They say Linux will always be free but...

[wersdaluv]

I am a ex-Windows power user who just migrated to Linux about a month ago. The reason why I migrated to Linux is because of the Open Source Philosophy.

Yesterday, I was trying to convince a typical Windows user to migrate to Linux by stating the Free software philosophy but he was not very convinced. He said that he didn't know much about Linux. He only knew that Linux is a rival of Windows that is why Linux is trying to have more users by means of that "free software gimmick." When the day of Linux arrives, things will change, he said. Software won't be free anymore and people will do business with Linux.

I don't know if that will happen but I think it is possible.

What do you think?

[BWF89]

I'm not sure the "day of Linux" will ever arrive and that Linux will ever become more than a Windows alternative. But if Linux did gain the majority desktop market (51%) you would see a mix of open source and proprietary software. You'd have people running mostly open source software with proprietary software for stuff like image editing and 3D graphics design.

[meng]

Your friend doesn't understand how Linux started, how it has continued to develop, and the community that perpetuates it. I doubt that we will ever get to the point where ALL software is free, but I am sure that most of what is now free will remain so.

[IYY]

I am a ex-Windows power user who just migrated to Linux about a month ago. The reason why I migrated to Linux is because of the Open Source Philosophy.

Yesterday, I was trying to convince a typical Windows user to migrate to Linux by stating the Free software philosophy but he was not very convinced. He said that he didn't know much about Linux. He only knew that Linux is a rival of Windows that is why Linux is trying to have more users by means of that "free software gimmick." When the day of Linux arrives, things will change, he said. Software won't be free anymore and people will do business with Linux.

I don't know if that will happen but I think it is possible.

What do you think?

I don't believe that your friend understands what the term "Free" means when we talk about Free software, nor does he understand the GPL. "Free" does not mean $0, it means "liberated". It means that the source code is available for everyone to see, and not only that, but that every modification that will be done to that source code, by anyone, must (and this is a legal contract) be Free as well.

This rule forces this operating system to always remain Free, no matter what Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Mark Shuttleworth or any other person desires.

As for price; it is perfectly legal and even encouraged to sell your own version of Linux. In fact, RedHat and Suse already do so, very successfully. The catch is that even if you do sell your operating system, the code must still be available, so anyone can compile it whenever they wish. This means that the price they charge is really for support (and some nonFree artwork and third-party-programs), and not for the operating system itself.

So yes, Linux will always remain free, and there is absolutely nothing to fear.

As for Ubuntu in specific, we have a promise (though not a legal contract) from Mark Shuttleworth that this operating system, including all artwork and programs in it, will always be Free as well as free of charge. This promise implies that there would never be an "Ubuntu enterprise edition" that will be charged for.

It also sounds like your friend believes that "Linux" is a company, competing with Microsoft. This is entirely incorrect. While Canonical, Novell and RedHat are companies interested in making money, the operating system itself is not owned by anyone, nor can it ever legally be owned by anyone, and is not being developed for the sake of making money.


When the day of Linux arrives, things will change, he said. Software won't be free anymore and people will do business with Linux.

People do business with Linux today, and have been doing it for years. Companies like Novell and RedHat make a lot of money by selling their enterprise distribution with support. Companies like IBM make even more money by implementing Linux solutions. Google uses Linux for all of their internal operations, as well as on the desktops of their employees (it's Ubuntu, actually). Pretty much all other major Internet companies have Linux servers on which their services operate.

[aysiu]

I think your friend has somewhat of a point but is wrong in terms of the scope.

If Linux becomes more popular, there will, in fact, still be a lot of proprietary software--Photoshop, iTunes, etc.--and that software will probably cost money. But along with Linux, a lot of non-proprietary (and usually cost-free, too) software will probably become more popular--Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.

However, the terms of the Linux kernel license probably won't change significantly. Remember, though, that you are allowed to charge money (even now) for a Linux distribution, and some people do (even now). So if the dominant Linux distributions started costing a lot of money, that wouldn't mean it isn't free... only that it wouldn't be cost-free.

[wersdaluv]

So you think everybody can always edit and redistribute Open source software? I don't know much about it. Having it that way sure is nice.

[aysiu]

So you think everybody can always edit and redistribute Open source software? I don't know much about it. Having it that way sure is nice.
Most open source licenses allow you to edit the code and redistribute the binary freely.

But... you can also usually charge money, too... if you so choose.

[Hex_Mandos]

So you think everybody can always edit and redistribute Open source software? I don't know much about it. Having it that way sure is nice.

Well, that's pretty much the point... You also have the right to fork free software. If Linux (the kernel) became non-free, some (probably most) of the developers would take the last free version, rename it and continue working on it, while keeping it as Free Software. Practically the only reason why Linux continues to be developed is because it's free (as in freedom).

[banjobacon]

When the day of Linux arrives, things will change, he said. Software won't be free anymore and people will do business with Linux.

Well, as far as I know, a large percentage of servers run Linux. This is an example of a business in which many companies are doing business with Linux without affecting how free Linux is.

[EdThaSlayer]

Isn't this what Suse and Red Hat are doing now? But the thing is, that for every improvement on the kernel these guys make they have to give it back to the creators!
Meaning that the "free" distributions can also profit.I mean improve from this.

[astrix]

why should he migrate to something for purely ideological reasons? let him take ubuntu for a spin instead...

[mykalreborn]

linux is already a pretty expensive product:https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/
well, some products, but i'm sure linux will never be what microsoft or apple are, mainely because linux is made by a big community with no leader, and therefore no money-hungry people trying to make a gzilion-milion dollars. linux is not run by an all-seeing eye on top of a piramid (hint :D).
instead people will pay for tech-support. actually they do this for some time now.;)

[Lord Illidan]

So you think everybody can always edit and redistribute Open source software? I don't know much about it. Having it that way sure is nice.

Yes, I can go and download the sourcecode to the kernel and release it under a new name if I wish. But, because its license is GPL, I must preserve the same licence if I release it commercially.


Isn't this what Suse and Red Hat are doing now? But the thing is, that for every improvement on the kernel these guys make they have to give it back to the creators!
Meaning that the "free" distributions can also profit.I mean improve from this.

Yes, CentOS is a free distro based on RedHat. Mandriva was originally based on Redhat. PCLinuxOS is based on Mandriva and is free. SUSE was based on Slackware, which is free. Linspire, commercial was based on Debian which is free.


linux is already a pretty expensive product:https://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/
well, some products, but i'm sure linux will never be what microsoft or apple are, mainely because linux is made by a big community with no leader, and therefore no money-hungry people trying to make a gzilion-milion dollars. linux is not run by an all-seeing eye on top of a piramid (hint :D).
instead people will pay for tech-support. actually they do this for some time now.;)

Actually, Linus Torvalds is the leader of the linux community, at least when it comes to Kernel Development. He has the last word on what goes into the kernel and what doesn't.

What happens when you combine money-hungry people with Linux? You usually get litigation...case in point SCO.

[mykalreborn]

Actually, Linus Torvalds is the leader of the linux community, at least when it comes to Kernel Development. He has the last word on what goes into the kernel and what doesn't.
yeah, but he only leads the kernel development. bu tyou don't see linus coming and saying people from ubuntu what to do and how to do it ;)

[yoshida]

The Linux as we know it is a collection of Open Source projects, that comply to the GNU convention. A Linux OS is mostly a distribution, which you can alter freely. Ubuntu has as many versions as there are users, that's the same with other distro's.
Exceptions are enterprise distros like SuSE and NovelLinux. Those are so-called 'closed-source' distributions. I don't know if Novell tweaked and packaged opensource products into their own distro, but I do know that Novell has paid support, paid media and paid manuals (unless you decide to download and burn OpenSuSE yourself without subscribing to support).

However it may be, to a company migrating to Linux will cost more than all Windows licenses combined. Companies can buy professional support for a certain distro (read: SuSE and Novell), but will always have to rely on Microsoft or on partners who use Microsoft. The business market for operating systems is far greater than the consumer market. Linux is a consumer product, built and maintained by a community who don't market a product to make money with it.

Long story short (wether it makes sense or not): as long as there are community-maintained distro's, there will always be free distro's that are reliable up to a certain point (but not essentially fit for business purposes). There will be closed-source distros with paid support, but there will also be open source distro's with free support (like Linux). But a skilled user shouldn't rely too much on support to begin with (it's always better to obtain knowledge yourself IMO).


The linux-kernel itself will always be free, and opensource. (free as in free beer and free speech)

[doobit]

Sometimes you can predict the future by looking at the past and the direction a certain idea is taking in society. Open source projects and Linux have come from a concept to a point where almost everyone who uses a computer has at least heard of it. That has happened in a relatively short time. The progress of Linux and FLOSS popularity has snowballed in that last three of four years, with Ubuntu coming to the forefront as a desktop Linux. The fact that we are here discussing this today is proof of our interest and involvement. It's a grass roots movement that is growing more and more rapidly, mostly because people, like you and me are part of the community and are talking about it with our friends. You friend may be skeptical now, but may become curious just because you talked to him about Linux, and then will try it out. He may or may not like it, but if he does, then FLOSS has one more convert.

[haxer]

Isnt it going to be like freespire "free" then linspire " costs money" and all support will also cost money if we wouldt have this absolut nice forums like ubuntu forums :) 8)

[prizrak]

Linux (the kernel) will always be free. Any GPL'ed software will be forever free, the license makes sure of that.

[aysiu]

If people are going to continue to discuss this, can we agree to use this convention when talking about Linux?

free = costs no money to obtain

Free = is open source with freely modifiable and distributable code

[Quillz]

Your friend needs to understand that the underlying concept behind the GNU/Linux project is not "free" as in "free beer," but "free" as in "freedom." You are entitled to sell Linux-based technologies (look at Linspire and Red Hat), so long as you do not take away those very rights for others.

[deanlinkous]

I am so forgetful.....when is the "day of linux" anyway? ;)

[saulgoode]

I am so forgetful.....when is the "day of linux" anyway? ;)

I consider September 19th to be the "day of Linux". Arrrh, Matey!

[Atomic Dog]

I would fall over dead if there was a day of no more free linux distros.

[meng]

Most users (and that means most Windows users) have no idea at all what Linux is about, and are quite happy to remain ignorant, which means repeating all the myths they hear about it. Perhaps it helps them to justify (to themselves) their continued use of Windows. I really couldn't care less; I'd much prefer to attract intelligent open-minded users over to Linux.

[Lord Illidan]

I would fall over dead if there was a day of no more free linux distros.

I'd just use BSD

[WalmartSniperLX]

linux can ONLY be free, since it is based on GNU which requires all system parts to be licensed by the gnu licenses, thus making the software open source.

[aysiu]

linux can ONLY be free, since it is based on GNU which requires all system parts to be licensed by the gnu licenses, thus making the software open source.
Yes, but it can cost money.

That's why I proposed we keep free for the money kind of free and Free for the licensing kind of free.

[IYY]

I'd just use BSD

Actually, while Linux does not run the risk of becoming non-free, FreeBSD does. All it takes for FreeBSD to become closed-source and expensive is for a company like Microsoft or Apple to take their product, make it very popular, and then add some closed source "killer feature" that all businesses will want. At this point, no one will be using the original FreeBSD except for a few amateurs. The OS that people will be using will be Microsoft's closed deviation of it, which will start being less and less compatible every day.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

[meng]

Yes, but it can cost money.
That's why I proposed we keep free for the money kind of free and Free for the licensing kind of free.
That's a great idea! EXCEPT what happens if we want to start a sentence with "Free software ..." ?

[wersdaluv]

Yes, but it can cost money.

That's why I proposed we keep free for the money kind of free and Free for the licensing kind of free.

I agree with that. Free in the sense that it costs money is different from free in the sense that people can revise and redistribute it.

[macogw]

That's a great idea! EXCEPT what happens if we want to start a sentence with "Free software ..." ?

Um, then we start it "Free Software..." or "FREE Software"? I go with capitalizing the S in software too when I write out Free Software.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Yes, but it can cost money.

That's why I proposed we keep free for the money kind of free and Free for the licensing kind of free.

ahh I see now :D

[Hendrixski]

I could care less about software being free as in free beer. All the computer parts are run on are paid for by my company and my customers. It may as well all be free of charge. What I care about is if it's free as in free speech. THAT is what counts.

It is the licensing on free software that appeals to most business, not the cost of purchase (which is negligible to the total cost of ownership of a software for a company anyway). Think about this, companies pay $40,000 per CPU for Oracle licenses and don't even sneeze at it... and anything worth having Oracle for requires at least 4 CPU's.

Anyway, Linux won't always be free, if you've enabled the non-free repositories in you etc/apt/sources.list file, then you are already using non-free Linux.

[prizrak]

Um, then we start it "Free Software..." or "FREE Software"? I go with capitalizing the S in software too when I write out Free Software.

This has been settled a while ago but never really caught on. FSF is generally using Libre for free as in freedom and gratis for free as in beer.

[ice60]

i think that's just about the biggest problem GPL'ed software has - getting people to understand what it means.

i think there must be lots of people who think they know what free software means, but if they had a conversation with RMS, RMS would end up having somekind of fit about something :rolleyes:

maybe the easiest way to think about free software is to remember it has nothing what-so-ever to do with money and all about the freedom of programme's code.

so, if i wanted, i could download the ubuntu iso, burn it to a blank cd, write Ubuntu on the burned cd, then sell it at ebay for no less then £1,000,000.

someone (with more money than sense lol) could buy that cd and think "i'm very happy with my purchase of that free software, i like to make a point of only buying free software because i like the idea behind it" :mrgreen:

[prizrak]

Actually, while Linux does not run the risk of becoming non-free, FreeBSD does. All it takes for FreeBSD to become closed-source and expensive is for a company like Microsoft or Apple to take their product, make it very popular, and then add some closed source "killer feature" that all businesses will want. At this point, no one will be using the original FreeBSD except for a few amateurs. The OS that people will be using will be Microsoft's closed deviation of it, which will start being less and less compatible every day.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

The same exact thing can be done with Linux and the same exact thing would happen in both cases - a fork of the existing free code. While the kernel may be untouchable userland is not covered by any such license. No one could stop MS or Apple or anyone else from taking the kernel coding up their own GUI and other high level stuff, providing their own package management and drivers that run in userland. 100% legal and still not free in all the ways that count. TiVo and other embedded systems are a great example of such behavior.

[Shay Stephens]

He only knew that Linux is a rival of Windows that is why Linux is trying to have more users by means of that "free software gimmick." When the day of Linux arrives, things will change, he said. Software won't be free anymore and people will do business with Linux.

Don't confuse free as in freedom with free as in beer. The power of linux is not being able to get it without cost, it's the freedom it affords you. I would use linux whether or not I had to pay for it. I would not use it if it denied me my freedom like windows.

[learning]

[QUOTE=wersdaluv;1956530] He said that he didn't know much about Linux. He only knew that Linux is a rival of Windows that is why Linux is trying to have more users by means of that "free software gimmick." [QUOTE]

Funny to me but, it seems that his friend is confusing GNU/Linux free software (whichever definition you use), with the tactics Microsoft has used when giving out "free software" for a nefarious puropose. Can't everyone remember when new computers came with word processors instead of just a 90-day trial version? The whole explorer/netscape debacle? Just goes to show how MS has tainted everyone's perception of the software industry.

I have to admit I was skeptical at first of transitioning to free software because of the same fear: I would get used to it, then have to pay some outrageous price (due to being locked in) for it later. Lucky for me, I looked into it enough to find out what it (GNU/Linux) is all about.

[DoctorMO]

*sigh*

firstly, even if a product was sold to a user which uses the gpl licence _ANY_ user can go to the company of that product and ask for the source code _without charge_ because money cost is considered a restriction which the gpl prohibits.

So yes you can sell it, not you can't deny someone access to modifications for free that you distribute.


The same exact thing can be done with Linux and the same exact thing would happen in both cases - a fork of the existing free code. While the kernel may be untouchable userland is not covered by any such license. No one could stop MS or Apple or anyone else from taking the kernel coding up their own GUI and other high level stuff, providing their own package management and drivers that run in userland. 100% legal and still not free in all the ways that count. TiVo and other embedded systems are a great example of such behavior.

Well not really since user land has to compile against things and compiling against the kernel which is gpl not lgpl would be a problem. then you have the problem of reproducing all the existing tools of the gnu system without using any of the code and not using any of the gpl libraries.

you might as well just code your own damn operating system, because anyone can still request a copy of the kernels source code for free, so while we havn't gained anything; we havn't been abused either.

The TiVo problem is a problem with hardware not software. it is hardware which prevents the execution of software which is not approved by the _maker_ of the equipment (not the owner) thus making the hardware useless to modify. imagen if someone did that to a Dell PC; you buy it with windows and you _can't_ install anything else because it refuses to run anything but a signed version of windows. *scary* but at least a computer won't be able to come with gnu and prevent unsigned versions executing after gplv3 comes out, but that doesn't stop hardware from being defective by design.

[prizrak]

*sigh*

firstly, even if a product was sold to a user which uses the gpl licence _ANY_ user can go to the company of that product and ask for the source code _without charge_ because money cost is considered a restriction which the gpl prohibits.

So yes you can sell it, not you can't deny someone access to modifications for free that you distribute.



Well not really since user land has to compile against things and compiling against the kernel which is gpl not lgpl would be a problem. then you have the problem of reproducing all the existing tools of the gnu system without using any of the code and not using any of the gpl libraries.

you might as well just code your own damn operating system, because anyone can still request a copy of the kernels source code for free, so while we havn't gained anything; we havn't been abused either.

The TiVo problem is a problem with hardware not software. it is hardware which prevents the execution of software which is not approved by the _maker_ of the equipment (not the owner) thus making the hardware useless to modify. imagen if someone did that to a Dell PC; you buy it with windows and you _can't_ install anything else because it refuses to run anything but a signed version of windows. *scary* but at least a computer won't be able to come with gnu and prevent unsigned versions executing after gplv3 comes out, but that doesn't stop hardware from being defective by design.
Actually it's quite possible to have kernel shims with userland programs that are 100% legal (there is also a huge grey area as far as derivative works go) that's what nVidia does. TiVo issue is more on the hardware side true but what TiVo is, is proprietary software running on a Libre kernel. That's not really the point of course. It is possible to do what I said but unlikely. As you said, might as well just create your own OS at this point. I just think that risks for BSD are overstated. They are about the same as for Linux.

More to the point of this thread, Linux will always be Libre it doesn't have to be Gratis however. Also company can charge for source as well as binaries it just has to be provided. The only catch is the changes don't have to be released under the GPL if the software is not distributed. So Goobuntu (Google's desktop OS) might contain quite a bit of proprietary code and still remain legal as it is not distributed outside of the company.

[Tutu 1234]

I find it funny because as a new convert I've been badgering my gaffer to ditch windows on our new pc and purchase a copy of sage for Linux at the same time. He doesn't care what we run as I'm the only one who does the accounts anyway. In my experience most decent OS alternatives to popular windows programs have windows port's anyway so the issue isn't Linux being more Free (In a commercial sense) it's more that the core OS is open source any malicious changes made would be easily spotted making the OS so much more secure. If a security hole is found in the Kernal patches are in hours not days/weeks as they are in XP and (If so inclined) you can see how they fixed it. With M$ you have to believe they have your best interests at heart and that's something I find hard to swallow.

[patrick295767]

I'm not sure the "day of Linux" will ever arrive and that Linux will ever become more than a Windows alternative. But if Linux did gain the majority desktop market (51%) you would see a mix of open source and proprietary software. You'd have people running mostly open source software with proprietary software for stuff like image editing and 3D graphics design.

The philosophy of Debian is to remain free. That will stay.

Other distro will try to follow their Debian leader ...
Cdrecord, xfree, .... followed the dark side of the force already :(

[Patrick-Ruff]

Isnt it going to be like freespire "free" then linspire " costs money" and all support will also cost money if we wouldt have this absolut nice forums like ubuntu forums :) 8)

clever sig . . . lmao "eat my shorts"