees? The (US) Constitution, contract law, worker rights, human right, civil right all go through the window once you get a job at a company that produces proprietary software? Why would anyone want to work there.


You really have trouble understanding those analogies. I am pointing out that corporate profits are not the only thing of importance. Freedom for the user is also important. If Freedom Software leads to corporations making less profit, then I see no problem.

If we assume that profit for the corporations is the most important thing and we let corporations do whatever they want to make more money, then we might as well allow slavery. Yet we don't allow slavery even if it leads to smaller profits.

We set minimum wage for employees even though it leads to less profit for the companies.

We require food products to pass inspection, even though it means less profit for the companies.

We should require all (or almost all) software to be freedom software even if it means less profit.

Also note that a billion in revenue is used to pay salaries to the developers. Smaller profit for the company doesn't mean less money for the actual developers, it means less money for Wall Street.

Red Hat is the shining example of things done right.

If Novel in trouble, they have been playing the black sheep for a while, so I wouldn't be surprised. Even so, it had a pretty good run.

There should be more companies getting into the FOSS business, the current situation is that those are too few.

[zekopeko]

Selling devices that run free software counts as distribution of those bineries, which in turn are subject to licenses which may require making source code available to the recipients of the binaries. The GPL is one of those.

I half-read that sentence and didn't see the hardware bit. I'm more interested in a pure software model without looking at the hardware-software bundle.


1/ you missed the scenarios where the icing is indeed open - the "sell expertise" model (eg IBM), the "sell support" model (eg RedHat), the "sell functionality, not software" (Cloud, SaaS, ...), et

I didn't miss them. I just said that all of those are complementary to their main product be it expertise, support or the cloud (which the FSF doesn't like)


2/ you are missing the trend from a closed full stack to layers opening up from below. trends tend to continue, therefore it is to be expected that the upper layers will gradually open up further . this is already the case in the models mentioned under 1/ - we'll see what other models emerge.

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


It's relevant because it shows free software is a viable option, even for businesses.

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.


Free software developers earn their bread working on the lower layers.
That someone bundles their software with proprietary programs is something the explicitly allow in the licenses they use - including the GPL. So you have no point there.

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.

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.


That they, at the same time, advocate for free alternatives over those proprietary solutions is a good thing - re the intrusions into one's privacy you mention and DRM hassle others mentioned earlier in this thread.

So how is one to make money from Free software?


If that requires yet another business model for free software, I'm sure one will emerge sooner or later. It's a matter of creativity and entrepreneurship. I'm surprised every day at what people manage to sell, so the average entrepreneur's imagination exceeds mine by far.

So that is a "I don't know".

[zekopeko]

You really have trouble understanding those analogies. I am pointing out that corporate profits are not the only thing of importance. Freedom for the user is also important. If Freedom Software leads to corporations making less profit, then I see no problem.

If we assume that profit for the corporations is the most important thing and we let corporations do whatever they want to make more money, then we might as well allow slavery. Yet we don't allow slavery even if it leads to smaller profits.

We set minimum wage for employees even though it leads to less profit for the companies.

We require food products to pass inspection, even though it means less profit for the companies.

We should require all (or almost all) software to be freedom software even if it means less profit.

It's pretty amazing how much you can write without actually addressing my comment.

You wrote and I quote:


It is not only a matter of how much a company can make, it is also a matter of "how" they do it. A company employing slaves would be much more profitable than one paying its worker a fair wage, yet we don't allow slavery, do we?


You can make money out of Freedom Software and many people do that every day. It is just that they make a fair amount of money and don't abuse their workers.

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.


Also note that a billion in revenue is used to pay salaries to the developers. Smaller profit for the company doesn't mean less money for the actual developers, it means less money for Wall Street.
Red Hat is the shining example of things done right.
If Novel in trouble, they have been playing the black sheep for a while, so I wouldn't be surprised. Even so, it had a pretty good run.

Yeh Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook etc. don't pay their employes. Evil buggers.http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif


There should be more companies getting into the FOSS business, the current situation is that those are too few.

I wonder why there aren't more companies in pure Free software.

Now just to make a statement. 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.

[del_diablo]

The GPL works only when you distribute software. You could take the Linux kernel (as Google did), heavily modify it (as Google did), put it on 100s of 1000s of servers (as Google did) and never release your changes.

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

[3Miro]

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.

Yeh Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook etc. don't pay their employes. Evil buggers.http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif


Fair enough. The last word should have been "client". The companies abuse the clients, not workers. The clients have their freedom taken away.

My bad on the wording.



I wonder why there aren't more companies in pure Free software.

Now just to make a statement. 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.

The main reason why companies make proprietary software is because they can. They do it to make more profit. So long as they take away the freedom of the users, then they are not doing right by their users. Just like in the examples that I listed above, the software companies shouldn't be allowed to make profit from the abuse of their clients.

[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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nonprofit_organization) 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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hacker_%28term%29) enjoy solving problems creatively as a hobby.
2. People who are working tirelessly for the cause of bridging the digital divide (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Noam_chomsky), who make the argument that current company models (http://www.archive.org/details/The_Corporation_), like the Microsoft® model, are tantamount to wage slavery (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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 (http://www.bs-s.com/cases/c-microsoft-vizcaino.html) sources (http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm) here (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm) for (http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/06/senators-companies-with-mass-layoffs-shouldnt-hire-more-foreign-workers.ars) just one of the companies (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criticism_of_microsoft) 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 (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).

[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 (http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/spearhead/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 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open-source_hardware) & Open design (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_design)