The future of FOSS

[Ozor Mox]

Do you think that free and open source software has gained enough momentum to carry on regardless of what companies or individuals do?

I'd like to think it is, because I'm still not sure where I stand on it. Maybe I'm thinking about this too much as someone who's only been using Ubuntu for a month, but it's difficult to get away from it when operating systems such as it are built around these ideals.

It's hard to know where someone like me should draw the line. I need a usable system. I need Flash, MP3, Java, and various other codecs, plugins and small applications to be able to view web content, listen to my music, etc. Well ok, that's not entirely true. I could avoid websites using this content, re-rip all my music to OGG, and whatever else but at what point does one value these ideals over their convenience? I mean, if I don't value the ideals, maybe the operating system I'm using right now won't even exist in the future.

I have nothing really against closed software, though I use open source alternatives wherever possible (and I call my system Ubuntu or Linux if someone asks!). This seems to be the stance of most trying to find a balance between FOSS ideals and having there own workable desktop.

A further point is, of course, how can free software ever expect to take off while all these important (arguable of course) codecs and applications do not work out of the box, but then the market is defined by us. Technically, we can all make for example OGG the dominant format over MP3, one individual at a time. Is this not the right way to go about it?

It's all pretty damn complicated of course. I'm particularly interested in the views of newcomers to Linux, as we get a pretty rapid exposure to all these issues. First I wanted my Ubuntu system to work properly as a desktop computer. Now it does, and all these other things come to light.

[deanlinkous]

*carry on*? it is free software so it will always "carry on* and it has for many years now...

Well, you ripped your music to mp3 not knowing if that company would be around, or if the patent would be tightened, or what form of control would be exerted on that format. Why not rip to ogg where anyone is free to create software that plays it, there is no company to worry about and no worries about any control issues? ogg seems to make MORE sense to me.

Free software takes off just the way it has, by people choosing what free software provides not trying to load it with all the junk and make it provide more and more and more because there will always be more. The thing is we have enough codecs/formats so why do these proprietary companies keep adding more and more? It is to (attempt) control of the market, control of you, and control of your computer. Why would anyone be a willing pawn to that?

Not complicated at all. :D Something different by definition should be *different*, accept the *different* or go back to the same ol' same ol'

[justin whitaker]

I have no doubt that Linux/FOSS will stand...I think the question is more in the closed source guys' court: can your business model compete with Free?

That said: most of what you point out requires some level of compromise at this point. Often, the best solution is not the winner in the public market place (ogg v. mp3), and proprietary codecs and code are everywhere (how many copies of Flash MX are legal?).

What I would say is: use flash, etc., for now, and become active in supporting and using non-proprietary stuff.

[Ozor Mox]

Sorry for being vague with "carry on". What I meant by that was from what I understand, as soon as something is released under the GPL, its source code is released and therefore all of the free software we have included in a distribution like Ubuntu to form all the essential parts of the operating system will always remain free to use, modify and distribute. Therefore the stakes of individuals and companies are not important at this time in the continuation of FOSS. This is what I've picked up so far.

But what about the other free software/open source licenses? For example, doesn't the BSD license, which allows closing of the source, mean that the original distributor of it can close it off (unlike the GPL) and stop it being available, or am I missing something?

I'll stick by my original method, which is to use open source alternatives where possible but install proprietary codecs and applications where necessary to make things work properly. I'm happy with this as long as FOSS will always remain, even in the most extreme situations like Canonical run out of money, companies stop supporting Linux, Microsoft come up with some sort of strategy to try and get rid of FOSS, and so on...

I suppose I'm after some sort of reassurance that I'm investing my time learning to use something perpetual, permanent, not dependent on anything in particular to survive. I'm also eager to learn about this new world. I didn't realise when I installed Ubuntu that I'd be getting much more than an operating system!

[dca]

Hmmm, the purpose from the perspective of RH, Novell, & Canonical is to make money on Linux by providing support to people who choose to run the OS in a production or enterprise capacity. Nothing else. Now, the one thing I like that separates Canonical/Ubuntu from the RH/Fedora & Novell/Suse, et al is the fact the same vers you d/l & install for free from Canonical is the same exact vers they support...

[DoctorMO]

Oooh now that would be a great application to include in ubuntu by default 'Convert my crap to ogg' where it can search for all mp3s, accs or other formats video or audio and convert them all :-) be a nice small project too.

[Ozor Mox]

That would be a good application, I'd use it! It'd be way easier than re-ripping all my music (which took ages!)

I've been seeing if I could understand these free software licenses and found this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences

So basically any software released under any of the licenses here is approved by the Free Software Foundation as software that has been released free and will remain free (as in speech) on top of being open source? I note that Linux, GNU, Xorg, Firefox, BSD and apparently any software that makes up free operating systems like Ubuntu and all the applications that go with them are listed here. If I am understanding this correctly, that this free software is in fact perpetual, then I will be satisfied! :)

[maniacmusician]

Oooh now that would be a great application to include in ubuntu by default 'Convert my crap to ogg' where it can search for all mp3s, accs or other formats video or audio and convert them all :-) be a nice small project too.
ehh. I shudder at the thought of converting one lossless format to another.

[darweth]

I like Flash games. MP3 is sadly the standard when it comes to pirating music (unless you go the FLAC right and avoid that path). I will not use Intel graphics until they can match the power of Nvidia/ATI. Damn, I am screwed!

[mac.ryan]

So basically any software released under any of the licenses here is approved by the Free Software Foundation as software that has been released free and will remain free (as in speech) on top of being open source? I note that Linux, GNU, Xorg, Firefox, BSD and apparently any software that makes up free operating systems like Ubuntu and all the applications that go with them are listed here. If I am understanding this correctly, that this free software is in fact perpetual, then I will be satisfied! :)

So, let me satisfy you at first: yes the free software is potentially perpetual. There is however a war against it by some big corporations (hemm... guess who?) which passes through legal issues (software patents) and technical issues (the Vista HDCP-enabled-hardware policy)... So hard times might come (or might not...).

The thing about free software "on top" of being open source is kind of confusing. Many (if not all) of the Open Source advocates intend Open Source as being the same of Free Software (hence the FLOSS acronym).

The real difference (very important though!) is that free software sets the 4 basic freedoms as defining elements of "free software" (the source being open is just a mere consequence here), while open source advocates speak of a "developing model" based on having the source available, and the coding being co-operative (the freedoms are consequences, here).

In other words: free software is a social and political idea, affecting technology (to say it like Stallman: "free software is essentially about freedom, not software"); while open source is a business/development model affecting society and politics.

[deanlinkous]

I'm happy with this as long as FOSS will always remain, even in the most extreme situations like Canonical run out of money, companies stop supporting Linux, Microsoft come up with some sort of strategy to try and get rid of FOSS, and so on...

I suppose I'm after some sort of reassurance that I'm investing my time learning to use something perpetual, permanent, not dependent on anything in particular to survive. I'm also eager to learn about this new world. I didn't realise when I installed Ubuntu that I'd be getting much more than an operating system!
Well, free software does not depend on Canonical for money. Ubuntu is funded by canonical but if you can use Ubuntu then you can easily use other distros. Companies contribute to free software but free software will not die if they stop. But companies will not stop supporting/contributing to free software because they gain from it as well. People will not stop even if the companies do.

What I was trying to say earlier is that your concerns about longevity and existance should be more directed at the non-free software companies than at free software. I would be much more worried about the future of say OS/2 than I would free software. Oh wait, microsoft has done killed OS/2. More concerned about novell netware than I would free software. Oh wait, microsoft has killed that one too.

Debian has been around since the early 90's and so has Slackware and RedHat isnt going anywhere either as the one company that does linux and has been profitable for many years.

Companies may come and go - free software lives forever........

Microsoft has also stepped on MANY company toes, and all thsoe companies are now looking to get a little payback. Free-software is something they can all contribute to, all gain from, and frees them from being at the mercy of microsoft and the *only* operating system available for them to have users.

[mac.ryan]

Companies contribute to free software but free software will not die if they stop. But companies will not stop supporting/contributing to free software because they gain from it as well.

According to Bruce Perens (OSI) the amount of money going in R&D in a proprietary software is in average 14%, the amount of money going in R&D for a free software is in average >50%. Also, free software is the main road to explore some technological field which economical productivity is doubtful, as it allows to share the risk and maximize the investment. [The above data were presented at the WSIS 2005]

[Ozor Mox]

The thing about free software "on top" of being open source is kind of confusing. Many (if not all) of the Open Source advocates intend Open Source as being the same of Free Software (hence the FLOSS acronym).

Yes I was aware of this, and I said that because I was seeing free software as offering open source but something over and above this, i.e. freedom to use/modify/redistribute etc., although open source by definition does offer those things anyway. Bit misleading, sorry.

One other thing I wondered. Copyleft licenses like GPL mean all future works must be licensed with the same freedoms as the original, spreading free software in the process. Licenses like BSD and X11 and Mozilla I think are not though (despite being approved by FSF), so what exactly is it that stops the originators of the source (i.e. FreeBSD, X11, Mozilla themselves) from closing the source? Would this mean that all future versions of it are proprietary and only older versions could continue to be used and distributed as free software? Is this illegitimate or just not desired?

Thanks for your explanations so far (everyone), you've certainly cleared up a lot of my confusions and helped me understand this better.

[Mathiasdm]

ehh. I shudder at the thought of converting one lossless format to another.

I'm guessing you mean lossy ;)

[deanlinkous]

According to Bruce Perens (OSI) the amount of money going in R&D in a proprietary software is in average 14%, the amount of money going in R&D for a free software is in average >50%. Also, free software is the main road to explore some technological field which economical productivity is doubtful, as it allows to share the risk and maximize the investment. [The above data were presented at the WSIS 2005]

uh okay

[mac.ryan]

Licenses like BSD and X11 and Mozilla I think are not though (despite being approved by FSF), so what exactly is it that stops the originators of the source (i.e. FreeBSD, X11, Mozilla themselves) from closing the source? Would this mean that all future versions of it are proprietary and only older versions could continue to be used and distributed as free software? Is this illegitimate or just not desired?

I am not a lawyer, but I would guess things are like this:

Given that...
The author of any software, owns the intellectual property of the written code (source and binary).
An intellectual property owner (IPO), is automatically entitled to a given set of exclusive rights on the intellectual property.
An IPO can decide whether to keep the IP (and therefore those rights) and using them (copyrights AND copyleft) or giving them away (public domain). [see my signature for more infos on why copyleft is a form of copyright]
Once the software is licensed, the license can't be changed (unless specifically indicated in the license itself, i.e. with a time expiry, or with some other clause).I would infer that...
Mozilla, X11, but also the FSF could decide tomorrow morning to change the license of what they produce (indeed, they already do it when they "update" a license to an "updated version")...
...but this license would be applicable only on software downloaded from them as from that moment onwards (not on already downloaded software).Logically, if Mozilla Foundation would decide to close the source of Firefox and begin to sell "Firefox 3.0", somebody would take Firefox 2.0 sources and do a "fork" from there and keep it free... with the same legal basis that allows ubuntu to "fork" from Debian, Joomla from Mambo, OpenOffice from StarOffice, etc...

So basically, "closing" the source from a given moment onwards is (I guess) totally legal and possible for the legitimate IPO, but - as a matter of facts - totally ineffective....

[nonewmsgs]

and for those chess minded people there was only one major chess server ICS internet chess server and it moved to propriatary as well becoming internet chess club ICC, but it was also split successfully into FICS free internet chess server.

i was always wondering about splits like that. an excellant point indeed.