PDA

View Full Version : Begin to call ubuntu "Free software" cause "Open source" has lost all relevance



vexorian
October 17th, 2007, 01:54 AM
http://opensource.org/node/207

What? Those patents are full of patent giberish and they actually govern use!!!11 They seem to be designed to be anti GPL and totally viral. This is ridiculous. OSI has betrayed us, seriously.

reza81
October 17th, 2007, 02:05 AM
MS needs this because they are loosing the server-market (10 years now). Free OS's are getting more populair (because they are getting more userfrindly). Now they are loosing ground on there best product ( and they know that). There office products. MS office products is a big thing that makes ppl use MS OS's all around the world. sins Google came with google doc's and (with openOffice) is reducing MS market shares MS is fighting back. If they don't they will get crushed by google.

maniac_X
October 17th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Google came with google doc's and (with openOffice) is reducing MS market shares MS is fighting back. If they don't they will get crushed by google.

Let's not forget that IBM is also throwing out free officesuite as well. Maybe lots of Windoze users never heard of OpenOffice.org but I'm pretty sure that both Google and IBM have huge name recognition, hehe.

Ultra Magnus
October 17th, 2007, 12:48 PM
http://opensource.org/node/207

What? Those patents are full of patent giberish and they actually govern use!!!11 They seem to be designed to be anti GPL and totally viral. This is ridiculous. OSI has betrayed us, seriously.

This is stupid - I don't care if the MS license has been approved as Open Source - It obviously qualified under the OSI terms so to not approve it would show to the world that they are hypocrites and that Open Source is all about Us vs MS - which its not.

Tomosaur
October 17th, 2007, 01:02 PM
MS are just a big fish in an even bigger pond - open source has other concerns than MSs unfounded patent claims. If Microsoft want to try and compete with FOSS, this is how they have to do it. The industry is changing to favour open-source development methods (not necessarily FREE open-source dev methods), and Microsoft are simply jamming their stake in the ground before there's no room for them. For all the noise people make about MS - they don't really have that much of an impact on the FOSS world - they're just trying to keep their market share and we're trying to take it away from them. It's all politics, at the end of the day, and has little to do with open source vs. proprietary software. Once people cross the line into the FOSS world - proprietary, closed technology suddenly seems like a stupid business model - profitable, yes, but insecure in the long run. FOSS development has its problems, but the future looks good for it, as opposed to proprietary development, which is increasingly coming under attack.

It's true that Microsoft does present a big obstacle to FOSS growth, but the impact they actually have is fairly minimal - we do whatever we feel like, and they do whatever they feel like. Occasionally it gets heated, and legal issues are quabbled over, but when it comes down to it - Microsoft attacking FOSS is like you punching a river. Sooner or later you're going to realise that no matter how hard you punch, the water will just rearrange itself around your fist and carry on. No matter how many patents / legal battles MS throw at FOSS, it will eventually just get tired and give up - while FOSS will work around the obstruction and continue as if nothing ever happened.

FranMichaels
October 17th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Tomosaur,

I really like the analogy you've used! I think though with some of the legal tricks, they may be trying to dam the river so to speak. Fortunately though it flows from and to many places ;)

I think MS just wants to get some benefit from the open source model. Which seems reasonable on its part. Here is "our code", modify it, fix it up, thanks for the help. Whether or not developers jump at the chance, is entirely up to them.

Ultimately, if one doesn't approve and agree with OSI, best to ignore them.

As for Free versus Open, I think there should be a distinction. It took me a while to grasp it.

All Free Software is Open Source.
All Open Source is not Free Software.

What makes the Free licenses special (or ironic depending on whom you ask) is that all the rights you have to the software apply to everyone, so it restricts others from taking the Freedom away. :)

Consequently I think it's great, as you give and get. Even if all I do is just tell people to use it, and get some bug reports upstream. It is very worthwhile. :KS

As for open source in general, it can produce wonderful software, and the licenses may be more appropriate depending on if these developers want their code "everywhere" or what have you.

Anyway, let's wait and see what happens, shall we? :)

:popcorn:

Oh yeah, it would be inaccurate to call Ubuntu Free Software only. Although they have something like that right? Gobuntu? The other releases are Free and Open Source, and counting the repositories some things that are free to distribute or download (adobe Flash comes to mind.) If anything there needs to be more specific terms for certain Open source licenses.

Samhain13
October 17th, 2007, 01:20 PM
Microsoft attacking FOSS is like you punching a river. Sooner or later you're going to realise that no matter how hard you punch, the water will just rearrange itself around your fist and carry on.

+1 Very nice! :D

cogadh
October 17th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Microsoft attacking FOSS is like you punching a river. Sooner or later you're going to realise that no matter how hard you punch, the water will just rearrange itself around your fist and carry on.
Niiiice! I'm saving this one for future use. :)

proalan
October 17th, 2007, 02:05 PM
Microsoft attacking FOSS is like you punching a river. Sooner or later you're going to realise that no matter how hard you punch, the water will just rearrange itself around your fist and carry on.

That is quality, did you freestyle that post in realtime?

forrestcupp
October 17th, 2007, 02:07 PM
So everyone is mad at Microsoft because they hate open source and they won't open source anything.

Then when Microsoft shows interest in open source and comes out with an open source license, everyone is mad at them for it.

Tomosaur
October 17th, 2007, 02:12 PM
That is quality, did you freestyle that post in realtime?


Of course - do you think I sit around with pre-prepared responses? :P

To me it just seems an obvious analogy, but I'm glad you all liked it :)

johnbradbury
October 17th, 2007, 02:27 PM
As a complete newcomer to the Linux community I don't want to get into a long winded debate about the morals of open source. What I can say is that the Open Source Philosophy is what attracted me to GNU Linux and it would be the only reason for dropping Windows Vista.

Whilst I donít expect to win an popularity votes around here for saying this Iím going to say it anyway. Can Ubuntu really claim to be true to the Open Source Philosophy anymore? It includes closed source plugins such as Flash, Abode Reader, and Java. Not to mention binary blobs for hardware compatibility.

Don't get me wrong all my Windows based applications [and the OS of course] are closed source but then again Microsoft don't claim to be anything else.

I just feel that a lot of Linux distributions are selling out the core values of the GNU community for market share.

cogadh
October 17th, 2007, 02:32 PM
I really fail to see how offering users a choice on what to use makes Ubuntu untrue to the Open Source philosophy. The whole Open Source movement is based on offering people a choice on what they want to use. Ubuntu just takes it one step further by expanding the choice to include both open and closed source options.

Tomosaur
October 17th, 2007, 02:34 PM
As a complete newcomer to the Linux community I don't want to get into a long winded debate about the morals of open source. What I can say is that the Open Source Philosophy is what attracted me to GNU Linux and it would be the only reason for dropping Windows Vista.

Whilst I donít expect to win an popularity votes around here for saying this Iím going to say it anyway. Can Ubuntu really claim to be true to the Open Source Philosophy anymore? It includes closed source plugins such as Flash, Abode Reader, and Java. Not to mention binary blobs for hardware compatibility.

Don't get me wrong all my Windows based applications [and the OS of course] are closed source but then again Microsoft don't claim to be anything else.

I just feel that a lot of Linux distributions are selling out the core values of the GNU community for market share.

Ubuntu doesn't include those things, but it makes it easy for people to install them if they want them (especially in the latest version, released tomorrow). By default, Ubuntu contains only open-source software - it just has features which enable proprietary software to be used with minimal fuss. Does that mean Ubuntu isn't free software? No - people have the choice to do what they please with their system. When it comes down to it - people want to use their system to the full potential. Sometimes you need proprietary software to do this - only time can solve this problem, and Ubuntu has drawn many new users to the world of open-source stuff who maybe wouldn't have tried it at all.

johnbradbury
October 17th, 2007, 02:46 PM
Like I said I can't really argue the point because as a total noob I don't know enough about it. However I have read many articles both online and offline which discuss the use of closed source code within the Ubuntu Distro as standard not just a download from a repository. That was why gnewsense was created as an offspring project wasnít it?

So to me as an outsider [for the moment at least] it looks like the major distros are not practising what they preach.

John.Michael.Kane
October 17th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Like I said I can't really argue the point because as a total noob I don't know enough about it. However I have read many articles both online and offline which discuss the use of closed source code within the Ubuntu Distro as standard not just a download from a repository. That was why gnewsense was created as an offspring project wasnít it?

So to me as an outsider [for the moment at least] it looks like the major distros are not practising what they preach.

The issue lays with the vendors of those closed source plugins.and binary blobs you speak of. Not the distros use of them.

You have to remember If theres no alternative to the use of them distros will have no choice but to offer them, and figure out howto reverse engineer them or hope that those vendors will see Linux/Ubuntu xyz distro as a viable model, and be willing to open them, and work alongside the devs.

The other option is for end users to vote with their pockets, and only buy hardware which uses open drivers, and only use open source plugin's. This option in some cases is a hard sell,however. in certain circumstances is doable.

TBOL3
October 17th, 2007, 03:15 PM
http://opensource.org/node/207

What? Those patents are full of patent giberish and they actually govern use!!!11 They seem to be designed to be anti GPL and totally viral. This is ridiculous. OSI has betrayed us, seriously.

Umm, what's the matter with Microsoft making an Open Source License?

cogadh
October 17th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Umm, what's the matter with Microsoft making an Open Source License?
There's nothing wrong with them making a license, what really matters is what they do with it.

ticopelp
October 17th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I'm simply assuming Microsoft's "open source license" is simply a meaningless PR ploy, or some facet of their "embrace and extend" way of doing business.

Celegorm
October 17th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Like I said I can't really argue the point because as a total noob I don't know enough about it. However I have read many articles both online and offline which discuss the use of closed source code within the Ubuntu Distro as standard not just a download from a repository. That was why gnewsense was created as an offspring project wasnít it?

So to me as an outsider [for the moment at least] it looks like the major distros are not practising what they preach.

I think most of the proprietary blobs that are included by default are drivers. It makes sense to me to include proprietary drivers, but not have them enabled by default, because if you can't use your hardware, what then?

Oftentimes for things such as graphics cards, there will be open source drivers, but they will be far inferior to the proprietary drivers provided by the company that makes the graphics card (if they even provide drivers for linux). This is a problem with companies not releasing the specs on their hardware- without the specs, it's really hard to write a driver. I really don't see much of another way to deal with the issue, since the majority of users are going to care more about being able to get the full use out of the hardware they paid for than avoiding a proprietary blob or two, even if they have strong feelings about open source code.

Arathorn
October 17th, 2007, 08:01 PM
So everyone is mad at Microsoft because they hate open source and they won't open source anything.

Then when Microsoft shows interest in open source and comes out with an open source license, everyone is mad at them for it.
You don't get it. It's Microsoft. You're not cool if you don't bash it.

I don't care what licenses Microsoft uses. I use Linux so I don't have to care what Microsoft licenses their software with. I would like to see other Linux users look at the strengths of their OS of choice instead of always looking at MS like your bigger brother you always want to beat.

Ultra Magnus
October 17th, 2007, 09:21 PM
As a complete newcomer to the Linux community I don't want to get into a long winded debate about the morals of open source. What I can say is that the Open Source Philosophy is what attracted me to GNU Linux and it would be the only reason for dropping Windows Vista.

Whilst I donít expect to win an popularity votes around here for saying this Iím going to say it anyway. Can Ubuntu really claim to be true to the Open Source Philosophy anymore? It includes closed source plugins such as Flash, Abode Reader, and Java. Not to mention binary blobs for hardware compatibility.

Don't get me wrong all my Windows based applications [and the OS of course] are closed source but then again Microsoft don't claim to be anything else.

I just feel that a lot of Linux distributions are selling out the core values of the GNU community for market share.

It would be great if everything was open source and we could all watch DVDs, play flash movies, listen to Mp3s etc without needing to resort to using closed source stuff but unfortunately its not a perfect world - The question is: do you choose to use whats available to do the task or do you just refrain from doing it? - With Ubuntu you get to choose (see http://jonathancarter.co.za/ubuntu-710-lets-you-choose-your-level-of-freedom) - Would you rather someone said "look, now that you're using linux you can't use anything thats not "free""?

ubuntu27
October 18th, 2007, 04:59 AM
This is the problem with the term "Open Source": We been calling our software "Free Software" but since the word "free" is so ambiguous in English (could mean free as in zero cost and free as in freedom), some people developed the term "Open SOurce" this term became quite popular, but soon missed the CENTRAL POINT of Free Software. The part of FREEDOM.

Now the question is how Free (Freedom, Libre) is Microsoft's Open Source Licence?

Links to websites explaining the "Open SOurce" and "Free SOftware"

Open Source is not the same as Free SOftware (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

What is Free Software? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Free Software VS Open SOurce (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html)

Can people sell Free SOftware? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)