PDA

View Full Version : Aren't licensing issues getting a little absurd?



jondecker76
June 6th, 2007, 10:28 PM
I don't understand the Ubuntu licensing purpose (or of many Linux distros for that matter). Why is everyone so against proprietary software and drivers? I thought freedom of choice would mean that I can choose open source or propritery software - in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)
DOn't get me wrong, I like open source, and love the concept. But why strong-arm everybody into it? Think about it - most people with an nvidia card will choose the proprietery drivers! shouldn't "Linux for human beings" try to supply what people want?
I also don't get the legal codec issues. Why can't someone pay the licenses and distribute Ubuntu with these installed, and be completely legit? I for one would happily pay. But then again, would this break the licensing issues??

On top of that, can they just have a popup on the first run that automatically installs codes/proprietery drivers with a warning that 1)These are not open source and unsupported and 2)only to accept to download IF it is legal in the country in which you reside or if you own appropriate licenses.

Is there something I'm not getting? I personally feel that until these issues are resolved, people are going to be afraid of linux. I'd like to know how others feel about this.

jgrabham
June 6th, 2007, 10:32 PM
I think software developers have the right to patent/copyright their software. I dont like some companys, but I dont just go around hating all big corporations. It depends on what the company does, dirty underhand business tactics turn me against certain companies, I think everyone should get the chance to compete.

Somenoob
June 6th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Someone's attitude will not prevent someone else from choosing what he/she wants. It's in human nature to recommend publicly what one is enthusiastic about. Even those in favour of the closed-source philosophy are like this.

karellen
June 6th, 2007, 10:42 PM
I don't understand the Ubuntu licensing purpose (or of many Linux distros for that matter). Why is everyone so against proprietary software and drivers? I thought freedom of choice would mean that I can choose open source or propritery software - in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)
DOn't get me wrong, I like open source, and love the concept. But why strong-arm everybody into it? Think about it - most people with an nvidia card will choose the proprietery drivers! shouldn't "Linux for human beings" try to supply what people want?
I also don't get the legal codec issues. Why can't someone pay the licenses and distribute Ubuntu with these installed, and be completely legit? I for one would happily pay. But then again, would this break the licensing issues??

On top of that, can they just have a popup on the first run that automatically installs codes/proprietery drivers with a warning that 1)These are not open source and unsupported and 2)only to accept to download IF it is legal in the country in which you reside or if you own appropriate licenses.

Is there something I'm not getting? I personally feel that until these issues are resolved, people are going to be afraid of linux. I'd like to know how others feel about this.

you have the freedom to install the applications you want, free, open-sourced or closed-sourced. you have the freedom to choose windows, linux, os x and so on. what's the problem? understand that ubuntu is free (gratis) so it's absurd to just say "somebody pay the license". who? mark shuttleworth? he already pays a lot (with little chances of ever seeing his money come back, it you ask me). if you want non-free stuf and so on there are plenty of other distros (see freespire, or even pclinux os which comes with all the codecs installed). ubuntu does well what it does: warns you then lets you download what you need

Zwalther
June 6th, 2007, 10:49 PM
I don't understand the Ubuntu licensing purpose (or of many Linux distros for that matter). Why is everyone so against proprietary software and drivers? I thought freedom of choice would mean that I can choose open source or propritery software - in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)

You are free to install proprietary software on you Ubuntu system, it is just that Ubuntu won't provide you that software. A lot of proprietary software is not freely distributable.

'People' (which includes me) are against proprietary software for several reasons. You are of course free to choose it, but that will mean that you give up some other freedoms. For example the freedom to inspect what the software is really doing (remember the Skype software secretly sending information about the computer to the distributor of Skype). Also you loose the freedom to fix or improve the software (for example the bugs in the proprietary nvidia driver). And last but not least, you loose the right to make copies for your friends and family. For more about this see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html


On top of that, can they just have a popup on the first run that automatically installs codes/proprietery drivers with a warning that 1)These are not open source and unsupported and 2)only to accept to download IF it is legal in the country in which you reside or if you own appropriate licenses.

I think this problem is resolved in Feisty. It should popup something that will prompt you to download a codec the first time you need it. In Feisty it is also fairly easy to install proprietary drivers.


Is there something I'm not getting? I personally feel that until these issues are resolved, people are going to be afraid of linux. I'd like to know how others feel about this.

I think Ubuntu handles these problems pretty well. But I think the best solution is to use free drivers and free codecs. If you want other people to be able to see you movies or listen to your music, why use formats that are secret, cost money or are not freely usable in another way?

HotShotDJ
June 6th, 2007, 10:54 PM
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070606120901152

I think this article explains the issue pretty well. Liberty is difficult to obtain and very easy to loose. If you, as an individual, prefer to sign away your freedoms by accepting restrictive, proprietary EULA's, you have that choice even with a Linux based operating system. Novel and Xandros are trying to sign away everybody's liberties on their own. Ubuntu must not go down that path.

If you feel liberty is absurd, you have that right. But you'll get no support from me.

Lord Illidan
June 6th, 2007, 10:59 PM
I don't understand the Ubuntu licensing purpose (or of many Linux distros for that matter). Why is everyone so against proprietary software and drivers? I thought freedom of choice would mean that I can choose open source or propritery software - in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)
DOn't get me wrong, I like open source, and love the concept. But why strong-arm everybody into it? Think about it - most people with an nvidia card will choose the proprietery drivers! shouldn't "Linux for human beings" try to supply what people want?
I also don't get the legal codec issues. Why can't someone pay the licenses and distribute Ubuntu with these installed, and be completely legit? I for one would happily pay. But then again, would this break the licensing issues??

On top of that, can they just have a popup on the first run that automatically installs codes/proprietery drivers with a warning that 1)These are not open source and unsupported and 2)only to accept to download IF it is legal in the country in which you reside or if you own appropriate licenses.

Is there something I'm not getting? I personally feel that until these issues are resolved, people are going to be afraid of linux. I'd like to know how others feel about this.

It's done in Feisty, and very well too. The restricted drivers manager downloaded my nvidia drivers, and also downloaded mp3 codecs and so forth.

23meg
June 6th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)

You don't have the freedom to choose anything on a default install, since Ubuntu comes in one CD and provides a fixed set of software instead of letting you choose packages at install time, which you can easily modify later on.


DOn't get me wrong, I like open source, and love the concept. But why strong-arm everybody into it? Think about it - most people with an nvidia card will choose the proprietery drivers! shouldn't "Linux for human beings" try to supply what people want?,

Ubuntu goes to great lengths to accomodate non-Free software needed by large numbers of its users, that it doesn't necessarily approve. Examples: Multiverse repository, easy codec installer, restricted component, restricted driver manager.


I also don't get the legal codec issues. Why can't someone pay the licenses and distribute Ubuntu with these installed, and be completely legit?

Because we don't like those codecs. We don't want to legitimize and help their proliferation and widespread use. It's better to keep them off the default installation, but easily installable by those who need them. And if you must have them installed by default, there are Ubuntu derivatives that ship them installed by default.



On top of that, can they just have a popup on the first run that automatically installs codes/proprietery drivers with a warning that 1)These are not open source and unsupported and 2)only to accept to download IF it is legal in the country in which you reside or if you own appropriate licenses.

Is there something I'm not getting?


Welcome to June 2007.

jondecker76
June 7th, 2007, 02:21 AM
Concerning "somebody paying for the licenses", i meant the end users. For example, I would gladly pay for all these pre-installed and have a completely legal system.

Like it or not, i would venture to say that 90% of American Ubuntu users are under some type of infringement and doing so both illegally and with knowledge. Yet you see the same people talking about freedom and morals. I just don't understand why a "package" isn't available where an end user can pay for the actual right to use this stuff and have a legit system, In the same respect, Dell could sell Ubuntu pre-installed with a small fee to cover licensing issues and have a true out-of-the box system. But there are so many restrictions with free and open-source software that it will never happen, and I find that a shame. One, because it will be harder to reach a broader audience and Two because actual holders of the license of proprieteay formats aren't even given the chance to profit off of their work.

However, I love linux and Ubuntu and like the philosophy - i just think its a little too strict and could do a better job of respecting people that need the security of their trade secrets.

saulgoode
June 7th, 2007, 03:13 AM
You seem quite able to recognize the right of creators of software to say "you can't share our software unless you pay us" so why is it so hard to recognize the right of creators of software to say "you CAN share our software as long as you let those with whom you share also share it"? Shouldn't you be concerned about respecting the people whose efforts provide you with Free Software in the first place?

tehkain
June 7th, 2007, 03:24 AM
Concerning "somebody paying for the licenses", i meant the end users. For example, I would gladly pay for all these pre-installed and have a completely legal system.

Like it or not, i would venture to say that 90% of American Ubuntu users are under some type of infringement and doing so both illegally and with knowledge. Yet you see the same people talking about freedom and morals. I just don't understand why a "package" isn't available where an end user can pay for the actual right to use this stuff and have a legit system, In the same respect, Dell could sell Ubuntu pre-installed with a small fee to cover licensing issues and have a true out-of-the box system. But there are so many restrictions with free and open-source software that it will never happen, and I find that a shame. One, because it will be harder to reach a broader audience and Two because actual holders of the license of proprieteay formats aren't even given the chance to profit off of their work.

However, I love linux and Ubuntu and like the philosophy - i just think its a little too strict and could do a better job of respecting people that need the security of their trade secrets.

That package is coming with ClickN'Run. Not everyone lives in the states and has a legal issue about the dvd and mp3 rights. I tho do live in the US and I do use the DVD and MP3 codecs and I talk about morals. Personally I consider software patents immorale so that is why I do not care about my codecs. Gotta love being able to patent a mathematical formula.

the_darkside_986
June 7th, 2007, 03:26 AM
No, I have had it with closed-source software. Today, I tried to run some stupid Action Replay DS updater that is Windows-only and Wine couldn't run it. I e-mailed Datel nicely suggesting they release a Linux binary port but they'll probably send some stupid remark or at best, nothing back at all. There is no ****ing good reason why I should have to use something like Wine to run that, I mean, when was the last time a Windows user had to set up cygwin (unix-environment for windows) to run something good? Now if some company releases a trainer for the DS that includes multi-platform open source update software then I will cast my vote for them with my wallet. Also what really pissed me off is the encrypted 512 MB drive. Next time my nephew brings Action Replay DS, then I will experiment with decrypting the contents of the drive using good old commands like dd, hexdump, etc. since all devices are a file.

BTW, closing the source of software does not protect trade secrets. Competitors are obviously knowledgeable enough to reverse engineer stuff. Also, Ubuntu Linux is not just some easy replacement of Windows for idiots who don't know how to avoid clicking banners and getting malware.

The whole point of using GNU/Linux is to use a FLOSS system. If one gladly pours in closed-source software into their system without dreading it then they should be using Windows or Mac OS X. Those systems work well sometimes and contain plenty of closed-source software available for purchase. (Well, at least Windows does.)

[/end of rant] I'm just pissed at closed-source software today. More than usual, that is.

Syke
June 7th, 2007, 08:41 AM
I would gladly pay for all these pre-installed and have a completely legal system.

There are Linux distibutions that do pay the fees, and in return they charge you $50 to download their distributions. You may have noticed Ubuntu is downloadable for free.


In the same respect, Dell could sell Ubuntu pre-installed with a small fee to cover licensing issues and have a true out-of-the box system.

They sure could. Why don't you ask them why they're not doing that?


But there are so many restrictions with free and open-source software that it will never happen, and I find that a shame.

You have it backwards. It's the proprietary software that is causing these complications and restrictions. Not the open source community.

mohammadrizki
June 7th, 2007, 10:47 AM
jondecker76: I don't understand the Ubuntu licensing purpose (or of many Linux distros for that matter). Why is everyone so against proprietary software and drivers? I thought freedom of choice would mean that I can choose open source or propritery software - in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source (not on a default install anyways)

But there are so many restrictions with free and open-source software that it will never happen, and I find that a shame.


Syke: You have it backwards. It's the proprietary software that is causing these complications and restrictions. Not the open source community.

Man, Syke is right the problems come from the proprietary side not the open source community. You can buy proprietary stuff with your freedom, though I will not encourage you to do this. For me, it is wonderful to have the source, because the source will help me to learn not only to be END USER, but hopefully FUTURE DEVELOPER, and I don't mind paying with my money and efforts. :popcorn: Yummy!


Syke, I agree with you. Viva open source!

Bachstelze
June 7th, 2007, 12:18 PM
in fact, its the opposite! I don't have the freedom to choose closed source

Rubbish. You're perfectly free to install whatever non-free software you want.

Eddie Wilson
June 7th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Sometimes it depends on what you want to do with your computer. I have to use a closed source program to do what I have a right to do, (backup my bought and paid for dvds). I don't want to, but thats a lot of money that I don't want to take a chance on losing. If I could find an open source app that would take care of my backups I would jump on it. Other than that I love to use just open source all the time. Alas, the world is not a nice place.
Eddie

DoctorMO
June 7th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Concerning "somebody paying for the licenses", i meant the end users. For example, I would gladly pay for all these pre-installed and have a completely legal system.

Yes but who should you pay? it's such a mess that it doesn't seem like there is any one person that owns the mp3 format. for instance the open source mp3 player is under a FLOSS licence the only reason it's not included by default is because of stupid software patents which it seems more than one company owns. so you have to go around giving money to everyone just to make sure? stuff that you might as well just give money to the open source programmers who made the software because they're getting the real raw deal in all this; no reward, no money and no credit for open sourcing formats.

ssam
June 7th, 2007, 05:17 PM
the GPL only restricts you from doing things and then distributing them.

i can download the linux kernel (or any other GPL program), make some changes to the code and run it on my computer. i did not need to publish that new code.

however, if i want to distribute my modified kernel (a derived work), i need to make the source code available.

shipping a linux operating system with closed source programs is fine.

with modules and plug ins it can get complicated to define what is a derived work, and what is a separate program. some say that a shipping a linux kernel with a closed source module is illegal. most people think that shipping a kernel with a script to download a closed source module is ok.

ubuntu want the entire content of the install disk to be open source, so that people to copy and modify it. If it included closed source software they generally could not do that. ubuntu need permission to be allowed to include closed source firmwares on the cd.

codec licencing is a different issue. if you want to pay the licence fee to use mp3 or wma then have a look at https://shop.fluendo.com/

forrestcupp
June 7th, 2007, 05:48 PM
At some point in the future, Ubuntu probably will include some non-free things by default. There was debate over including proprietary drivers in Feisty. Soon they will be releasing their purist totally Free version of Ubuntu, which implies that the regular version may have some non-free stuff by default.

But in the meantime, they make it almost effortless to install these things if you have internet connection. Codecs are automatic when you try to open a file, and nvidia/ATI drivers are automatically installed by using the Restricted Drivers Manager.

It's not really something to complain about anymore.

DoctorMO
June 7th, 2007, 06:16 PM
with modules and plug ins it can get complicated to define what is a derived work, and what is a separate program. some say that a shipping a linux kernel with a closed source module is illegal. most people think that shipping a kernel with a script to download a closed source module is ok.

which it isn't; because to build a kernel module you have to include kernel headers which are GPLv2; as soon as you give it to someone else you've violated the GPLv2 on those headers because your module isn't GPLv2. This is why ATI and nVidia have GPLv2 driver stubs that exist in the standard kernel because it wouldn't be legal to make a proprietory kernel module (at all).

23meg
June 7th, 2007, 09:44 PM
At some point in the future, Ubuntu probably will include some non-free things by default. There was debate over including proprietary drivers in Feisty. Soon they will be releasing their purist totally Free version of Ubuntu, which implies that the regular version may have some non-free stuff by default.

Ubuntu already includes some non-Free things by default. The new version wouldn't be an excuse to get more non-Free stuff into vanilla Ubuntu. Some proprietary drivers and firmware have been shipped since Warty. The distinction Ubuntu makes here is that drivers and firmware needed for a large number of machines and essential functions can be included as default, but they'll be kept well separated and easily uninstallable. However, non-Free applications and codecs will always be kept out of the default install, while they'll be kept easily installable whenever allowed by their terms of distribution.

jondecker76
June 7th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I agree with a lot of what is being said here. I still would like to see NVidia drivers and some more printer drivers ship out of the box in the future. Yes, I see the point in keeping with open source software, but I still think that closed source drivers need included and I don't see what it hurts.
THe automatic codec and restricted drivers in feisty is decent, but does not always work. Look at the new dell support forum for all of the problems people are having geting NVidia drivers to work on them - for some reason the restricted driver manager isn't quite up to the task yet. And the automatic codec downloading has failed for me many many many times to the point that I had to find out how to install them manually, which isn't horrible but it isn't as functional as many have made it out to be.

23meg
June 7th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Please file bugs.