PDA

View Full Version : Open Source/Free Software



Ultra Magnus
June 18th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Hi.

First off I just want to make absolutely clear that this is in no way any kind of flame bait!

I know that there is allot of politics involved with "free software" vs "Open Source", personally I like open source for the technical reasons - I'm a physics undergraduate and open source appeals to me because it seems the more scientific way to develop software - (sharing knowledge and peer review etc), but I don't see it as in free speech, software should be open source because it is the better way of doing things but it isn't a fundamental freedom to be able to view the source code.

Given that free speech is something allot of countries don't have, doesn't it trivialise it to equate free software with free speech?

Anyway - like i said, this isn't flame bait - just interested in peoples views, as there is allot of politics floating around in the open source world - and don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone should be able to find out how things work, but on reading the GNU website it just seems a bit out of proportion.

Thanks

Jim

justin whitaker
June 18th, 2007, 04:33 PM
Hi.

First off I just want to make absolutely clear that this is in no way any kind of flame bait!

I like my flame baiting posters medium rare, whoever is manning (or womanning) the grill.


I know that there is allot of politics involved with "free software" vs "Open Source", personally I like open source for the technical reasons - I'm a physics undergraduate and open source appeals to me because it seems the more scientific way to develop software - (sharing knowledge and peer review etc), but I don't see it as in free speech, software should be open source because it is the better way of doing things but it isn't a fundamental freedom to be able to view the source code.

That's where the silent majority of open source users are. There is, however, a small, vocal group that believes that proprietary software is unethical, immoral, the work of the devil, or otherwise straying from the path of righteousness. There is also a small group of communists that see open source as a way of propagating their political agendas.

Personally, I like Linux and BSD for technical reasons as well. It seems to run better on my machines over all, and as I get to be a better coder, I find not having to spend gobs of money to have the privilege of seeing some source code to be refreshing.

I get my politics and religion elsewhere.


Given that free speech is something allot of countries don't have, doesn't it trivialise it to equate free software with free speech?

Yes, but keep in mind that for Americans, Free Speech is shorthand for a broad collection of rights that are not only in the First Amendment, but permeate the other enumerated rights. Personally, I always thought of open source to be more Due Process based. ;)


Anyway - like i said, this isn't flame bait - just interested in peoples views, as there is allot of politics floating around in the open source world - and don't get me wrong, I believe that everyone should be able to find out how things work, but on reading the GNU website it just seems a bit out of proportion.

The GNU project, and the FSF, have a clear and present political agenda. On the one hand, I don't agree 100% with what they are trying to do, but, on the other hand, openness is not a bad thing, and I am benefiting from their efforts.

So long as I don't have to drink the kool-aid to participate, I am fine.

Ultra Magnus
June 18th, 2007, 04:51 PM
I like my flame baiting posters medium rare, whoever is manning (or womanning) the grill.


I know from reading other posts that people can sometimes get a bit touchy - its funny reading posts where people generally degenerate to name calling and stuff but I don't want to get banned from the forum!!

The GNU project has undoubtably done a great deal for Free software/open source but it just makes me uneasy when RMS starts using words like "tivoisation" and "megacorporations" - Its more the kind of thing I used to write on walls when I was a teenager rebelling against the "establishment"

blastus
June 18th, 2007, 04:57 PM
Proprietary software stops becoming beneficial when it is used to lock people into the software. Proprietary software is simply much more likely to use closed formats/standards than open source software even in the abundance of open formats/standards. I don't have a problem with proprietary software using closed formats/standards as long as there is a good reason (i.e. there are no suitable open formats/standards.)

Other issues with proprietary software are licensing and privacy/security. I shouldn't have to say anything about licensing except that licenses today give vendors all kinds of powers over your business and what you can do with the software. For example, a vendor can demand a software audit in your company and threaten your business with fines. As for privacy/security, no-one can assert that the software does what it is supposed to do and doesn't do anything else (like phone the mothership, use third-party software that does who knows what, etc...)

DoctorMO
June 18th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Free Software advocasy and polotics is the backbone on which the technical advantages grow; to throw that away you endanger your position because you no longer have any real definition on what is and is not permissible.

take a look at what a mess CC licensing is turning into because they didn't want to have that radical group pointing out when people step over the line; and why.

I admire people who can stand up for other people, even in the face of the open source middelist extremists (any point of view as long as it's median) these people aren't speaking from experience or knowledge but rather from the mistaken perspective that anything worth arguing is worth arguing for the middle ground. unfortunately most business leaders and politicians know how to control this group of people by moderating their side or extreamising 'fringe elements' of the other side.

You can tell die hard medians because they just can't bare the fact that open source wouldn't exist without the free software political agenda.

Ultra Magnus
June 18th, 2007, 05:29 PM
open source wouldn't exist without the free software political agenda.

I disagree - Before Microsoft and Oracle, in the 70s most software was what we'd call open source - Allot of stuff was done in the academic community. Open source seems to have gained momentum by virtue of the fact that it is a more natural way to work (ie collaborating with others) especially with the advent of the internet which made it possible for individuals to work together more easily over large distances.

In the tech industry, what gains momentum is what is more profitable, open source will one day be more profitable for the industry as a whole than propriatory software.(maybe not for individual companies - its hard to see how even red hat could get as much money as microsoft)

I know GNU started the road to a free operating system but it wasn't the polital agenda that saw it grow to what it is today.

az
June 18th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Software freedom does not undermine free speech. Being that it is trivial to lose your privacy by using a computer, and that computers are more and more prevalent in our society, people should have the choice to use the software that they want.

When you are forced to use proprietary software and have to give away your rights according to the EULA just so that you can fill out a government form, that's wrong.

I shouldn't have to trade off anything to benefit from using my computer (or listen to music or many other media for that matter).


I disagree - Before Microsoft and Oracle, in the 70s most software was what we'd call open source - Allot of stuff was done in the academic community. Open source seems to have gained momentum by virtue of the fact that it is a more natural way to work (ie collaborating with others) especially with the advent of the internet which made it possible for individuals to work together more easily over large distances.

In the tech industry, what gains momentum is what is more profitable, open source will one day be more profitable for the industry as a whole than propriatory software.(maybe not for individual companies - its hard to see how even red hat could get as much money as microsoft)

There is a reason why the GPL is by far the most popluar free-libre software license. It's because it protects your freedom better than any other licese we have. If you want to argue that FLOSS is great because it just works then why isn't the BSD-type license the most popular?



I know GNU started the road to a free operating system but it wasn't the polital agenda that saw it grow to what it is today.

I am dissapointed when people think this. You can have it both ways. You don't have to be a zealot to appreciate software freedom. The goal is to keep the software free (free to obtainand use, free to study, free to modify and free to redistribute). Curring IP laws are not inherently compatible with that concept without a little help. You can't separate software liecensing from pointing out the inadequacies of IP law.

That doesn't mean you want to change the world, or make everyone use free and only free software, but it does mean you have to inform people and create a licese which can do something about it.

az
June 18th, 2007, 06:15 PM
I believe that everyone should be able to find out how things work, but on reading the GNU website it just seems a bit out of proportion.



Can you be a little specific, please? As it is, it's a blanket statement.

vexorian
June 18th, 2007, 06:37 PM
for very simple, non essential things Freeware software and licenses are probably better than such complicated GPL.

But then you are making an OS, a doc format, a compiler, etc. You'd like the technical advantages of GPL, that means, that everybody else will be able to use it (Just like Freeware), but they would be able to modiffy (just like permissive licenses (zlib, freeBSD, etc) But the catch is that if some "evil" person actually wanted to modiffy and improve it, then release it closed or full with patents thus forking what you made and making it harder for users to live without his modiffications (which considering the companies around IS a real risk) the GPL will protect you from that by forcing the company to keep the GPL if he ever wants to distribute the modificatins and release sourcecode that since, it will still be GPL you will be able to use in your version of the software.

Just this protection causes a lot of implications. This protection is the only pro about the GPL (and it is a very good one) but of course you trade some cons:
- In order to prevent people from just modiffying the software to call a patented/closed thing thus making you unable to use the improvements, GPL must enforce against doing that as well, but then that makes yourself unable to do that and causes all of our favorite problems.
- It must rely on the very copyright system in order to work, else it would be just legaly void.
- Helps competition cause confussion, aka FUD.

Ultra Magnus
June 18th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Can you be a little specific, please? As it is, it's a blanket statement.

I don't think the ideals of free software are bad - in fact I really like them. I think its brilliant because it allows anyone or any country to start their own software industry and means that the money doesn't all flow in one direction. I think its more that the politics of free software are often presented in a brash tone - many references to propriatory software being evil - From a lecture with RMS:-

"Free software is not about the price of software or even about the quality or practicality of it, according to Stallman. It is much more important than that. “This is about ethics,” he said. “That is, good and evil.” "

- software is not inherently evil, propriatory or free - although I'm sure there are very evil things you can do with it.

koenn
June 18th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I disagree - Before Microsoft and Oracle, in the 70s most software was what we'd call open source - Allot of stuff was done in the academic community.
Yes, and Stallman / Free Software Foundation, refers to that era as his inspiration for starting the free software movement.



I know GNU started the road to a free operating system but it wasn't the polital agenda that saw it grow to what it is today.
But it was.
Without something like the GPL, which ensures that work derived from open source software has to be "open source" as well, the FSF made sure that
a/ improvements, enhancements, ... of open source software would remain in the pool of open source software and in turn fuel new/more improvements and enhancements. This is one of the reasons 'open source' as a development method is succesful in creating quality software
b/ open source programmers would remain motivated. For a human being, doing the best you can - often with no financial reward - only to know that some company can harvest what you produce, turn it into a proprietary product, and make a profit, is not really motivating. The GPL aims at preventing that scenario from happening. Motivated programmers are a key factor in open source development.

That illustrates how the philosophy of the FSF (what you seem to call a 'political agenda" and others seem to refer to as 'communism' ) was indeed instrumental in the growth of open source software to what it is today.

vexorian
June 18th, 2007, 07:09 PM
propriatory software being evil It is probably not evil, but it offers plenty of disadvantages, it allows such things as market drugs, monopolies and lock ins.

koenn
June 18th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I think its more that the politics of free software are often presented in a brash tone - many references to propriatory software being evil - From a lecture with RMS:-
"Free software is not about the price of software or even about the quality or practicality of it, according to Stallman. It is much more important than that. “This is about ethics,” he said. “That is, good and evil.” "
- software is not inherently evil, propriatory or free - although I'm sure there are very evil things you can do with it.
I'm not here to speak for RMS - he can do that himself, and quite well - but I think that here the words "good and evil" are to be seen as to clarify the word 'ethics'.
Look at what the freedoms the FSF holds dear : the user's right to use the software as he sees fit, the right the redistribute it, the right to improve the program.
I don't find it such a stretch to say that - eg
-- it's unethical to prevent a user from improving a program if such improvements would make the program more useful to that user.
-- it's unethical to only allow a user to use a porgram in certain conditions or for predefined purposes.
(eg in microsoft's OEM EULA for Windows : "you are only allowed to use the software on the computer that you bought it with" )

If you see Stallman's statement in this context, I think it's quite sensible. Although some people, having watched too many epic science fiction and/or having read certain religious texts, do have a tendency to turn everything black/white, good/evil, our side / dark side ....

az
June 18th, 2007, 07:49 PM
for very simple, non essential things Freeware software and licenses are probably better than such complicated GPL..

Can you clarify what you mean? Because,
1. The GPL is far from complicated.
2. Regardless of the complexity of the app, if I am not free to find out how it works, running the app is a compromise.




- In order to prevent people from just modiffying the software to call a patented/closed thing thus making you unable to use the improvements, GPL must enforce against doing that as well, but then that makes yourself unable to do that and causes all of our favorite problems..

Like what? Non-free modules are not allowed to be shipped as part of the kernel tree. Big deal. Nothing prevents you from running them if you chose. They just cannot become part of the kernel.




- It must rely on the very copyright system in order to work, else it would be just legaly void..

I don't see the problem with this.




- Helps competition cause confussion, aka FUD.

They would do that regardless. There is nothing specific to the GPL that causes that. It's a tactic.


I think its more that the politics of free software are often presented in a brash tone - many references to propriatory software being evil - From a lecture with RMS:-

"Free software is not about the price of software or even about the quality or practicality of it, according to Stallman. It is much more important than that. “This is about ethics,” he said. “That is, good and evil.” "

- software is not inherently evil, propriatory or free - although I'm sure there are very evil things you can do with it.


I think the evil that is refered to here, is not the software itself, nor chosing to run it.

I think the evil is something like software patents, which clearly serve the opposite function as what they are supposed to do, when applied to software. To mislead people by stealing ideas and calling it Intellectual Property is evil. When a sofware idea patent is enforced and that allows a company to sue a developer for having come up with or implemented an idea, with there being any connection between the two project (i.e., no theft, just two people coming up with the same idea independanly), that's evil.

No extremist views, no telling people what they should be running on their own computer, just the facts about what software freedom is about.

forrestcupp
June 18th, 2007, 07:51 PM
I agree with the OP that RMS is a little over-the-edge to the point of sometimes seeming irrational. But I have grown to appreciate the Free Software movement. I have learned to let certain people act and look crazy, and I'll just sit here being me and enjoying the fruits of their craziness.

I don't have a problem using proprietary software or other open licenses when the need arises, but I still love and support FLOSS in a more moderate way. I was actually surprised when I ran the Virtual Richard M Stallman report thing that the only non-free thing I have that really matters is the nvidia binaries.

vexorian
June 19th, 2007, 05:29 PM
1. The GPL is far from complicated. It is extremely complicated.


Like what? Non-free modules are not allowed to be shipped as part of the kernel tree. Big deal. Nothing prevents you from running them if you chose. They just cannot become part of the kernel.

How many linux users complaint about this?

az
June 20th, 2007, 06:50 PM
It is extremely complicated.




Is not!




Is too!




Is not!




Is too!





How many linux users complaint about this?

Are you going to argue that binary-only drivers are a one of free software's shortcomings? I think the opposite - if those drivers were free-libre, they would work right out-of-the-box for everyone.

Anyway, these days the drivers are very well integrated into the distro and very few users experience trouble in using them, when they need them.