PDA

View Full Version : Google funds Photoshop-on-Linux work



wolfen69
February 20th, 2008, 03:07 AM
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9874297-39.html?tag=nefd.top
:guitar:

Officer Dibble
February 20th, 2008, 03:17 AM
I was gonna say this... :roll:

It's still really good news though. :popcorn:

kool_kat_os
February 20th, 2008, 03:21 AM
finally:)

p_quarles
February 20th, 2008, 03:22 AM
That's really good news. I don't need PS myself, but enough people do that making it viable for Linux could be really good for the platform.

SolusNunquam
February 20th, 2008, 03:38 AM
That would completely make me happy with linux, cause that's all i need, CS2 working properly, stuck with my old version of ps7 lol.

Mateo
February 20th, 2008, 03:54 AM
Google always sort of half support linux. It's like they don't want to be labelled a linux company like Novell or Sun. This is nice and all, I know a lot of people want Photoshop so good for them. But why aren't they working on a native Picasa or Google Talk?

banjobacon
February 20th, 2008, 05:31 AM
Google always sort of half support linux. It's like they don't want to be labelled a linux company like Novell or Sun. This is nice and all, I know a lot of people want Photoshop so good for them. But why aren't they working on a native Picasa or Google Talk?

Didn't they say that the next version of Picasa would be native? Google Earth used the Qt toolkit, so it's likely they'll use that for Picasa as well.

EDIT: Can't find evidence they said any such thing. They probably didn't. However, the work they put into Wine to make Google software function in Linux may help Wine work better with other software as well. If Google puts out a native Picasa or Google Talk, that's all you get. Improving Wine, however, makes help other high-profile programs, like Photoshop, run on Linux. It's possible they might actually be strengthening Linux by using this approach.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 05:59 AM
This is not spectacular news. People should not be enticed to use the operating system that respects the user's rights so that they might use applications that do not. If simply having a large number of users were the most important goal, there would be no GNU/Linux with which to run Photoshop at all. Having binary compatibility isn't bad, I just can't see the joy in knowing that we are celebrating the ability to offer ways for users who have freedom to start giving it up piecemeal for applications that do jobs which free applications can already do.

FuturePilot
February 20th, 2008, 06:04 AM
Didn't they say that the next version of Picasa would be native? Google Earth used the Qt toolkit, so it's likely they'll use that for Picasa as well.

EDIT: Can't find evidence they said any such thing. They probably didn't. However, the work they put into Wine to make Google software function in Linux may help Wine work better with other software as well. If Google puts out a native Picasa or Google Talk, that's all you get. Improving Wine, however, makes help other high-profile programs, like Photoshop, run on Linux. It's possible they might actually be strengthening Linux by using this approach.

I wish they made a native version of Picasa.

p_quarles
February 20th, 2008, 06:07 AM
Having binary compatibility isn't bad, I just can't see the joy in knowing that we are celebrating the ability to offer ways for users who have freedom to start giving it up piecemeal for applications that do jobs which free applications can already do.
PS has capabilities that no other graphics applications can match. I don't need them, but the publishing/design worlds cannot replace PS with the GIMP.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 06:25 AM
PS has capabilities that no other graphics applications can match. I don't need them, but the publishing/design worlds cannot replace PS with the GIMP.

I have heard people say this before. I have used both and have only seen features that were obvious in GIMP that weren't in PS CS2. Maybe if we discuss it long enough, a pendantic will emerge to explain specifically what PS does that only PS can do, but to such a person I can only say no need on my account, since it is neither technical ability or the lack thereof that leaves me unexcited about PS on GNU/Linux.

Binary compatibility is nice. Its nice to know that the operating system which respects the user's rights is so versatile. I simply see no reason to be unduly excited that applications that do not respect the user's rights can run on it, regardless of the program's technical merit. If Google were planning to give back to the commons from which it spawned by promoting the development of a free editor like GIMP, in order to add the features that some say are not currently present, that would be a reason to be excited.

p_quarles
February 20th, 2008, 06:32 AM
@k2t0f12d: CMYK color support, among other things. Again, the GIMP hasn't replaced PS for professional graphics production, and there are reasons for that.
http://grimthing.com/archives/2007/01/11/Gimp_vs_Photoshop/

aysiu
February 20th, 2008, 06:35 AM
@k2t0f12d: CMYK color support, among other things. Again, the GIMP hasn't replaced PS for professional graphics production, and there are reasons for that.
http://grimthing.com/archives/2007/01/11/Gimp_vs_Photoshop/
Isn't there a CMYK plugin for GIMP (http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate.html)?

kevin11951
February 20th, 2008, 06:37 AM
maybe I'm out of the loop, but what is this?

http://picasa.google.com/linux/

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 06:58 AM
Please understand, I am not saying that any binary compatibility is bad or should not be done. It is specifically whether it is something beneficial enough to be very excited about. Let me flesh out how I see this.

Adobe spends a lot of money (presumably) and earns a lot of money (presumably) selling usage rights for people and organizations who need their software to do a job. We then see Google spending more money on top of that to enhance the ability for the software to also run on GNU/Linux, a platform specifically ignored by the developer who is benefiting from the sale of usage rights for the software. Some of the users paying Adobe want GNU/Linux portage, but Adobe does not capitulate. If Google provides a more successfully integrated experience with PS on GNU/Linux, then the community benefits a little, and Adobe benefits a lot. However, if Google promoted the development of an application that respects the user's rights, like GIMP, then they help not only the community; they help everyone everywhere to be able to use a tool that does that job in freedom.

mkoehler
February 20th, 2008, 07:01 AM
Kevin,

At the current point in time, there is not a native version of picasa for linux. What you see there is simply google's window-based application ported to linux through the use of wine.

Sukarn
February 20th, 2008, 07:12 AM
Please understand, I am not saying that any binary compatibility is bad or should not be done. It is specifically whether it is something beneficial enough to be very excited about. Let me flesh out how I see this.

Adobe spends a lot of money (presumably) and earns a lot of money (presumably) selling usage rights for people and organizations who need their software to do a job. We then see Google spending more money on top of that to enhance the ability for the software to also run on GNU/Linux, a platform specifically ignored by the developer who is benefiting from the sale of usage rights for the software. Some of the users paying Adobe want GNU/Linux portage, but Adobe does not capitulate. If Google provides a more successfully integrated experience with PS on GNU/Linux, then the community benefits a little, and Adobe benefits a lot. However, if Google promoted the development of an application that respects the user's rights, like GIMP, then they help not only the community; they help everyone everywhere to be able to use a tool that does that job in freedom.

I did not read the whole article, but from what I read, google is funding CodeWeavers (the developers of wine), and not adobe as you seem to be thinking

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 07:21 AM
I did not read the whole article, but from what I read, google is funding CodeWeavers (the developers of wine), and not adobe as you seem to be thinking

No, you must not have read my post, because I never suggested that Google is funding Adobe. I suggested that Google is spending money to improve support for PS on GNU/Linux, which benefits Adobe, instead of devoting that effort toward improving the software that already runs natively and is licensed under free terms.

banjobacon
February 20th, 2008, 07:47 AM
I suggested that Google is spending money to improve support for PS on GNU/Linux, which benefits Adobe,

Does it really benefit Adobe? Is Adobe losing business because Photoshop doesn't run on Linux? People who need Photoshop are still using are still using Photoshop, which means their clinging on to Windows or OS X.

If Adobe benefited from Photoshop running on Linux, they'd be the ones supporting Wine, or they'd release a Linux version of Photoshop.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 07:55 AM
Does it really benefit Adobe? Is Adobe losing business because Photoshop doesn't run on Linux? People who need Photoshop are still using are still using Photoshop, which means their clinging on to Windows or OS X.

If Adobe benefited from Photoshop running on Linux, they'd be the ones supporting Wine, or they'd release a Linux version of Photoshop.

It doesn't matter to me whether Adobe does or does not benefit from PS on GNU/Linux. It is not a leap of faith or a strain on the intellect to see that more platforms yield more customers. However, this has no material whatsoever with respect to what I was saying, since I am pointing out that the incentive to help Adobe's proprietary software work on a free software operating system is neither as exciting or as good as promoting the development of software that already runs natively on GNU/Linux and is licensed under free terms.

LightB
February 20th, 2008, 11:23 AM
This news doesn't thrill me much at all. We just have to accept the vendor lock in effect that a lot of the graphics business and others have with windows. That's just the way it is. And wine is not really very good and won't be unless MS release their API specs completely, nothing but a fantasy.

Not that photoshop is really all that relevant. It's what professionals use, that's fine. How many people are actually professionals? Scribbling some stick figure horns on a photo hardly needs photoshop for that. Same goes for the ******* photo-manipulations most people do. In cases like these, which are the vast majority, PS is just a hyped program and floated around often as a trophy among warez kiddies. And since version 7 it's just gotten unnecessarily slow and bloated a la Win Vista. Makes me not care much about it's usefulness which I hardly need in the first place, as I've explained.

So imo, filling this demographic is hardly going to make a dent in favor of an intended increase in linux workstation adoption. If they could give the same treatment to all the popular windows apps out there and in real time, then I'd be something. That of course, is virtually impossible, and even this photoshop thing is likely to be lacking once it plays out.

awakatanka
February 20th, 2008, 11:53 AM
The fight against propriety stuff is so stupid you have the choose to use it our not. If this helps people that use PS to use linux and don't have to dual boot any more then its a good thing. They make it easier for people to take the step to linux and see all those programs they never seen before and use there old propriety stuff also till there is something that can replace it in the opensource world.

If someone doesn't support opensource the opensource world complains, if someone try's to support the opensource world the opensource world complains.

igknighted
February 20th, 2008, 12:10 PM
Yay, now more pirates can take advantage of the world's most pirated software! If Adobe ever cracked down on the rampant PS pirating, I think its userbase would be left with about 10% of what it was before... that may be even worse than windows.

julian67
February 20th, 2008, 12:20 PM
I also don't see it as exciting news. One of the great things about running a free OS is that it encourages users to behave ethically when using their computer. What I mean by that is that as well as fostering co-operation and healthy communities as a result of the freedom there's a nice situation where people moving from Windows easily & naturally give up the unethical use of warez/cracks and other methods for the unlicensed and illegal use of unfree works. I think it will be very sad if it becomes the norm (like in the Windows world) for people to be illegaly running all kinds of cracked proprietary software on their (no longer) free desktop. Our communities are actually built on respecting the licensing and we demand others respect it too.

ps. the next person who posts on a free software forum to grandly announce that they/the world can't use Gimp because it doesn't support CMYK needs a fairly hard kick in the you-know-what.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5919/gimpoo7.png

phenest
February 20th, 2008, 12:26 PM
I have to agree with k2t0f12d. Unless PS has some specific feature that cannot be found anywhere natively and freely in Linux, this is quite possibly a waste of effort.

Doesn't this also mean you would still have to buy PS for Linux? And it won't be open source?

Nero do a Linux package.You have to pay for it. But it doesn't do anything more than an existing Linux app can't already do.

mdsmedia
February 20th, 2008, 12:59 PM
The fight against propriety stuff is so stupid you have the choose to use it our not. If this helps people that use PS to use linux and don't have to dual boot any more then its a good thing. They make it easier for people to take the step to linux and see all those programs they never seen before and use there old propriety stuff also till there is something that can replace it in the opensource world.

If someone doesn't support opensource the opensource world complains, if someone try's to support the opensource world the opensource world complains.Only if you see it is JUST a fight against proprietary software. That's not what this is at all.

If you read the reasoning you would see that it's about people's RIGHTS to choose.

ATM they have the right to use PS, but ONLY if they choose Windows as the base on which to use it. ATM people who CHOOSE Linux can't CHOOSE to use PS....at least not CS3.

Personally I don't give 2 hoots about PS, and most users of CS3 haven't bought it. They complain because the software they've fought hard to pirate won't run on the FREE OS. A lot of them complain because the software they've fought hard to pirate will only run on their pirated OS, so Linux must be cr@p.

If you want an example of vendor lockin, which is what Adobe has with Windows, have a look at tax software in Australia. Or accounting software like Quickbooks. You're locked in to running it on Windows because, although you might get it to run on Linux you can't get all the peripheral communications etc. to work properly. I'd be Linux only if not for that.

PS is just another example of lockin to Windows, which leaves users with LITTLE choice, if they NEED to use software LIKE PS.

graabein
February 20th, 2008, 01:07 PM
Won't you take me to, funky town?

And for people who forget how it all works and why everyone should care about free software: The Free Software Definition (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html)

mdsmedia
February 20th, 2008, 01:07 PM
I have to agree with k2t0f12d. Unless PS has some specific feature that cannot be found anywhere natively and freely in Linux, this is quite possibly a waste of effort.

Doesn't this also mean you would still have to buy PS for Linux? And it won't be open source?

Nero do a Linux package.You have to pay for it. But it doesn't do anything more than an existing Linux app can't already do.I honestly can't see why people would want to use something like Nero in Linux. The only reason would be familiarity, but I've found K3B to be far more user friendly and simple to use.

I also agree with k2t0f12d. While I don't care too much about PS and I find the Gimp far more powerful than I would ever use, the availability of PS on Linux simply makes it less desirable to support The Gimp.

And seriously, unless you are a professional, what would you need in PS that isn't in the Gimp, Inkscape, or other available packages?

awakatanka
February 20th, 2008, 01:31 PM
I honestly can't see why people would want to use something like Nero in Linux. The only reason would be familiarity, but I've found K3B to be far more user friendly and simple to use.

I also agree with k2t0f12d. While I don't care too much about PS and I find the Gimp far more powerful than I would ever use, the availability of PS on Linux simply makes it less desirable to support The Gimp.

And seriously, unless you are a professional, what would you need in PS that isn't in the Gimp, Inkscape, or other available packages?
Some burners aren't working good with K3B, i have a plextor that has troubles with K3B but works without problems with nero.

If adobe doesn't want to make a linux version because it's market share isn't important enough for them they have to right to think that way, they want to earn money. If google supports wine to make it possible to run PS under linux/wine then it's a goodthing for linux users that want to use PS without dualboot.

qazwsx
February 20th, 2008, 02:37 PM
If someone really needs to use photoshop this is certainly very good news for him/her.
Binary blob is binary blob. I don't really care if the blob is ported to wine or uses directly system (speed difference is not that great and it might be better. Alltough it really depends which app you are going to run).

I don't like binary only software and I only use blobs when I "have to" (flash, nvidia and couple of games working well/perfectly under wine).

julian67
February 20th, 2008, 02:47 PM
If someone really needs to use photoshop this is certainly very good news for him/her.
Binary blob is binary blob. I don't really care if the blob is ported to wine or uses directly system (speed difference is not that great and it might be better. Alltough it really depends which app you are going to run).

I don't like binary only software and I only use blobs when I "have to" (flash, nvidia and couple of games working well/perfectly under wine).

This isn't anything to do with binary blobs. A binary blob is
In computing, a binary blob is an object file loaded into the kernel of a free or open source operating system without publicly available source code. The term is not usually applied to code running outside the kernel, for example BIOS code, firmware images, or userland programs. (wikipedia)

forrestcupp
February 20th, 2008, 03:08 PM
This is not spectacular news. People should not be enticed to use the operating system that respects the user's rights so that they might use applications that do not. If simply having a large number of users were the most important goal, there would be no GNU/Linux with which to run Photoshop at all. Having binary compatibility isn't bad, I just can't see the joy in knowing that we are celebrating the ability to offer ways for users who have freedom to start giving it up piecemeal for applications that do jobs which free applications can already do.
The Gimp vs Photoshop argument has been hashed out many, many times here. If you really want to know people's legitimate reasons for wanting to use Photoshop over Gimp, just do a search in these forums and you'll find plenty of discussions about it.

The problem with what you said is that there are a lot of GNU/Linux users who look at their OS as a tool to get things done. To a lot of people it's not just about a philosophy or our rights. GNU/Linux is legitimately a good OS to use. And to that group of people, news like this is good. And the Free Software purists don't have to worry about it because they still have The Gimp to use.

Photoshop will never take the place of The Gimp because there will always be plenty of people that don't want to spend that much money.

julian67
February 20th, 2008, 03:30 PM
Photoshop will never take the place of The Gimp because there will always be plenty of people that don't want to spend that much money.

It's not about the money

az
February 20th, 2008, 04:22 PM
The fight against propriety stuff is so stupid you have the choose to use it our not. If this helps people that use PS to use linux and don't have to dual boot any more then its a good thing. They make it easier for people to take the step to linux and see all those programs they never seen before and use there old propriety stuff also till there is something that can replace it in the opensource world.


It's not stupid. It's about having a different standard. Some people don't care about the freedoms they give away by using proprietary software. That's fine. They are your freedoms to give up.

But you can't say that someone is stupid because they take their freedoms more seriously that you.



If someone doesn't support opensource the opensource world complains, if someone try's to support the opensource world the opensource world complains.

Making something run under wine is in no way supporting open source.

In fact, running something in wine allows the user to experience the negative aspects of both software models simultaneously. I do not recommend running anything under wine. I would certainly not use wine on a production system.

And the point is that if you don't mind using wine, then why would you mind using Windows?

forrestcupp
February 20th, 2008, 05:09 PM
It's not about the money

It is for some people.

Before I say more, I want to make it clear that I love FOSS and what it stands for. But not everyone has the same ideals and standards. Like az said, it's anyone's right to give up some of their freedoms if they want. And it's other people's rights to stand up for their freedoms in a more active way.

Not everyone has the same standards. Some people won't use restricted drivers because they are proprietary. Other people care more about having what they consider a fully functional computer and OS than they do about sacrificing for certain freedoms that may not matter as much for them. There is nothing wrong with either choice. What is wrong is when people aren't accepting of people who make a choice other than theirs, and that goes both ways.

No matter which group a person fits in, it is still great that they are using GNU/Linux. Even if someone uses proprietary software in Linux, they are still ultimately supporting FOSS more than they would if they were using Windows.

phrostbyte
February 20th, 2008, 05:15 PM
And the point is that if you don't mind using wine, then why would you mind using Windows?

Because people can perfer the customizability and performence of a Linux desktop, or they use a majority of Linux software but they need Wine for those applications that do not have native ports to Linux. Wine I think is an example of a program that no one really wants to use, but at the same time it's one of the most popular open source projects because of it's importantence to many people.

the_darkside_986
February 20th, 2008, 05:19 PM
I think everyone should use what works best for them, but I see no point in trying to port a non-free user-land application to GNU/Linux, a platform whose purpose is to provide a free, non-restricted platform. However, there is a purpose for porting "transitional" closed-source applications such as madwifi or Flash 9, until the free alternative is complete or usable. I mean, AFAIK in the next Ubuntu I will finally be able to replace madwifi with a free Atheros driver. I don't have either Gnash or Flash installed on my current Kubuntu setup but I am thinking of getting the Gnash source and building it because that kind of technology always interests me.

But Photoshop in this case is not a "transitional" app to use while waiting for GIMP to be more complete; I do not see hardcore Photoshop users ever switching to GIMP, which is fine. But I understand their desire to run Photoshop on a Unix or Unix-like system, and for that, as far as I know Mac OS X is a true, certified UNIX(R) system. I personally despise the new Macs since their switch to Intel architecture (yuck) but there are people who love it and those who need that sort of thing should look into it instead of waiting on GNU/Linux to become a cheap no-cost replacement rather than the OS of liberation that it is meant to be.

regomodo
February 20th, 2008, 05:32 PM
I love Google more and more every time they do something amazing like this.

If Google get Bridge CS2 to work under wine i think i may loose bladder control.

forrestcupp
February 20th, 2008, 07:24 PM
I think everyone should use what works best for them, but I see no point in trying to port a non-free user-land application to GNU/Linux, a platform whose purpose is to provide a free, non-restricted platform. However, there is a purpose for porting "transitional" closed-source applications such as madwifi or Flash 9, until the free alternative is complete or usable.

But the whole point I've been trying to make is that there are plenty of other great, viable reasons to use GNU/Linux other than just the free software philosophy. And because of those other great reasons, there are a mass of Linux users who would like to have the choice to use good proprietary software that they are familiar with. Some people just like Photoshop better than The Gimp. Every person has a right to their preference, and I applaud anyone who is willing to give financial support to expand the usability of the GNU/Linux OS.

I just wish Google would have hired Adobe to port a native version of Photoshop. But "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

Æniad
February 20th, 2008, 07:40 PM
Yay, now more pirates can take advantage of the world's most pirated software! If Adobe ever cracked down on the rampant PS pirating, I think its userbase would be left with about 10% of what it was before... that may be even worse than windows.

You're right. But it's their fault for making their product so expensive; charging six-hundred bucks for a piece of software is ridiculous. I use a pirated version of CS3 extended on windows and it works like a charm.

the_darkside_986
February 20th, 2008, 07:40 PM
Well, some other advantages might be the price of GNU/Linux, and the fact that no one writes malware for it. But the main reason that I use it is to escape the nasty sea of shareware and restricted licenses that has flooded the Win32 platform. Some worry about killer open-source applications being used on Windows, preventing the spread of FLOSS operating systems, but really, when I am using Windows, I always have the most difficult time finding anything but over priced non-functional shareware whose authors would love nothing more than to punch a user and take their wallet. I am not saying Photoshop has anything necessarily to do with that, but the growth and popularity of closed-source user applications on GNU/Linux is a concern.

But with that being said, proprietary software vendors such as Adobe should put more effort into making their software run on non-Mac OS X Unixes. But since Apple uses a proprietary API such as Aqua, they are acting just as anti-competitive as Microsoft with its horrendous Win32 API. Why can't they all just stick to Xlib or Qt and POSIX or something...

p_quarles
February 20th, 2008, 07:40 PM
One point that I think needs to be made here: Google has two motives here. One is to prop up the commercial viability of GNU/Linux, which is a fundamental part of its business model. The other is to strike a blow at Microsoft, with whom it is in serious competition at the moment. With respect to the second motive, this is a very effective move on Google's part.

I too would rather that Google put development money into the GIMP rather than Wine. I use the GIMP a lot, and haven't used Wine in months. At the same time, Google's motive here is to cut into Microsoft's market by pulling a well-known and popular brand name into compatibility with their business model. Adobe and Photoshop have a greater commercial appeal and recognizability than does the GIMP, so this is the natural choice for Google's bottom line.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 09:44 PM
Drawing attention to GNU/Linux is great, it is the use of non-free software to achieve it that I find unappealing. Hence the old saying, the ends do not justify the means. Google's goals and bottom-line are Google's problem, and if they percieve Microsoft's market to be a problem for them, they can go on the offensive in that respect and still not generate any excitement on my part. It has never been the stated goal of free software to harm or destroy Microsoft. Hurting Microsoft is only the side-effect of promoting user's rights through software licensed with terms that respect freedom. If the quickest way to get people to use it is to incorporate software that does not respect user's freedom, the end result will ultimately be a GNU/Linux with all of the same problems that it was written to avoid.

It is impossible to separate the politics from the software simply because, regardless of the position an individual chooses, said position will either contribute to or weaken every user's rights to freedom with respect to information adn technology. The argument that software is a tool that people use to "get stuff done" is a statement that technical merit is more important then anyone's rights, and, whether intended or not, leads people away from valuing rights. Az said if you want to give up your rights that they are your rights to surrender. I think that is an enormous mistake. The people who wrote the United States Constitution would have put down their pens, ceased their discussion, and stared at the maker of such a statement with abject horror. If anything history has taught us about rights and freedom, it is that those values must be fought for and guarded jealously. Once a person is seduced into valuing something less important more then they value freedom, it becomes easy to pressure everyone else to do the same, either through peer pressure or legal pressure. That is abundantly clear by the methods which Microsoft has used to control the market, and the means through which it guards its monopoly.

We, however, shouldn't attack the users of non-free software, and that is certainly not the way in which I would advocate promoting the community. The most important ways to promote free software is to continually speak out about its benefits, both technical and societal, to constantly denounce proprietary software and its restrictions, both technical and societal, to withhold support from those that advocate and develop non-free software, instead devoting our efforts to those that support user's rights, and to be constantly reminded that the technical and societal advantages we experience with this software is directly and inextricably linked to its freedom.

BDNiner
February 20th, 2008, 10:35 PM
I don't feel it is a good thing to get programs running under wine, M$ will never release documentation that will help improve the emulation of wine. Maybe google should focus on getting its own software to run natively in linux, or use some of its muscle to get adobe to do the same. I wouldn't care if they were closed source or had to pay money so long as it runs natively in linux and not using some kind of emulation.

aysiu
February 20th, 2008, 10:36 PM
Some people don't think "software freedom" is that important. I don't equate "freedom" exclusively with "open source." I frankly don't care if software is closed source. If the developer chooses to release the software under that license, that's her choice--not mine. And, frankly, since I don't change the source code anyway, it doesn't directly affect me.

What I do care about is open standards. I can admire Opera. Opera is closed source, but its developers respect W3C standards. I have a friend who's developing software now that is closed source, but he is trying to be as standards-compliant as possible (.xml-friendly, icalendar/vcard-friendly, W3C-compliant, etc.). I can respect his choice to keep his software closed source.

While I think the development model for open source is a more cooperative one that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and not "reinvent the wheel," I don't see less efficient development models as curtailing my freedom unless they also balk at open standards.

MS Paint is okay in my book, since it'll save in .jpg, .gif, or .png--all formats that I can use in Ubuntu without being locked into using one particular piece of software. InDesign, on the other hand, is not okay, since it saves into .idd, which Scribus cannot work with.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 11:15 PM
Some people don't think "software freedom" is that important. I don't equate "freedom" exclusively with "open source."

They also aren't the people who made this platform possible. I, too, do not equate freedom with open source, because the term "open source" was engineered specifically to endear free software to those that do not care about user's rights by stripping the idea of the user having rights from free software. The term open source leads people to believe that the technical merits lie in the availablitiy of source rather then the ability for the user to study, modify, and redistribute.


I frankly don't care if software is closed source. If the developer chooses to release the software under that license, that's her choice--not mine. And, frankly, since I don't change the source code anyway, it doesn't directly affect me.

You also have no community, no way to determine what the software is doing, no way to change to suit your purpose unless the developer permits you, and no way to choose from whom you recieve support in the case that the developer denies you support. That is not freedom in comupting, or in any other sense of the word for that matter. The developer may choose non-free licensing terms, in which case she should not have the support of the community for mistreating her users.


What I do care about is open standards. I can admire Opera. Opera is closed source, but its developers respect W3C standards. I have a friend who's developing software now that is closed source, but he is trying to be as standards-compliant as possible (.xml-friendly, icalendar/vcard-friendly, W3C-compliant, etc.). I can respect his choice to keep his software closed source.

For new developers and software with low marketshare, not respecting open standards would simply exclude any technical merit in using the software whatsoever, and is more beneficial to the developer then the user, since the user will use the software the respects the standards they want to use. Making software that works is nice but certainly not more admirable then licensing software that works with terms that support the user's rights.


While I think the development model for open source is a more cooperative one that allows you to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and not "reinvent the wheel," I don't see less efficient development models as curtailing my freedom unless they also balk at open standards.

The method of development is != the method of usage. Comparing the two doesn't make sense. The technical benefits in developing free software is systemic to its freedom to study, modify and redistribute, without which there would be no technical advantage whatsoever. The freedom to even have the ability do so is more important the the technical benefits it imparts. Simply being able to work with many formats is more advantageous to the developer then the user, since the user will stop using the software that doesn't work with the formats they want to use. If a free software program doesn't work with the format you want, you are free to add that support, or employ a programmer of your choice who can add that feature for you.

popch
February 20th, 2008, 11:26 PM
If a free software program doesn't work with the format you want, you are free to add that support, or employ a programmer of your choice who can add that feature for you.

There are countries where this is possible for closed-source software as well. One of them is Switzerland, and I do not think that this country has a reputation of loose intellectual property rights.

In Switzerland, you can disassemble any piece of software if you have to interface it to another software system and the source is not available.

It is not done all that often, I presume. But still.

aysiu
February 20th, 2008, 11:28 PM
If a free software program doesn't work with the format you want, you are free to add that support, or employ a programmer of your choice who can add that feature for you. Which, in practical terms, for a home user (i.e., not corporation or programmer) like me amounts to nothing.

I do not have the extra money to employ a programmer, and I do not have the know-how to program. So I'm pretty much stuck with whatever free or non-free software has to offer. So I judge software based on technical merits and support for open standards, as those are the things that directly affect me.

The kind of "freedom" of which you speak has practical application only to those who are programmers or those who are rich enough to hire programmers.

k2t0f12d
February 20th, 2008, 11:42 PM
I do not have the extra money to employ a programmer, and I do not have the know-how to program. So I'm pretty much stuck with whatever free or non-free software has to offer. So I judge software based on technical merits and support for open standards, as those are the things that directly affect me.

The kind of "freedom" of which you speak has practical application only to those who are programmers or those who are rich enough to hire programmers.

It may be true for you, but not for everyone. Without the rights to study, modify, and redistribute you have no freedoms at all. If you cannot afford a programmer who can make changes for you, you are free to rally support to gather the funds necessary to make the change. This is the very spirit of community and helping one another, remember, Ubuntu.

I have seen several threads on Ubuntu forums regarding petitions and whatnot to rally supporters to futily pressure non-free developers to make the changes they want and probably will never get any sooner then if not having applied pressure at all. If it were free software they were devoting their efforts toward, there would be absolutely nothing stopping something from being done.

aysiu
February 20th, 2008, 11:53 PM
It may be true for you, but not for everyone. Without the rights to study, modify, and redistribute you have no freedoms at all. If you cannot afford a programmer who can make changes for you, you are free to rally support to gather the funds necessary to make the change. And, as I stated before, I have no interest in studying code, and I cannot afford a programmer, so I don't see what the point of repeating these "freedoms" is.


I have seen several threads on Ubuntu forums regarding petitions and whatnot to rally supporters to futily pressure on non-free developers to make the changes they want and probably will never get any sooner then if not having applied pressure at all. Petitions are useless. The way to pressure non-free development companies is with letters explaining why you purchased products from their competitors.
If it were free software they were devoting their efforts toward, there would be absolutely nothing stopping something from being done. Please don't make me laugh. For years, Linux users have been pleading with Gnome developers to implement a restore-from-trash feature or the ability to select a wallpaper slideshow folder through the GUI, all to no avail.

The most frequent come-back I hear from developers on these forums to requests for change from the community is "Developers don't implement changes to please users. They work on what they feel like working on or what they get paid to work on."

Mateo
February 20th, 2008, 11:57 PM
I have heard people say this before. I have used both and have only seen features that were obvious in GIMP that weren't in PS CS2. Maybe if we discuss it long enough, a pendantic will emerge to explain specifically what PS does that only PS can do, but to such a person I can only say no need on my account, since it is neither technical ability or the lack thereof that leaves me unexcited about PS on GNU/Linux.

Binary compatibility is nice. Its nice to know that the operating system which respects the user's rights is so versatile. I simply see no reason to be unduly excited that applications that do not respect the user's rights can run on it, regardless of the program's technical merit. If Google were planning to give back to the commons from which it spawned by promoting the development of a free editor like GIMP, in order to add the features that some say are not currently present, that would be a reason to be excited.

You've said this twice, how does Photoshop disrespect their users rights?

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 12:01 AM
The most frequent come-back I hear from developers on these forums to requests for change from the community is "Developers don't implement changes to please users. They work on what they feel like working on or what they get paid to work on."

Better start laughing then. Your excuses make no sense at all, since, the users who wanted those features in GNOME were free to ask for them from the developers of GNOME, or hire another developer to add those missing features in the case that the GNOME developers refuse. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from trying to raise the funds to find the programmer that can help. If GNOME were proprietary, they could not do so.

Its obvious they have not done the latter, otherwise they would have the changes.

Saying that people aren't exploiting their rights with free software is not evidence they they should have any rights or that those who deny user's rights are admirable for doing so.

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 12:03 AM
One point that I think needs to be made here: Google has two motives here. One is to prop up the commercial viability of GNU/Linux, which is a fundamental part of its business model. The other is to strike a blow at Microsoft, with whom it is in serious competition at the moment. With respect to the second motive, this is a very effective move on Google's part.

I too would rather that Google put development money into the GIMP rather than Wine. I use the GIMP a lot, and haven't used Wine in months. At the same time, Google's motive here is to cut into Microsoft's market by pulling a well-known and popular brand name into compatibility with their business model. Adobe and Photoshop have a greater commercial appeal and recognizability than does the GIMP, so this is the natural choice for Google's bottom line.

I don't think that has anything to do with Google's role in this. I think Google is doing this because they themselves use Linux and they themselves use Photoshop (presumably).

aysiu
February 21st, 2008, 12:05 AM
Better start laughing then. Your excuses make no sense at all, since, the users who wanted those features in GNOME were free to ask for them from the developers of GNOME, or hire another developer to add those missing features in the case that the GNOME developers refuse. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from trying to raise the funds to find the programmer that can help. If GNOME were proprietary, they could not do so.

Its obvious they have not done the latter, otherwise they would have the changes.

Saying that people aren't expoiting their rights with free software is not evidence they they should have any rights or that those who deny user's rights are admirable for doing so. Uh, Gnome users have been asking this of developers for years through bug reports and feature requests.

And here we go again with the "pay a developer to do it" spiel. Well, having to pay someone to modify something doesn't make that feel like freedom to me. I could just as well pay a closed source developer to do something as well. After all your long speeches about how the community can influence changes in free software, it all comes down to the developer getting paid to do something.

The prospect of changing the stubbornness of the Gnome developers by gathering up community funds to bribe them to add more usability to a desktop that claims to be the most usable is not a freeing one.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 12:12 AM
Well, having to pay someone to modify something doesn't make that feel like freedom to me.

This opinion alone reveals why we will never agree. Gratis is != to freedom in any language anywhere on Earth. I'd rather be free pay a programmer to modify free software for me if the original developer can't or won't then to pay a developer who doesn't allow me that freedom if they can't or won't.

EDIT: ++ gsmanners -----VVV

gsmanners
February 21st, 2008, 12:13 AM
Let's not confuse freedom and free here.

aysiu
February 21st, 2008, 12:22 AM
I'm not confusing freedom and free or beer and freedom or whatever.

I'm just saying that to non-programming end-users who are not millionaires there is little difference between non-free and free software in terms of practical limits on computer use. The only thing that affects the end user is format or vendor lock-in (which often comes with closed source software, but not necessarily).

p_quarles
February 21st, 2008, 12:26 AM
I'm not confusing freedom and free or beer and freedom or whatever.

I'm just saying that to non-programming end-users who are not millionaires there is little difference between non-free and free software in terms of practical limits on computer use. The only thing that affects the end user is format or vendor lock-in (which often comes with closed source software, but not necessarily).
+1

I would just add that the freedom to define one's own needs -- without regard to dogma -- is far more foundational to a democratic society than is any freedom from restrictive licensing terms.

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 12:27 AM
k2t0f12d,

What search engine do you use? Google is closed source. Yahoo is closed source. Ask.com is closed source. Live.com is closed source.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 12:39 AM
+1

I would just add that the freedom to define one's own needs -- without regard to dogma -- is far more foundational to a democratic society than is any freedom from restrictive licensing terms.

You can have the former with or without the latter. They are not related aspects of society, or related in anyway at all for that matter.


k2t0f12d,

What search engine do you use? Google is closed source. Yahoo is closed source. Ask.com is closed source. Live.com is closed source.

None of the software you mentioned is installed or running on hardware I own or control, therefore, not a problem for me or my computing.

You are trolling. Please stop.

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 12:49 AM
Doesn't matter, Google is still denying you the "freedom" to modify the code of their search engine and making it better. By using Google, you are supporting proprietary software. Same if you use Facebook, or Youtube.

I still want to know how Photoshop violates their user's rights. You said this twice but never explained which rights were being violated. I asked but you didn't respond.

awakatanka
February 21st, 2008, 12:51 AM
I can also change our hire someone to change the code of a property piece of software as long as it's for personal use. I can't distribute it. It's harder to do because there isn't a source but i have that right in Europe.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 12:55 AM
I asked but you didn't respond.

I know haven't responded to you. Two reasons.


You are a troll
I have ceaselessly explained the rights of user's with respect to information and technology in this thread prior to your asking, thus supporting the first reason, that is, you are a troll.


Please stop.

p_quarles
February 21st, 2008, 12:59 AM
You can have the former with or without the latter. They are not related aspects of society, or related in anyway at all for that matter..
I respectfully disagree. If I do not have the freedom to release my work under the terms I choose, then I am faced with an undesirable dilemma: either I release my work under terms with which I do not agree, or I do not release my work. If my needs fit neither of these choices, and if my objection is seen as somehow "unrelated" to freedom, then I do not feel free. I don't like the current situation, but I fail to see how the situation for which you are arguing is qualitatively different.

It's a cliche, but it needs to be said: my freedom ends when it conflicts with yours. That's what makes it complicated. ;)

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 12:59 AM
I know haven't responded to you. Two reasons.


You are a troll
I have ceaselessly explained the rights of user's with respect to information and technology in this thread prior to your asking, thus supporting the first reason, that is, you are a troll.


Please stop.

Insisting that anyone who uses Photoshop is "surrendering their freedom" is not the same as explaining what rights are being violated. Repeated name calling and ad hominems doesn't help your case either.

So, again, which rights are Photoshop users having violated?

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 01:01 AM
I can also change our hire someone to change the code of a property piece of software as long as it's for personal use. I can't distribute it. It's harder to do because there isn't a source but i have that right in Europe.

You can do that any where.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 02:09 AM
I respectfully disagree. If I do not have the freedom to release my work under the terms I choose, then I am faced with an undesirable dilemma: either I release my work under terms with which I do not agree, or I do not release my work. If my needs fit neither of these choices, and if my objection is seen as somehow "unrelated" to freedom, then I do not feel free. I don't like the current situation, but I fail to see how the situation for which you are arguing is qualitatively different.

Thank you for being polite. I, too respectfully disagree. The freedom to determine needs isn't the same thing as having any right to impose on others resolution of the need. The rights of developers are also not the same as the rights of users.


It's a cliche, but it needs to be said: my freedom ends when it conflicts with yours. That's what makes it complicated. ;)

There is where we do agree, that is precisely why this discussion becomes complicated. The major problems we are going to have in the 21 century regarding information and technology are going to be conflicts of rights problems. In this case, there is no reason to accept that the developer has any right to dictate to the user under which conditions usage may occur after taking money from the user in exchange for usage rights. This practice persists because there is no law against it, and the user supports the behavior by paying the developer over and over. It is incredibly fortunate that there even is a free software platform to be had at all.

Google has every right in the world to determine how to spend their money and what to spend it on, and I would never advocate otherwise. I can say their attempts to hasten the introduction of a non-free program on a free platform doesn't excite me the same way if they had choosen to do so with a free program. Mateo tried to troll an argument over network based software. Whereby again, if I believe that the four freedoms of free software are correct, Google has every right to develop and run software on their hardware however they like and I have absolutely no argument against them in doing so. This is an example, however, of conflicts of rights, whereby the users right to study is interrupted by Google's refusal to release source. However, in this case, Google's right to make private modifications on their copy and to run their copy is more important then the user's right to study, since the user does not in fact possess any copy with which to demand source. Google does not nor should they need anyone else's permission to modify and run their copy, even if they are running it for the benefit of others.

Also, I am not also saying that you are a bad person if you are using proprietary software. If anyone thinks that my devotion to free software has some imagined de facto advocation that you should not be allowed to use the software you choose to, then you are missing the point. I'm saying that promoting the operating system that is licensed under free terms with an application that isn't probably isn't the best method to gain acceptance, especially since the developer of the application has not stated any interest in the platform or the user's rights. What do we do if the next version of Photoshop fails to operate properly? Complain to Adobe? What will that accomplish? The next step would be to spend time, money, and effort reinventing the wheel to get the thing to work again, resources that could have been spent improving a free software program. Colour me silly, but trying to support an actively developed program when its developer has no active interest in your platform is asking for problems.

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 03:29 AM
Insisting that someone has a right to something doesn't make it so. Photoshop users didn't purchase the Photoshop source code. They purchased the Photoshop binaries. There are no rights violations here. Saying that Photoshop users have a right to the source code makes as much sense as saying KFC patrons have a right to the restaurant's secret chicken recipe. They do not, Photoshop users do not either. And most importantly, both know what they're paying for, there is no deceit taking place.

az
February 21st, 2008, 03:51 AM
I frankly don't care if software is closed source. If the developer chooses to release the software under that license, that's her choice--not mine. And, frankly, since I don't change the source code anyway, it doesn't directly affect me.

[QUOTE=aysiu;4371385]And, as I stated before, I have no interest in studying code, and I cannot afford a programmer, so I don't see what the point of repeating these "freedoms" is.



I'm not confusing freedom and free or beer and freedom or whatever.

I'm just saying that to non-programming end-users who are not millionaires there is little difference between non-free and free software in terms of practical limits on computer use. The only thing that affects the end user is format or vendor lock-in (which often comes with closed source software, but not necessarily).

I dunno. Although the benefits of software freedom are both ideological and pragmatic, the original intension of starting the free software movement was to empower the user, not the developer.

Yes, the F/LOSS development model is elegant and that's the pragmatic side to F/LOSS. But it doesn't end there. A user doesn't have to participate in the process to benefit from it. Standards-compliance and the avoidance of vendor lock-in are side-effects of F/LOSS just as are the greater potential for security and privacy and the simple fact that you get to have a choice in how to use your computer.



Insisting that someone has a right to something doesn't make it so. Photoshop users didn't purchase the Photoshop source code. They purchased the Photoshop binaries. There are no rights violations here.

Who said there were right violations here? I think Google's actions are irrelevant to F/LOSS since they don't really involve any part of Photoshop becoming free/libre.

This is not Photoshot on linux, this is Photoshop on wine on linux. And that's nothing to get excited about.

aysiu
February 21st, 2008, 03:55 AM
Standards-compliance and the avoidance of vendor lock-in are side-effects of F/LOSS just as are the greater potential for security and privacy I think the same (as I noted in my Opera example) can be achieved with closed source. I agree that open source lends itself to those side effects more often, but there's nothing inherent in closed source that prevents standards-compliance, avoidance of vendor lock-in, and security.
and the simple fact that you get to have a choice in how to use your computer. People who choose to use closed source software should have that choice as well.

Mateo
February 21st, 2008, 04:01 AM
Who said there were right violations here?

k2t0f12d, on page 2 of this thread.


This is not Photoshot on linux, this is Photoshop on wine on linux. And that's nothing to get excited about.

Photoshop on linux probably isn't going to happen. Google is taking the pragmatic approach here, like I said before, probably because they themselves use the program in house and are tired of having to dual boot. I disagree though, I think Photoshop users will get excited about this. I don't think Photoshop is the type of app that needs to be native.

saulgoode
February 21st, 2008, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by k2t0f12d

If a free software program doesn't work with the format you want, you are free to add that support, or employ a programmer of your choice who can add that feature for you.Which, in practical terms, for a home user (i.e., not corporation or programmer) like me amounts to nothing.

I do not have the extra money to employ a programmer, and I do not have the know-how to program. So I'm pretty much stuck with whatever free or non-free software has to offer. So I judge software based on technical merits and support for open standards, as those are the things that directly affect me.

The kind of "freedom" of which you speak has practical application only to those who are programmers or those who are rich enough to hire programmers.
Are you saying that you don't benefit from the fact that Andrew Morton and Alan Cox have the freedom to modify Linus Torvalds's code and share the result? You don't benefit because Mark Shuttleworth has the freedom to hire people that modify and distribute programs written by thousands of other people? Of course you benefit! Even if you never examine a single line of source, you still benefit (/have benefited) from the fact that others are permitted to do so.

aysiu
February 21st, 2008, 07:27 AM
Are you saying that you don't benefit from the fact that Andrew Morton and Alan Cox have the freedom to modify Linus Torvalds's code and share the result? You don't benefit because Mark Shuttleworth has the freedom to hire people that modify and distribute programs written by thousands of other people? Of course you benefit! Even if you never examine a single line of source, you still benefit (/have benefited) from the fact that others are permitted to do so.
And I also benefit from closed source software. Whatever (free or nonfree models of development) gets to a good end product is what affects me. I have been equally impressed by both free and nonfree software. It is not only free software that benefits me as an end user. I appreciate the work that free software developers put in, but I do not frown on closed source unless it promotes closed formats and vendor lock-in.

So, in answer to your question, I am not saying I don't benefit from the freedom that programmers experience with free software. I am saying benefit from that, and I also benefit from the supposed shackles of slavery that programmers experience with nonfree software. Please do not put words in my mouth. Saying closed source isn't necessarily bad is not the same as saying open source isn't any good.

qazwsx
February 21st, 2008, 08:07 AM
Well I am not programmer but I have experienced the power of open source for example by finding patch and later applying it into source and then I compiled it. I got my device working woderfully and I don't have any idea when it is going to be in officially in kernel. Try to do that with closed source products.
I tried the device on windows (I don't have Windows installations anymore) and closed source counterpart was very very crashy.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 08:47 AM
The kind of "freedom" of which you speak has practical application only to those who are programmers or those who are rich enough to hire programmers.


And here we go again with the "pay a developer to do it" spiel. Well, having to pay someone to modify something doesn't make that feel like freedom to me.


I'm not confusing freedom and free or beer and freedom or whatever.


I'm just saying that to non-programming end-users who are not millionaires there is little difference between non-free and free software in terms of practical limits on computer use.


Well I am not programmer but I have experienced the power of open source for example by finding patch and later applying it into source and then I compiled it. I got my device working woderfully and I don't have any idea when it is going to be in officially in kernel. Try to do that with closed source products.
I tried the device on windows (I don't have Windows installations anymore) and closed source counterpart was very very crashy.

Are you sure you are not a programmer, qazwsx? If you aren't then you must be a millionaire, in which case we should become really good friends...

swoll1980
February 21st, 2008, 09:16 AM
I think google is just trying to stick it to microsoft

Methuselah
February 21st, 2008, 10:15 AM
The good news about this is that getting any resonably complex application to work better under wine will certainly improve wine in general.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 10:35 AM
The good news about this is that getting any resonably complex application to work better under wine will certainly improve wine in general.

Thats only if CodeWeavers passes its changes back to WINE. I have read elsewhere that they are good about doing this. The article is blatently wrong in that CodeWeavers is a proprietary developer, not open source or free software. If they do release their compatibility only in proprietary form, look forward to paying a little extra on top of the hundreds of dollars for Adobe's software in order to get it to run on GNU/Linux.

qazwsx
February 21st, 2008, 11:03 AM
Are you sure you are not a programmer, qazwsx? If you aren't then you must be a millionaire, in which case we should become really good friends...
Neither (ok i know very very basic things about programming). I am just very lucky to find that little piece of code. Also little bit patience (=lot :)) won't hurt. You can find lots of things using closed source google :lolflag:

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 11:38 AM
I think google is just trying to stick it to microsoft


Agreed. It's an interesting battle and maybe Google see it as a way to needle MS and also help lay the ground for an eventual GNU/Linux based Google or Google sponsored OS (this is total speculation on my part). Obviously Google's main focus is web based apps but there are some things you really do need to have physically installed on a computer to be useful (at the moment). I'm sure it will also help Google gain a lot of good press and reinforce their position as one of the biggest and well known users (and developers) of certain free software. It probably won't make Adobe all that happy either, it's a public statement to them saying they are foolishly missing (or even failing to see) a big opportunity; when a 3rd party picks up a major product like PS and starts (sort of) porting it to Linux while the author sits on its hands refusing to play then the author has to look pretty dumb.

I still think the benefit will be mostly for the commercial enterprise distros and their customers (who will buy licenses) but for the Linux home desktop environment the main result will be that the unethical and illegal use of software will become a commonplace in the same way as it is amongst Windows users, which would be a horrible situation and ultimately very undermining to the communities. Aside from business/commercial/professional users I have not met a single person ever who has a licensed full version of Photoshop, but it is there on almost every PC/Laptop I ever worked on (doing repairs/upgrades etc). I know there must be a regular home user out there somewhere who paid for PS, I'm just saying that in several years I've never encountered him/her or either of his/her likeminded friends.

M7S
February 21st, 2008, 11:41 AM
Thats only if CodeWeavers passes its changes back to WINE. I have read elsewhere that they are good about doing this. The article is blatently wrong in that CodeWeavers is a proprietary developer, not open source or free software. If they do release their compatibility only in proprietary form, look forward to paying a little extra on top of the hundreds of dollars for Adobe's software in order to get it to run on GNU/Linux.
That depends on deal between Google and CodeWeavers, doesn't it? The way the article was written, I got the feeling that Google will pay CodeWeavers to contribute to wine.

lyceum
February 21st, 2008, 11:43 AM
WINE is useless unless you want to run out dated Windows programs. When CS 4 comes out CS3 will be ready, etc...:(

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 11:46 AM
Agreed. It's an interesting battle and maybe Google see it as a way to needle MS and also help lay the ground for an eventual GNU/Linux based Google or Google sponsored OS (this is total speculation on my part). Obviously Google's main focus is web based apps but there are some things you really do need to have physically installed on a computer to be useful (at the moment). I'm sure it will also help Google gain a lot of good press and reinforce their position as one of the biggest and well known users (and developers) of certain free software. It probably won't make Adobe all that happy either, it's a public statement to them saying they are foolishly missing (or even failing to see) a big opportunity; when a 3rd party picks up a major product like PS and starts (sort of) porting it to Linux while the author sits on its hands refusing to play then the author has to look pretty dumb.

I still think the benefit will be mostly for the commercial enterprise distros and their customers (who will buy licenses) but for the Linux home desktop environment the main result will be that the unethical and illegal use of software will become a commonplace in the same way as it is amongst Windows users, which would be a horrible situation and ultimately very undermining to the communities. Aside from business/commercial/professional users I have not met a single person ever who has a licensed full version of Photoshop, but it is there on almost every PC/Laptop I ever worked on (doing repairs/upgrades etc). I know there must be a regular home user out there somewhere who paid for PS, I'm just saying that in several years I've never encountered him/her or either of his/her likeminded friends.

++

You must have not heard of gOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS_Rocket_%28Linux_distribution%29).

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 11:50 AM
That depends on deal between Google and CodeWeavers, doesn't it? The way the article was written, I got the feeling that Google will pay CodeWeavers to contribute to wine.

Could be. It wouldn't surprise me either way. Quite frankly, as badly and inaccurately as it was written, I am amazed anyone can infer anything from it.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 11:53 AM
++

You must have not heard of gOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOS_Rocket_%28Linux_distribution%29).

yes I know about gOS and have used it, but it isn't a Google OS, it's just some guys doing some slick marketing and using a lot of web apps in place of installed apps. There's no real connection to Google.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 12:09 PM
WINE is useless unless you want to run out dated Windows programs. When CS 4 comes out CS3 will be ready, etc...:(

Attempting to run any program on WINE is like russian roulette regardless of how recently it was released. I have seen brand new programs run better on GNU/Linux with WINE then they do on Windows, as well as old programs that can't install and/or segfault on execution. The only meaningful metrics on compatibility are kept by the WINE team on their website, showing the relative state of completeness in translating Windows API for the Linux kernel.

However, I'm very credulous to the idea that, in spite of Google's support, future versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite will break in WINE.

awakatanka
February 21st, 2008, 12:23 PM
Still don't see what is wrong.

Supporting wine will get applications to work on linux that aren't there yet. It will bring new users to linux, it will makes the market share grow. If the market share grow it makes it more interesting to make native applications. It brings more money to distro builders because the market share has grown and they will support the open source projects.

Supporting only GIMP wont do that.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 12:41 PM
Still don't see what is wrong.

Supporting wine will get applications to work on linux that aren't there yet. It will bring new users to linux, it will makes the market share grow. If the market share grow it makes it more interesting to make native applications. It brings more money to distro builders because the market share has grown and they will support the open source projects.

Supporting only GIMP wont do that.

It's far more likely that a really excellent implementation of Wine discourages software makers from ever bothering to port their software to *nix....there's no need for them to do it, they tell the *nix users "just run it on wine".

And while Ubuntu's goal (or one of them) is to make the Linux desktop extremely popular this is not the primary goal of much of the rest of the community. The real goal for many people and communities is not a popular desktop, it's a free desktop. (free as in freedom, not money). Many people would regard it as a Pyrrhic victory if the Linux desktop became popular at the price of the users, developers and distributors losing freedom. We've already seen non-free Linux based distros such as Linspire whose license does not permit the free distribution of their product due to inclusion of proprietary software i.e. you are not permitted to share your install CD with your friends, you may only install it on x number of home PCs, you may not install it in business PCs without paying further licensing fees etc. The effect of just a few proprietary applications included in a distro can mean a complete loss of the simple freedoms we just take for granted at the moment.

awakatanka
February 21st, 2008, 01:05 PM
It's far more likely that a really excellent implementation of Wine discourages software makers from ever bothering to port their software to *nix....there's no need for them to do it, they tell the *nix users "just run it on wine".

And while Ubuntu's goal (or one of them) is to make the Linux desktop extremely popular this is not the primary goal of much of the rest of the community. The real goal for many people and communities is not a popular desktop, it's a free desktop. (free as in freedom, not money). Many people would regard it as a Pyrrhic victory if the Linux desktop became popular at the price of the users, developers and distributors losing freedom. We've already seen non-free Linux based distros such as Linspire whose license does not permit the free distribution of their product due to inclusion of proprietary software i.e. you are not permitted to share your install CD with your friends, you may only install it on x number of home PCs, you may not install it in business PCs without paying further licensing fees etc. The effect of just a few proprietary applications included in a distro can mean a complete loss of the simple freedoms we just take for granted at the moment.
You still could use freespire, the version without all of the proprietary stuff. And still they have to give the source if you ask for without the propriety stuff.

What freedom you will loss? You still can do what you want and a user that wants/needs proprietary stuff can use it also.

proprietary is here and will never go away, we all can choose to use it our not. Open standards are more important as someone already said, because that kind of things force me into a vendor lock in if its not open.

patents and none open standards are restricting my freedom. Not a proprietary application that use open standards.

( little bit offtopic)

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 01:30 PM
You still could use freespire,

the example of Linspire was given because it's a distro containing proprietary code. Xandros would be a similar example. The idea was to illustrate the loss of freedom associated with introducing proprietary applications into the free desktop. The freedoms lost are not ethereal and theoretical but obvious and practical ones.


the version without all of the proprietary stuff. And still they have to give the source if you ask for without the propriety stuff.

What freedom you will loss? You still can do what you want and a user that wants/needs proprietary stuff can use it also.

quite clearly with proprietary code the user cannot do what they want. If i have a legally licensed Photoshop CD I may not share it, or use it on more than one computer, or modify/improve it and share those improvements. I'm not entitled to know how it works or how it might interact with other software I have installed. There are even numerous licenses for products such as WMP and iTunes which (by the user agreeing and installing the software) give the vendor the right to examine the files on your PC and remove the ones they believe to be unlicensed.


proprietary is here and will never go away, we all can choose to use it our not. Open standards are more important as someone already said, because that kind of things force me into a vendor lock in if its not open.

patents and none open standards are restricting my freedom. Not a proprietary application that use open standards.

( little bit offtopic)

Yes finally we have a choice to use or not use proprietary software. This is actually a relatively new choice and one worth hanging on to. Only a few years ago there was no choice, all available Operating Systems were proprietary. You could do worse than find out a little about the origins of free software and how it has evolved to the point where we do actually have a choice. It's something that isn't guaranteed and is constantly threatened, at the moment by the spectre of software patents and sometimes by the quest to gain popularity by introducing some shiny piece of proprietary code into the environment.

quanumphaze
February 21st, 2008, 02:02 PM
It's far more likely that a really excellent implementation of Wine discourages software makers from ever bothering to port their software to *nix....there's no need for them to do it, they tell the *nix users "just run it on wine".

Wine will probably never be 100%. Especially when MS change the API.

So there will always be an advantage for proprietary developers to develop cross platform software when Linux gains a critical user base.

From their perspective: Cost of coding for win32 and supporting Linux users on Wine vs. coding on open APIs.

3rdalbum
February 21st, 2008, 02:02 PM
I welcome Google's patches, but since they've started sending them for Photoshop, the general compatibility of Wine has gone down, at least as far as I can see.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 02:22 PM
Wine will probably never be 100%. Especially when MS change the API.


I think really it just means that the Wine devs are constantly playing catch up.



So there will always be an advantage for proprietary developers to develop cross platform software when Linux gains a critical user base.

That when is a big if. And the size of the user base as a whole doesn't matter as much as the size of the user base who are perceived to be willing to pay for proprietary software. This is probably perceived to be very tiny indeed, which makes Google's motivation to work on Photoshop+Wine even more interesting. I doubt Adobe are readying themselves for a rush of extra sales. More likely (imo) would be to try to find a way to strengthen their activation process across the board.



From their perspective: Cost of coding for win32 and supporting Linux users on Wine vs. coding on open APIs.

My understanding is that MS is notorious for describing their APIs as open while making sure they are not really (so that MS & MS partner products work better than the competition's). I don't see them ever being willing to help make competitors' applications work easily on platforms other than their own. It's much more beneficial for them if Killer_Application_X works very well on MS and not at all or with annoying problems on competing OS.

awakatanka
February 21st, 2008, 04:24 PM
the example of Linspire was given because it's a distro containing proprietary code. Xandros would be a similar example. The idea was to illustrate the loss of freedom associated with introducing proprietary applications into the free desktop. The freedoms lost are not ethereal and theoretical but obvious and practical ones.
Don't know how it takes away you're our others freedom. You still can get the source and don't use the propietary things our take a distro that doesn't use them. It just add some more options to a user that is willing/needs to use them. Those users that needs it our is willing to pay for it have choosen to do so. No freedom is taken away from anyone.



quite clearly with proprietary code the user cannot do what they want. If i have a legally licensed Photoshop CD I may not share it, or use it on more than one computer, or modify/improve it and share those improvements. I'm not entitled to know how it works or how it might interact with other software I have installed. There are even numerous licenses for products such as WMP and iTunes which (by the user agreeing and installing the software) give the vendor the right to examine the files on your PC and remove the ones they believe to be unlicensed.

That user bought it and knows about the restriction from that application. So it is his choose to restrict him from that kind of things.

None open standards are bad, and patents. Its a pitty that it often comes with a proprietary application.

I rather have opensource applications but it isn't always possible. Must i restrict myself because there isn't a solution yet for that application i need. A desktop and the application are my tools and i can't program like most users can't.

forrestcupp
February 21st, 2008, 06:49 PM
I think that everyone here deeply appreciates all that the FSF and GNU movement has done for us. We all know that without that, we would not have the great OS that we have.

But to try to put a guilt trip on me for using non-free software, and pounding it in my head that it is unethical puts limitations on me that I don't like. That in itself takes away my freedom to use and enjoy my computer in the fashion that I desire. It is very restrictive.

I will say that I will always use free software first where it adequately meets my needs. But if there is no free alternative that can possibly meet my needs, I don't want to be restricted from finding something that will work because of harassments and guilt trips from people who think differently than I. One great example is Gnash. Gnash is our free alternative to Flash Player. Gnash is not up to par. It will not work with sites that use Flash version 9 extensions. So I will use flashplugin-nonfree, and I will use it without shame. I want to be able to enjoy the benefits of the free Compiz/Fusion on my Radeon HD 2600 video card. The free drivers don't support 3D, let alone compositing. So I will use the non-free fglrx drivers, and I will use them without shame.

Why would I want to beg developers, hire someone, or spend countless hours trying to modify code myself when there is a non-free alternative readily available that can already do everything I need. In that case, I don't need or care about the freedoms that free software can give me.

But I'll end once again saying that I do deeply appreciate everything the GNU movement is doing, and I will always use free software when it meets my needs.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 07:29 PM
Don't know how it takes away you're our others freedom. You still can get the source and don't use the propietary things our take a distro that doesn't use them. It just add some more options to a user that is willing/needs to use them. Those users that needs it our is willing to pay for it have choosen to do so. No freedom is taken away from anyone.



That user bought it and knows about the restriction from that application. So it is his choose to restrict him from that kind of things.

None open standards are bad, and patents. Its a pitty that it often comes with a proprietary application.

I rather have opensource applications but it isn't always possible. Must i restrict myself because there isn't a solution yet for that application i need. A desktop and the application are my tools and i can't program like most users can't.

You can't obtain the source for the proprietary code found in Linspire or Xandros any more than you can legally obtain the code to Vista. If people want to use proprietary applications that is certainly a choice they are entitled to make, but if they believe they can do so without losing other choices (freedoms) then they are mistaken. I have a proprietary driver for my ATI card and in the past I have used wine to run Win32 binaries (until I worked out how to perform the same tasks using free software) so I know it is sometimes a case of use the damn stuff or start selling off hardware and replacing it at a loss ( I hate wasting old hardware, preferring to use what I already have available). I have a lot of Linux disk images and CDs. I like the fact i can legally install the OSs on any computer I like, make copies, distribute copies and so on. I can't legally do that with Windows, Linspire, Xandros, OS X etc, which means I can't use those products in a social way (i.e help out my friends and family), neither can I legally use those OS to earn money (i.e. by installing/maintaining/upgrading for payment) without paying all over again. You mention that
That user bought it and knows about the restriction from that application. So it is his choose to restrict him from that kind of things. but actually this isn't the case. Currently the UK's National Consumer Council is investigating some of the biggest software vendors: source BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7252707.stm)


Some of the world's biggest computer firms have been accused of imposing unfair contracts on customers who buy their software.

The National Consumer Council (NCC) has accused 17 firms, including Microsoft, Adobe and Symantec, of using unfair "end user licence agreements" (EULAs).

The NCC has asked the Office of Fair Trading to launch an investigation.

The NCC said the firms' EULAs were misleading customers into "signing away legal rights".

"Software rights-holders are shifting the legal burden on to consumers who buy computer programmes, leaving them with less protection than when they buy a cheap Biro," said Carl Belgrove of the NCC.

"Consumers can't have a clue what they're signing up to when some terms and conditions run to 10 or more pages.

"There's a significant imbalance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the holder," he added.

'Legal responsibility'

As one of the firms named by the NCC, Microsoft said it had not seen the details of the report and was unable to comment.

But it added that it was committed to dealing "fairly" with consumers and addressing any concerns they might have.

The NCC looked at 25 software packages and said that in 17 instances, the packaging did not tell potential buyers they would have to sign an EULA in order to use it.

While some contained the EULA inside an instruction manual, or let it be read online, this was only after the software had been bought.

"This means that consumers are unable to make informed decisions before they buy a product, yet are being forced to take on an unknown level of legal responsibility," said the NCC.

After examining the contents of the EULAs, the NCC also said that some contained potentially unfair clauses.

It's very plain to see that not only are many of these licenses unfair and illegal, they are not even made available to the purchaser. It is actually often impossible for the consumer to know anything about what rights they have and what they are giving up. I think most of us compromise to some degree but it's important imo to at least understand the problems associated with proprietary licensing. My feeling is that as a community we are ultimately better off if we can achieve a 100% free environment. This is possible for some people right now. Novell is working on a free driver for ATI cards so I'm really hoping to be able to remove the ATI driver at some point (it's also the most unstable part of my system). I know how restricting the proprietary driver is even on a selfish personal level because it is a pig to install and a horrible inconvenience to update (uninstall and reinstall). Contrastingly my laptops run Intel integrated graphics with an open source driver and updating is seamless....automatic and perfect. Introducing more proprietary software is not part of a solution, it is more like aggravating a problem instead of treating it.

zetetic
February 21st, 2008, 08:03 PM
I think this is one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on these forums.

I also think this thread is a good picture of what we can expect of Ubuntu...

In fact, it is very interesting to note that all Ubuntu Forum Staff members stated (clearly or implicitly) that they do not value Freedom (or don't value freedom as much of other aspects, such as momentary convenience or technical merits) and that they tend to make choices based on mere momentary and strict personal convenience...

This kind of attitude is unmoral, unethical and not so smart, because these people "forget" that it is the Freedom aspect of free software that made possible the simple existence of GNU/Linux and Ubuntu, as well as all their technical and politic/philosophic merits/advantages...

And this kind of attitude and philosophy is a good advice against the risks and dangerous of using Ubuntu, cause these guys reflect the real spirit of this distro.

I would also like to suggest that all forum users should carefully read all posts posted on this thread by k2t0f12d's, curiously a Debian user...

As a matter of fact, I think k2t0f12d's explains very well the concept, advantages and beneficial effects of free software over the risks and restrictions imposed by proprietary software.

This guy (k2t0f12d's), at least in what concerns these kind of subjects, is a living bible, and should be commended for the light he trows upon these subjects.

zetetic

p_quarles
February 21st, 2008, 08:06 PM
In fact, it is very interesting to note that all Ubuntu Forum Staff members stated (clearly or implicitly) that they do not value Freedom (or don't value freedom as much of other aspects, such as momentary convenience or technical merits) and that they tend to make choices based on mere momentary and strict personal convenience...
Really? Where did a staff member state that they don't value freedom? I recall seeing several staff members, myself included, stating that they disagreed with a rather simplistic definition of freedom.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 08:13 PM
And this kind of attitude and philosophy is a good advice against the risks and dangerous of using Ubuntu, cause these guys reflect the real spirit of this distro.

zetetic


The Ubuntu promise

* Ubuntu will always be free of charge, including enterprise releases and security updates.
* Ubuntu comes with full commercial support from Canonical and hundreds of companies around the world.
* Ubuntu includes the very best translations and accessibility infrastructure that the free software community has to offer.
* Ubuntu CDs contain only free software applications; we encourage you to use free and open source software, improve it and pass it on.
source:ubuntu.com

I'm not sure that the development or philosophy of the Ubuntu distro is determined by the mods here, whatever their personal views may or may not be. Some of them may be Ubuntu developers, I don't know, but Ubuntu has very clear and public policy on licensing which anyone is free to read.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 08:31 PM
In fact, it is very interesting to note that all Ubuntu Forum Staff members stated (clearly or implicitly) that they do not value Freedom (or don't value freedom as much of other aspects, such as momentary convenience or technical merits) and that they tend to make choices based on mere momentary and strict personal convenience...


Actually this remark prompted me to read the whole thread again and it's true that all the staff/mods who posted here expressed convenience/technical merit/adherence to open standards as being more important than an application being free or not. It's mildly surprising I suppose, but I don't agree with your conclusion that this reflects on the Ubuntu distro or its philosophy. And I'm using the binary ATI driver for the convenience of 3D acceleration so I guess I'm out there in no man's land for the moment........but I know the day that the free driver is available is the day the proprietary one is purged from my PC.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 09:04 PM
But to try to put a guilt trip on me for using non-free software, and pounding it in my head that it is unethical puts limitations on me that I don't like. That in itself takes away my freedom to use and enjoy my computer in the fashion that I desire. It is very restrictive.

If anything I said made you feel this way, I apologise. However, I do not see how the discussion of user's rights limits anyone.


I will say that I will always use free software first where it adequately meets my needs. But if there is no free alternative that can possibly meet my needs, I don't want to be restricted from finding something that will work because of harassments and guilt trips from people who think differently than I. One great example is Gnash. Gnash is our free alternative to Flash Player. Gnash is not up to par. It will not work with sites that use Flash version 9 extensions. So I will use flashplugin-nonfree, and I will use it without shame. I want to be able to enjoy the benefits of the free Compiz/Fusion on my Radeon HD 2600 video card. The free drivers don't support 3D, let alone compositing. So I will use the non-free fglrx drivers, and I will use them without shame.

It may be true that there other free software advocates who attack users using non-free software. Even Stallman has never done that in any lecture or literature I have ever seen. He claims to not use non-free software himself, presents his reasons why, and says he hopes others will refuse non-free software as well. He doesn't attack the user.


Why would I want to beg developers, hire someone, or spend countless hours trying to modify code myself when there is a non-free alternative readily available that can already do everything I need. In that case, I don't need or care about the freedoms that free software can give me.

If there is anything that this thread has revealed, it is that this platform is only possible through those freedoms. That also does not mean its horrible to use non-free software until the free software is written. It is completely possible to use the non-free software while also supporting the development of the freely licensed replacement.


But I'll end once again saying that I do deeply appreciate everything the GNU movement is doing, and I will always use free software when it meets my needs.

To say that the rights the free software respects aren't important when there is not a software licensed under those terms is a mistake. "Begging" a developer is also not a freedom that free software grants. One can do that quite easily regardless of the license of the program. Saying that you will always use free software when it "meets your needs" isn't also supporting free software very much. It is saying that you feel you deserve to have software that does the jobs that you need done without having to donate any time, effort, or support of any kind. Using free software that has been written is the least meaningful form of support in the community because it gives you the most benefit, and the larger community the least. If it works and is licensed in such a way that gives you the freedom to pay what you want to for it (including nothing at all) of course you are going to use it. That's fine, thats the way it is licensed and distributed because we want people to be able to benefit from it and set their own cost. But when the suggestion is raised to tell the developer what you need, support them financially, or employ someone to write the free software you need, then suddenly the freedoms don't matter to you? You are saying freedom only matters when you can benefit the most and means nothing to you at all when it would require you to give anything at all back to the community.

I don't think that your using non-free software to do the jobs for which there is no free software is the real disservice you are paying back to the community that has given to you.

Zeroangel
February 21st, 2008, 09:15 PM
I don't know why *certain users* are so inflamed about Googles decision to donate money to the development of Wine and Photoshop compatability rather than GIMP.

Its Googles money and they can do whatever they want with it. It would be more constructive to instead donate your own money to the development of the GIMP. Just as you have no right to get people to donate money to cerebral palsy instead of feeding kids in africa. Sure you can make a big huff about it, but people have different priorities. And you're not gonna change them unless you can come up with an earth-shatteringly convincing argument against their beliefs.

Me? I'm a Photoshop user. And there are things on even Photoshop 7 that I can do that I simply cannot do on the GIMP (the greater feeling of integration in the interface, as well as toggleable/editable layer effects being among some of them -- BIG TIME SAVER). I honestly gave the GIMP a good effort trying to lay off of Photoshop for 2 months but no cigar. I gave up. It was too easy to do X within 2 hours in photoshop whereas it would take me 4 hours to do in the GIMP, and with less satisfactory results.

I for one am happy that Google is contributing to compatability. The more killer windows apps we can run on Linux, the easier the transition will be for Windows converts and the more attention gets paid to linux, which means from hardware/software providers -- who can make things easier driver and software wise for us.

I'm not against capitalism at all. In fact, people have the right to get paid for their work. It is good to have choice. :)

zetetic
February 21st, 2008, 09:24 PM
source:ubuntu.com

I'm not sure that the development or philosophy of the Ubuntu distro is determined by the mods here, whatever their personal views may or may not be. Some of them may be Ubuntu developers, I don't know, but Ubuntu has very clear and public policy on licensing which anyone is free to read.

Unfortunately, and besides the opinions and attitudes of Forum Staff members, there are other good reasons to suspect the advertised philosophy of Ubuntu is not respected, and we already saw that (for instance, on the binary blobs and restricted video drivers by default issues).

Also if staff members would not comply to the philosophy and spirit of Ubuntu distro they would not be staff members... I think they comply to the real philosophy and not to the merely advertised philosophy.

Finally, it is more and more clear that Ubuntu longs to be the most popular desktop, even if in order to fulfill this objective if needs to be not so free.

zetetic

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 09:25 PM
I don't know why *certain users* are so inflamed about Googles decision to donate money to the development of Wine and Photoshop compatability rather than GIMP.

You must be following a different thread then I am. No one is infamed with Google.


Google has every right in the world to determine how to spend their money and what to spend it on, and I would never advocate otherwise. I can say their attempts to hasten the introduction of a non-free program on a free platform doesn't excite me the same way if they had choosen to do so with a free program. Mateo tried to troll an argument over network based software. Whereby again, if I believe that the four freedoms of free software are correct, Google has every right to develop and run software on their hardware however they like and I have absolutely no argument against them in doing so. This is an example, however, of conflicts of rights, whereby the users right to study is interrupted by Google's refusal to release source. However, in this case, Google's right to make private modifications on their copy and to run their copy is more important then the user's right to study, since the user does not in fact possess any copy with which to demand source. Google does not nor should they need anyone else's permission to modify and run their copy, even if they are running it for the benefit of others.

Zeroangel
February 21st, 2008, 09:57 PM
Ah, I was basing my post on the first 5 or so pages of debate. I didnt understand that your stance had evolved throughout the argument.

What then, is the purpose of debate if it doesnt teach us things. Neh?


Unfortunately, and besides the opinions and attitudes of Forum Staff members, there are other good reasons to suspect the advertised philosophy of Ubuntu is not respected, and we already saw that (for instance, on the binary blobs and restricted video drivers by default issues).

Also if staff members would not comply to the philosophy and spirit of Ubuntu distro they would not be staff members... I think they comply to the real philosophy and not to the merely advertised philosophy.

Finally, it is more and more clear that Ubuntu longs to be the most popular desktop, even if in order to fulfill this objective if needs to be not so free.

zetetic
Yes, some compromise is needed if Ubuntu is to please its users. The gobuntu project is more suited to those who don't want compromises on their software.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 10:01 PM
Ah, I was basing my post on the first 5 or so pages of debate. I didnt understand that your stance had evolved throughout the argument.

What then, is the purpose of debate if it doesnt teach us things. Neh?

But my stance hasn't changed. I never have said that Google is doing a bad thing with their money, or that they shouldn't be allowed to use their money how they choose to, only that it is not something that I think is very exciting. More binary compatibility is not bad, just not better then more free software and more useful free software would have been.

julian67
February 21st, 2008, 10:05 PM
Unfortunately, and besides the opinions and attitudes of Forum Staff members, there are other good reasons to suspect the advertised philosophy of Ubuntu is not respected, and we already saw that (for instance, on the binary blobs and restricted video drivers by default issues).

Also if staff members would not comply to the philosophy and spirit of Ubuntu distro they would not be staff members... I think they comply to the real philosophy and not to the merely advertised philosophy.

Finally, it is more and more clear that Ubuntu longs to be the most popular desktop, even if in order to fulfill this objective if needs to be not so free.

zetetic

It was always, from day one, an aim of Ubuntu to address bug #1. Nothing new there. As for binary drivers etc the policy is clearly and publicly stated, nothing is hidden. We do have an informed choice and nobody has deceived us into using the distro.

k2t0f12d
February 21st, 2008, 11:37 PM
Unfortunately, and besides the opinions and attitudes of Forum Staff members, there are other good reasons to suspect the advertised philosophy of Ubuntu is not respected, and we already saw that (for instance, on the binary blobs and restricted video drivers by default issues).

Also if staff members would not comply to the philosophy and spirit of Ubuntu distro they would not be staff members... I think they comply to the real philosophy and not to the merely advertised philosophy.

Finally, it is more and more clear that Ubuntu longs to be the most popular desktop, even if in order to fulfill this objective if needs to be not so free.

zetetic

I think that the horizon of Ubuntu is a bit broader then that. Any large organization of people will be fragmented into differing opinion and motive. All of the literature and speaking that I have seen from the distribution's founder, Mark Shuttleworth, leads me to be credulous that the foundations of the distribution are honourable to the spirit of free software. And find, like me, that the use of a few trivial non-free programs for the nagging problems free software has not been allowed to address, like device drivers from hardware maufacturers that do not release specifications, are tolerable until we are able to convince those who are blocking us, or invent around them.


Yes, some compromise is needed if Ubuntu is to please its users. The gobuntu project is more suited to those who don't want compromises on their software.

That isn't true at all. You don't have to compromise and include non-free software to please the user, because it is not the license for which the user is asking. The user wants software that does a job, which is technologically possible with any software license. A few trivial non-free programs just provide some functionality right now. Fortunately, free software empowers the user to not only ask for the software they need, but also become active in its development, either through donations, testing, or, if they are programmers, writing the code itself.


It was always, from day one, an aim of Ubuntu to address bug #1. Nothing new there.

Addressing bug #1 is not implicit to including non-free software. What has happened with Ubuntu is what happened with GNU. GNU was almost complete, lacking only a kernel to provide a wholly free software operating system. When the Linux kernel came onto the scene, users saw that by adding it to the GNU system they could achieve the thing that GNU had set out to do. Only in that case the end result was wholly free software.

What has happened with Ubuntu is, as it was thought and rightly so, that the expectations in the quality of user experience on the desktop could be achieved with GNU/Linux. This was already self-evident through pre-existing distributions that have sometimes done it even better then Ubuntu. Ubuntu, however, has given the community something to rally behind, and has done so very well, just not very clearly in every respect. It was first seen that the system could provide a better user experience by including a few trivial non-free programs. Like the addition the Linux kernel to GNU furnished the ability to operate as a stand alone system, the inclusion of a few trivial non-free programs furnished Ubuntu with a level of user experience it was aiming to achieve.

Now that we have this system up and running, it has no longer remained very clear in the conversation that it is to free software which we owe any gratitiude, just like the conversation was lost that GNU was responsible for the system and that the Linux kernel had just supplied the finishing touch. The most surprising thing is the backlash at even suggesting that free software is the culprit for all this great software. Suddenly it is no good at all without the few trivial non-free programs, and actually suggesting that the community come together and attempt to replace just those few trivial non-free programs with free software is met with disdain, hostility, and accusations of the making of guilt where none was made. However, who would be the first to use a free software replacement, if it were written, worked, and made available under terms that allowed the user to pay whatever they wanted, including nothing at all?

This is what the community is about. It is about helping one another to have the software we need to do the work we need do without forcing coersion with restrictive licenses. No one needs to give more then they can afford, and no one will ever be excluded from usage based on the ability or inability to pay, because the user who uses for free could very well be the next Torvalds or Stallman who contributes something valuable back to the community.

The very first step is to not stop talking about the importance of freedom and user's rights. The next step is to exercise those freedoms and participate, as much as we are able, with the development of the software we need under free terms, and, if we are not able, at the very least, to cease disparaging and dismissing the importance of freedom and user's rights because they have not yet supplied us with the needs we percieve to be important.

forrestcupp
February 22nd, 2008, 01:00 AM
That also does not mean its horrible to use non-free software until the free software is written. It is completely possible to use the non-free software while also supporting the development of the freely licensed replacement.

That is one thing we can agree on. I just don't like being told I can't use non-free stuff until freely licensed replacements are released.



Saying that you will always use free software when it "meets your needs" isn't also supporting free software very much. It is saying that you feel you deserve to have software that does the jobs that you need done without having to donate any time, effort, or support of any kind. Using free software that has been written is the least meaningful form of support in the community because it gives you the most benefit, and the larger community the least.
And this is the part where it is wrong for you to accuse someone or assume that they have never given back to the community without really knowing.


there are other good reasons to suspect the advertised philosophy of Ubuntu is not respected, and we already saw that (for instance, on the binary blobs and restricted video drivers by default issues).
If you'll notice, Ubuntu has never included restricted video drivers by default. They have made it much easier to access them, but they have never been included by default. But you are a Debian user, so maybe you're just making statements based on what you have heard.

bruce89
February 22nd, 2008, 01:32 AM
If you'll notice, Ubuntu has never included restricted video drivers by default. They have made it much easier to access them, but they have never been included by default. But you are a Debian user, so maybe you're just making statements based on what you have heard.

The plan for Dapper was to install them by default, but they backed down.

Finally, we can have the marriage of 2 bad things - WINE and Photoshop.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 01:32 AM
And this is the part where it is wrong for you to accuse someone or assume that they have never given back to the community without really knowing.

I am not accusing you of anything. No one has to prove to anyone else whether they do or don't contribute anything. I simply followed what you yourself have clearly said on the matter.


Why would I want to beg developers, hire someone, or spend countless hours trying to modify code myself when there is a non-free alternative readily available that can already do everything I need. In that case, I don't need or care about the freedoms that free software can give me.

Those were explicit and clear in their hostility towards the freedom that free software gives you in the ability to replace, or support the projects that aim to replace, the "readily available" non-free software you are using with free software. You could have just as easily said that you'd use the non-free software until there was a free replacement that respected freedom and user's rights, but you didn't. The very instant any inconvenience presents itself, you claim that freedom and user's rights are unneeded and meaningless to you because free software did not do the job you thought was important.

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 01:50 AM
The very instant any inconvenience presents itself, you claim that freedom and user's rights are unneeded and meaningless to you because free software did not do the job you thought was important.
You continue to define freedom in a way that is not only extremely narrow, but also sort of circular: a non-free license denies the user any sort of freedom. In classical rhetoric this is known as "begging the question."

I think you should explain why you feel that the freedom of the license comes before any other freedom.

I would also note that the traditional arguments for software freedom are largely based on analogy to other types of creative works: music, literature, painting and so forth. Do you feel that the active choice of agreeing to a license other than a "free" one (CC, etc.) is a renunciation of freedom? How closely would the "free" replacement have to be before it counted as adequate? In other words, what would be the CC-licensed equivalent of, say, a Bob Dylan song?

JordanII
February 22nd, 2008, 01:55 AM
w00t! :guitar:

az
February 22nd, 2008, 02:07 AM
I think the same (as I noted in my Opera example) can be achieved with closed source. I agree that open source lends itself to those side effects more often, but there's nothing inherent in closed source that prevents standards-compliance, avoidance of vendor lock-in, and security. People who choose to use closed source software should have that choice as well.

You didn't mention privacy.

As for vendor lock-in and security, I have to dissagree with you.

It's not just because an application is standards-compliant that you can avoid lock-in or prevent the publisher from taking liberties with the program.. The ability to fork is a powerful method of keeping the development team (or development community) responsive to the userbase.

As for security, I think you can achieve acceptable security from proprietary software, but at a great expense in terms of time, effort and CPU cycles. Security is clearly more straightforward in the FLOSS model

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 02:15 AM
You continue to define freedom in a way that is not only extremely narrow, but also sort of circular: a non-free license denies the user any sort of freedom. In classical rhetoric this is known as "begging the question."

That isn't true. Either my logic is or is not circular, it can't "sorta" be circular. I have been explicit in what software freedom and user's rights mean. They are the rights to:


run the software
study and/or modify the software (requires source)
redistribute exact copies
redistribute modified copies


Without those freedoms and right, GNU/Linux would not be possible at all.


I think you should explain why you feel that the freedom of the license comes before any other freedom.

I have not argued in this thread that software freedom is more important then any other freedom, including that of the user to use software that does not guarantee those freedoms.


I would also note that the traditional arguments for software freedom are largely based on analogy to other types of creative works: music, literature, painting and so forth. Do you feel that the active choice of agreeing to a license other than a "free" one (CC, etc.) is a renunciation of freedom? How closely would the "free" replacement have to be before it counted as adequate? In other words, what would be the CC-licensed equivalent of, say, a Bob Dylan song?

That is a confusion. To say that arguements for free software are like other forms of media is meaningless unless they have real and actual relationships with one another. The only one of which I am aware is that software is expressable as a written work, and most of the others that you mentioned can be expressed in a similar way. Otherwise they have virtually no meaningful relationship with one another in society. You cannot use the expressions in a book, or song, or poem to view or adjust your bank accounts, operate a business, operate electrical or mechanical hardware, etc. I also do not know what a CC license is. If you mean Creative Commons, that organization produces many different licenses that promise very different things depending on which license is selected. Without knowing specifically which license it is or what the license says, I could never identify which I personally feel would be applicable to a Bob Dylan song. In fact I am not aware of any book, poem, or song for which I must actively sign a license to use, only that the terms of use are implicit to possessing a copy, and that the copyright holder reserves all rights (usually). If asked I would say it is a confusion that has very little importance other to obfusticate an argument about other unrelated social problems, since there is no lack for finding any music to listen to.

az
February 22nd, 2008, 02:17 AM
I would also note that the traditional arguments for software freedom are largely based on analogy to other types of creative works: music, literature, painting and so forth.

Not really. Software freedom is based on the fact that making software available to one person takes pretty much the same effort as making it available to everyone.

If you could make a sandwich, press a button and provide everyone in the world with a copy of your sandwich, would it be ethical to *not* push the button? Software freedom is about ensuring that anyone can take the code and help their neighbor.

I have never heard a software freedom advocate claim that all Bob Dylan songs should be made freely available.



Do you feel that the active choice of agreeing to a license other than a "free" one (CC, etc.) is a renunciation of freedom? How closely would the "free" replacement have to be before it counted as adequate? In other words, what would be the CC-licensed equivalent of, say, a Bob Dylan song?

Lawrence Lessig makes a strong point for Free Culture in the book of that name. But Free Culture and Software freedom are not the same. In fact, the Free Culture movement is not as mature as the Software Freedom movement.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 02:25 AM
If you could make a sandwich, press a button and provide everyone in the world with a copy of your sandwich, would it be ethical to *not* push the button?

Humourous aside
On the serious side I agree with Az 100%. But when reading the part of his post quoted above, all I could visualize is Homer Simpson hovering over the sandwich machine, being told not to press the button.

"Do'ah! But I'm hungry.." *looks downcast*

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 02:29 AM
You continue to define freedom in a way that is not only extremely narrow, but also sort of circular: a non-free license denies the user any sort of freedom. In classical rhetoric this is known as "begging the question."

I think you should explain why you feel that the freedom of the license comes before any other freedom.

I would also note that the traditional arguments for software freedom are largely based on analogy to other types of creative works: music, literature, painting and so forth. Do you feel that the active choice of agreeing to a license other than a "free" one (CC, etc.) is a renunciation of freedom? How closely would the "free" replacement have to be before it counted as adequate? In other words, what would be the CC-licensed equivalent of, say, a Bob Dylan song?

That's not really a meaningful question and is built on your own set of premises rather than any commonly accepted by others.

If you listen to RMS speak the analogy he often uses is to compare software to a (cooking) recipe that you might like to modify, improve and share with your friends...and enjoy their improvements too. Another analogy he uses is to compare software with maths...imagine if mathematical knowledge could be restricted by license and patent and the consequences for everyone from people who need to perform simple everyday tasks right up to people undertaking engineering projects.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 02:34 AM
"Do'ah! The turkey in this sandwich is dry! Stupid sandwich machine!" *kicks machine*

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 02:42 AM
That isn't true. Either my logic is or is not circular, it can't "sorta" be circular. I have been explicit in what software freedom and user's rights mean. They are the rights to:

run the software
study and/or modify the software (requires source)
redistribute exact copies
redistribute modified copiesWithout those freedoms and right, GNU/Linux would not be possible at all.
That's not what I'm getting at. I know the GNU software freedoms, and agree that they make the entire project possible in the first place. What I'm getting it is your tendency to say things like this:

The very instant any inconvenience presents itself, you claim that freedom and user's rights are unneeded and meaningless to you because free software did not do the job you thought was important.
You're presenting a false dilemma. You have first narrowed the meaning of user's rights to your own criteria (those shared by many others, of course), and then attempt to argue that anyone who actively chooses something based on a different set of criteria is ignoring your criteria completely.

In other words:
Premise 1: Epiphany is a FLOSS web browser. Opera is not.
Premise 2: User A chooses Epiphany. It functions fully for his needs.
Premise 3: User B chooses Opera. Even though Epiphany does everything she needs, Opera is more comfortable for her.

Conclusion: User A cares about the four software freedoms, and User B doesn't care about them at all.

That conclusion is false, obviously, but unless I am misreading you, that is exactly the form of the argument you are making.


I have not argued in this thread that software freedom is more important then any other freedom, including that of the user to use software that does not guarantee those freedoms.
Acknowledged. What you have argued, I think, is that someone who chooses to use software that does not guarantee the freedoms in question does not care about those freedoms.


You cannot use the expressions in a book, or song, or poem to view or adjust your bank accounts, operate a business, operate electrical or mechanical hardware, etc.
Yes, you can. Here is an example:
Running a 21st Century Small Business (http://www.amazon.com/Running-21st-Century-Small-Business-Starting/dp/B000WCNUEE/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203644034&sr=8-1)

Software is information. Like all other kinds of information, it can either be restricted or open. It is impossible to accomplish many things if you lack the correct kind of information.


If asked I would say it is a confusion that has very little importance other to obfusticate an argument about other unrelated social problems, since there is no lack for finding any music to listen to.
Not attempting to obfuscate anything. The same arguments come up quite frequently in the realm of music. Danger Mouse, for instance, was forced to stop distributing his The Grey Album because of copyright issues. The music he mixed was burdened by a non-free license. You could say that because I like Bob Dylan, I am against the freedom of musicians to remix existing music into their own creations. I do like Bob Dylan, however, and I am not against that freedom.

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 02:47 AM
If you listen to RMS speak the analogy he often uses is to compare software to a (cooking) recipe that you might like to modify, improve and share with your friends...and enjoy their improvements too. Another analogy he uses is to compare software with maths...imagine if mathematical knowledge could be restricted by license and patent and the consequences for everyone from people who need to perform simple everyday tasks right up to people undertaking engineering projects.
So let's say I buy a recipe for mulligatawny. Am I therefore against free recipes?

Mathematical knowledge can be restricted by licenses. Interestingly enough, Adobe does precisely that with Photoshop.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 02:52 AM
Acknowledged. What you have argued, I think, is that someone who chooses to use software that does not guarantee the freedoms in question does not care about those freedoms.

No I haven't. In fact in several posts previous to that, I have specifically stated that there is nothing wrong with the user selecting a non-free program to do a job for which there is no free software. However, I did criticize someone who uses and admits the benefits provided by free software for saying the freedoms and rights it guarantees are meaningless when there isn't free software to do the job he thinks is important.


Yes, you can. Here is an example:
Running a 21st Century Small Business (http://www.amazon.com/Running-21st-Century-Small-Business-Starting/dp/B000WCNUEE/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203644034&sr=8-1)

Software is information. Like all other kinds of information, it can either be restricted or open. It is impossible to accomplish many things if you lack the correct kind of information.

I could use such a book to plan a business, but not to run a business. It cannot store a database, it cannot process my data, it cannot operate machinery or electronics, etc.

It's only my personal opinion, but someone who wishes to mix Dylan's music with their own has worse problems then worrying about licensing issues.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 03:03 AM
So let's say I buy a recipe for mulligatawny. Am I therefore against free recipes?

Free in free software is != to costless.

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 03:09 AM
Free in free software is != to costless.
Yes, I am aware of that. That is not my point. My point is that a recipe, like software, can either be shared freely or be burdened with restrictive licenses. Again, if I buy a restricted recipe for mulligatawny, does this mean that I am against cooking freedom? There are, after all, many recipes for mulligatawny.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 03:11 AM
Yes, I am aware of that. That is not my point. My point is that a recipe, like software, can either be shared freely or be burdened with restrictive licenses. Again, if I buy a restricted recipe for mulligatawny, does this mean that I am against cooking freedom? There are, after all, many recipes for mulligatawny.

How would a proprietary recipe license work anyway? You can only cook it on one stove? You can only serve it to certain people, or at certain times? Or you couldn't serve it to anyone other then yourself, unless the other people have recipe license keys, then they can come over and eat too?

Zeroangel
February 22nd, 2008, 03:15 AM
That isn't true at all. You don't have to compromise and include non-free software to please the user, because it is not the license for which the user is asking. The user wants software that does a job, which is technologically possible with any software license. A few trivial non-free programs just provide some functionality right now. Fortunately, free software empowers the user to not only ask for the software they need, but also become active in its development, either through donations, testing, or, if they are programmers, writing the code itself.
If this were true, than using Sun Java, Restricted drivers (for 3D acceleration), Adobe Flash and FFMPEG wouldnt be a necessity. Unfortunately it is.

I'm not talking about some lofty ideal. I'm talking about right now.

While total FOSS is a great ideal. We occassionally require the help of proprietary code to exchange already-established proprietary data formats with others. Examples are Flash, MPEG, Word Documents, etc. While OGG, OpenDocument, and OSS flash compatible flash would be ideal, we must interchange with others, and this means using proprietary code in the meantime -- because such code has already been established.

For me, i'm all for instant gratification AND open source. But I'm not going to convert my entire MP3 library into OGG just because I care so much about an ideal that i'm willing to martyr my time and effort into it. It is the same with most other users -- people just want to get on with their lives.

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 03:17 AM
How would a proprietary recipe license work anyway? You can only cook it on one stove? You can only serve it to certain people, or at certain times? Or you couldn't serve it to anyone other then yourself, unless the other people have recipe license keys, then they can come over and eat too?
I'm not aware of any that work that way. It's certainly true, however, that if you purchase the rights to a copyrighted recipe, you have no right to redistribute that recipe.

Also, I should mention that Danger Mouse never did anything to Bob Dylan's work. The album in question used cuts from Michael Jackson and the Beatles. It was a critical as well as popular success, but was quickly shut down by the record labels. Whether this type of music interests you or not is kind of beside the point, as the question is whether or not choosing to support non-free licensed work amounts to not caring about freedom from such restrictive licenses.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 03:24 AM
If this were true, than using Sun Java, Restricted drivers (for 3D acceleration), Adobe Flash and FFMPEG wouldnt be a necessity. Unfortunately it is.

I'm not talking about some lofty ideal. I'm talking about right now.

While total FOSS is a great ideal. We occassionally require the help of proprietary code to exchange already-established proprietary data formats with others. Examples are Flash, MPEG, Word Documents, etc. While OGG, OpenDocument, and OSS flash compatible flash would be ideal, we must interchange with others, and this means using proprietary code in the meantime -- because such code has already been established.

For me, i'm all for instant gratification AND open source. But I'm not going to convert my entire MP3 library into OGG just because I care so much about an ideal that i'm willing to martyr my time and effort into it. It is the same with most other users -- people just want to get on with their lives.

Thank you for cherry-picking a flame for me, belittling my ideas, and completely ignoring things that I wrote in the very same post you quoted. Since you are so busy trying to pick a fight with me, I'll quote myself.


I think that the horizon of Ubuntu is a bit broader then that. Any large organization of people will be fragmented into differing opinion and motive. All of the literature and speaking that I have seen from the distribution's founder, Mark Shuttleworth, leads me to be credulous that the foundations of the distribution are honourable to the spirit of free software. And find, like me, that the use of a few trivial non-free programs for the nagging problems free software has not been allowed to address, like device drivers from hardware maufacturers that do not release specifications, are tolerable until we are able to convince those who are blocking us, or invent around them.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 04:28 AM
the question is whether or not choosing to support non-free licensed work amounts to not caring about freedom from such restrictive licenses.

Software freedom also is != freedom from restrictive licenses. You don't need free software to be able refuse agreement with a license you don't agree with, therefore you have freedom from restirictive licenses with or without free software. Software freedom only refers to the following rights


to run the program
to study and/or modify the program (source required)
redistribute exact copies
redistribute modified copies of the program


The answer to your question, as far as my opinion matters, is already mixed in liberally with everything I have been maintaining all along. Firstly, that saying, as Forrestcupp has, that software freedoms and user's rights no longer matter at all when it ceases to be personally beneficial amounts to not caring about freedom. That is what I have said thus far.

As far as supporting software freedoms, again as I also mentioned before, the very first thing to do is to never stop speaking about them. It is a mistake to take the benefits that software freedoms make possible and then strip them of the discussion of freedom and user's rights by parading them around under the term open source in order to endear the software to those who would find the idea of users having rights unappealing. Not everyone has the time, money, or skills necessary to support free software, and no one has to be active all the time, but at the very least, those who benefit from free software should avoid disparaging or dismissing the value of software freedom and user's rights in discussion.

Zeroangel
February 22nd, 2008, 04:35 AM
And find, like me, that the use of a few trivial non-free programs for the nagging problems free software has not been allowed to address, like device drivers from hardware maufacturers that do not release specifications, are tolerable until we are able to convince those who are blocking us, or invent around them.But that *IS* a compromise! How can you disagree with me in one post - saying that compromise isnt needed to please the users, and then in another post say that it is needed?

Your arguments have gotten so lengthy and complex that you are contradicting yourself!

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 04:56 AM
But that *IS* a compromise! How can you disagree with me in one post - saying that compromise isnt needed to please the users, and then in another post say that it is needed?

Your arguments have gotten so lengthy and complex that you are contradicting yourself!

No I haven't in the very post and words of mine that you quoted, I said:


That isn't true at all. You don't have to compromise and include non-free software to please the user, because it is not the license for which the user is asking. The user wants software that does a job, which is technologically possible with any software license. A few trivial non-free programs just provide some functionality right now. Fortunately, free software empowers the user to not only ask for the software they need, but also become active in its development, either through donations, testing, or, if they are programmers, writing the code itself.

What I'm saying is that we don't need proprietary software because proprietary development is the only way to get software that does a particular job. We both agree that there are only non-free programs for a few things, but not that the non-free will be the only way to ever get it.

If you feel my points are too long and complicated to read, please stop replying to me. It is tiresome to recapitulate the same things over and over.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 10:50 AM
So let's say I buy a recipe for mulligatawny. Am I therefore against free recipes?

nobody said that except you ;-) is strawman argument. And anyway it's perfectly acceptable to buy/sell free software, the point is the license and the rights it attributes to the purchaser/user, not the fact it can be bought and sold. You have confused the ideas of free beer and free speech.


Mathematical knowledge can be restricted by licenses. Interestingly enough, Adobe does precisely that with Photoshop.

I think the math analogy is worth hearing and considering. I just mentioned it as being a better one than the music one you offered.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 10:58 AM
nobody said that except you ;-) is strawman argument. And anyway it's perfectly acceptable to buy/sell free software, the point is the license and the rights it attributes to the purchaser/user, not the fact it can be bought and sold. You have confused the ideas of free beer and free speech.

How so?

In case you did not know, cooking and baking recipes are - in some industries - major assets and as jealously guarded as blueprints in other industries, and for much the same reasons. They are often trade secrets.

IMO, many of the questions addressed here apply just as well to recipes.

Speaking about free beer: most breweries would rather give away some of their beer than their recipes.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 11:19 AM
How so?

In case you did not know, cooking and baking recipes are - in some industries - major assets and as jealously guarded as blueprints in other industries, and for much the same reasons. They are often trade secrets.

IMO, many of the questions addressed here apply just as well to recipes.

Speaking about free beer: most breweries would rather give away some of their beer than their recipes.

The point is actually clear. p_quarles said to me;
So let's say I buy a recipe for mulligatawny. Am I therefore against free recipes?

The implication being I am expected to have assumed that purchasing a recipes suggests a person is against free sharing/distribution of recipes. I haven't said such a thing, I don't believe such a thing, hence strawman argument. There is a clear confusion in the question over the ethics of buying/selling free software (it's fine, you can, and it has no relevance at all to the ethics of the license).

Secondly your examples about how companies guard their secret recipes and that a brewery would rather give away beer than the recipe for their beer is a perfect analogy of proprietary software vendors! Thank you! MS would rather the world used pirated MS products without paying (as is widespread in China, SE Asia) than open the code. They even prefer people to use illegal unpaid copies than use the competitors products because they want you to be locked in....they'll figure out a way to monetize that later.

Suggest you actually read the recipe analogy, it might clear up some misunderstandings : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 11:21 AM
You have confused the ideas of free beer and free speech.
No, I have not. The post you quoted was vague, and I have already clarified it. The point I am making is that the arguments for software freedom are fundamentally about ensuring a user's right to use information (code). This must apply to other types of information as well, right?

Comparing software freedom to the freedom to redistribute a recipe is certainly not a "straw man": it is an attempt to make the premise under discussion more abstract, so that it's warrants and assumptions can be tested against other specific cases. If we can't do that, the discussion is doomed to be little more than a straw poll.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 11:38 AM
No, I have not. The post you quoted was vague, and I have already clarified it. The point I am making is that the arguments for software freedom are fundamentally about ensuring a user's right to use information (code). This must apply to other types of information as well, right?

The arguments might be applied to some other types of information, but we're discussing software and occasionally using analogies (hopefully) for illustration and clarity.



Comparing software freedom to the freedom to redistribute a recipe is certainly not a "straw man": it is an attempt to make the premise under discussion more abstract, so that it's warrants and assumptions can be tested against other specific cases. If we can't do that, the discussion is doomed to be little more than a straw poll.

You didn't make that comparison, what you did do was imply that there is a correlation between selling software and the software being free(dom).

Why make it more abstract? We're not talking about anything abstract, but about a subject which is clearly and easily defined
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
(GPL). There is nothing abstract there.

You asked a rather loaded question which seemingly assumed I had certain views I don't hold. We can agree to disagree about your intent and expectation but it's there on the page for anyone to make up their own mind.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 11:48 AM
(...) your examples about how companies guard their secret recipes and that a brewery would rather give away beer than the recipe for their beer is a perfect analogy of proprietary software vendors (...)

Of course it is, because both are in the domain of intellectual property and the protection of their 'owners'.

The tenor of some contributors to this thread appears to be that buying proprietary (non-open) software somehow weakens the concept of open source or somehow threatens the 'open source community'.

When the concept of a proprietary recipe is a perfect analog, then it is a logical conclusion that the acquisition and use of non-open recipes (or other kinds of trade secrets) somehow weakens the concept of open-source trade secrets or threatens the 'open recipe community'.

Yes? No?

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 11:57 AM
Why make it more abstract? We're not talking about anything abstract, but about a subject which is clearly and easily defined (GPL). There is nothing abstract there.
I think I explained that. The software freedoms under discussion are nothing if not abstract. They are also based upon principles about freedom, rather than principles specific to software. If those principles cannot stand up to scrutiny when applied to other discussions of freedom, then their applicability to software freedom is suspect. I am not taking a position on that: the preceding was a conditional statement.


You asked a rather loaded question which seemingly assumed I had certain views I don't hold.The question was, first of all, not directed specifically at you, but was posed in response to one of the points you were making. Anyone was free to answer, and the question was not meant to favor one answer over the other, but rather to clarify something: whether the acceptance of a restrictive license indicates a lack of concern for freedom. Some posts in this thread suggest a very absolutist position on this point, and that's what I disagree with.


We can agree to disagree about your intent and expectation but it's there on the page for anyone to make up their own mind.
So is my clarification, two posts later:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4378937&postcount=124

I have already acknowledged that my original question was vague. I took it as a premise of the discussion, however, that "free" does not mean $0.00. Proprietary information is almost always obtained for a fee, hence my use of the word "pay." The word "free" in the next sentence was not used in contrast to "pay," but in the sense of "libre": something which you can alter, share, and so on. I hope that clarifies the question.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 11:58 AM
Of course it is, because both are in the domain of intellectual property and the protection of their 'owners'.

The tenor of some contributors to this thread appears to be that buying proprietary (non-open) software somehow weakens the concept of open source or somehow threatens the 'open source community'.

When the concept of a proprietary recipe is a perfect analog, then it is a logical conclusion that the acquisition and use of non-open recipes (or other kinds of trade secrets) somehow weakens the concept of open-source trade secrets or threatens the 'open recipe community'.

Yes? No?

care to define "open source trade secrets"??????

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 12:06 PM
Proprietary information is almost always obtained for a fee, hence my use of the word "pay." The word "free" in the next sentence was not used in contrast to "pay," but in the sense of "libre": something which you can alter, share, and so on. I hope that clarifies the question.

I remember using vast amounts of Windows "freeware". It was completely proprietary and completely no-cost (financially). Free software can be sold, proprietary software can be obtained legally at no financial cost. Without disassociating the concepts of payment and freedom clarity is hard to gain. The freedom of free software has nothing to do with price, on any level.

p_quarles
February 22nd, 2008, 12:10 PM
I remember using vast amounts of Windows "freeware". It was completely proprietary and completely no-cost (financially). Free software can be sold, proprietary software can be obtained legally at no financial cost. Without disassociating the concepts of payment and freedom clarity is hard to gain. The freedom of free software has nothing to do with price, on any level.
I have told you several times that I am clear on the concept. I have also explained precisely what I meant. There is no further point in discussing either of those two things.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 12:22 PM
Of course it is, because both are in the domain of intellectual property and the protection of their 'owners'.

This is the first problem with the question. There is absolutely no such thing as intellectual property, nor is there any such thing defined in any law in any country of which I am aware. There is such thing as copyright, and patant, and trademark, etc. All of which are completely unrelated legally, work completely differently, and guarantee or limit different rights to different things in different ways. Calling them intellectual property is a confusion. If you wish to talk about the specific rights that a legal system is granting or limiting, name the system so we can speak intelligently about it.


The tenor of some contributors to this thread appears to be that buying proprietary (non-open) software somehow weakens the concept of open source or somehow threatens the 'open source community'.

Where has anyone said that buying non-free software weakens free software? I have myself quite clearly said that it is possible, in my opinion, to use some proprietary software and still support free software. If by "tenor" you meant "I completely made up something no one ever said at all so I could segue in my next point", then yes you might be right.


When the concept of a proprietary recipe is a perfect analog, then it is a logical conclusion that the acquisition and use of non-open recipes (or other kinds of trade secrets) somehow weakens the concept of open-source trade secrets or threatens the 'open recipe community'.

Yes? No?

No. You cannot use a recipe without source, therefore, you cannot license a recipe in such a way that the person who recieves a copy is not made completely aware of implementation at the same time. That would be like trying to hide the implementation of a shell script. You can't do it in most command environments because the object code and the source code are the same. You also cannot use a recipe to run a business, operate electrical or mechanical equipment, process data, store and manage a datebase, view and make adjustments to your bank account, etc. There is also no lack for finding many different implementations of absolutely any dish, while there are many cases where there are grave difficulties in finding many implementations of software that do certain jobs.

Methuselah
February 22nd, 2008, 12:29 PM
Thats only if CodeWeavers passes its changes back to WINE. I have read elsewhere that they are good about doing this. The article is blatently wrong in that CodeWeavers is a proprietary developer, not open source or free software. If they do release their compatibility only in proprietary form, look forward to paying a little extra on top of the hundreds of dollars for Adobe's software in order to get it to run on GNU/Linux.


Well, since Wine is GPL (LGPL?) aren't they bound to do pass on their changes?

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 12:32 PM
I have told you several times that I am clear on the concept. I have also explained precisely what I meant. There is no further point in discussing either of those two things.

Yes you have told me that several times, but several times also made statements which don't seem to reflect that understanding. I'm sorry, I didn't and don't mean to mean to upset you but I can only go by what I see written down on the page. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding in which case I apologise and agree that there's no further point in discussing it.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 12:34 PM
Well, since Wine is GPL (LGPL?) aren't they bound to do pass on their changes?

Why are you asking me that here? The relationship between CodeWeavers and WINE, as well why some of the code is proprietary and WINE itself is free software is explained on their website.

http://www.winehq.org

Methuselah
February 22nd, 2008, 12:37 PM
Why are you asking me that here?

I didn't know?


The relationship between CodeWeavers and WINE, as well why some of the code is proprietary and WINE itself is free software is explained on their website.

http://www.winehq.org

Thanks.

forrestcupp
February 22nd, 2008, 03:42 PM
Why would I want to beg developers, hire someone, or spend countless hours trying to modify code myself when there is a non-free alternative readily available that can already do everything I need. In that case, I don't need or care about the freedoms that free software can give me.

Those were explicit and clear in their hostility towards the freedom that free software gives you in the ability to replace, or support the projects that aim to replace, the "readily available" non-free software you are using with free software. You could have just as easily said that you'd use the non-free software until there was a free replacement that respected freedom and user's rights, but you didn't. The very instant any inconvenience presents itself, you claim that freedom and user's rights are unneeded and meaningless to you because free software did not do the job you thought was important.

I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear in that post. I wasn't speaking about an overall lack of care. What I meant was that in that particular instance for that particular software need, I don't care about GNU software freedoms for myself as much as I care about having an application that can get what I need done. But I definitely didn't mean that I have an overall lack of care for free software. There has to be a gray area.

And if I've been using a proprietary app, and a viable free replacement comes out, I will switch, file bug reports, and help others with their problems when I can. If my ideals are not good enough for you, we'll have to agree to disagree, and exercise our freedom to use our own computers how we see fit.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 03:43 PM
(...) There is absolutely no such thing as intellectual property, nor is there any such thing defined in any law in any country of which I am aware. There is such thing as copyright, and patant, and trademark, etc. All of which are completely unrelated legally (...)

Intellectual property is indeed a legal term. The concept it stands for is protected in many countries and in many international treaties and such. Copyright, patents as well as licensing all are legal instruments designed to implement the protection and use of intellectual property.

The different licensing models employed for Open Source are instruments which define among other things the terms under which you can use, modify and distribute works protected by those licenses.


Where has anyone said that buying non-free software weakens free software?

I would appreciate it if you quoted me properly.

What I was saying is that this thread transmit a strong impression that buying non-open-source-software weakens Open Source and 'the community'.

Several more or less subtle influences have been mentioned why it is not in the best interest of 'open source' when non-open source software is being used and/or paid for. I use the term 'open source' in quotes because several posts which named such fears named different aspects of the the open source movement which were to suffer.

It would not be wholly inconsistent with many of those statement to reduce them to the simple fact that the funding of software is a zero win game. Hence, any funds going to non-open source software are not going to open source.


If by "tenor" you meant (...)

Sorry to have used the word 'tenor' in a sense you appear to be unfamiliar with. Being a foreigner, I sometimes lack the means to know how well known the different meanings of words are in different parts of the world.


(...) you cannot use a recipe without source, therefore, you cannot license a recipe in such a way that the person who recieves a copy is not made completely aware of implementation at the same time. (...) You also cannot use a recipe to run a business, operate electrical or mechanical equipment, process data, store and manage a datebase, view and make adjustments to your bank account, etc. There is also no lack for finding many different implementations of absolutely any dish, while there are many cases where there are grave difficulties in finding many implementations of software that do certain jobs.


You can bake and sell cakes. Baking a cake takes a recipe. Recipes for cakes and other items of food are closely guarded trade secrets.

Some recipes are secret not because the author wants to prevent you from seeing how beautifully it is written, but to prevent you from producing products which are just as good.

I don't know where you live. In Europe, there are very many products which hold their respective market shares because there are no other products which are 'just as good'. Your statement that There is also no lack for finding many different implementations of absolutely any dish might be true for where you live. It most certainly is not true in large parts of the world.

If you find dishes trivial, look at pharmaceutical products. The production of pharmaceutical products relies on recipes as well.

Wether or not you can run a business on a recipe is subject to interpretation of the term 'recipe'. You most certainly can run a business based on written sets of facts and rules. You most certainly can buy such sets of fact and rules. You can also hire consultants who then design such works of facts and rules individually for your own business. It is observable that businesses which have that kind of thing under control often have more success than those which have not.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 04:08 PM
Intellectual property is indeed a legal term

It isn't a legal term, but more of an all-embracing term for talking about several related but different subjects, principally copyright, patents and trademark law and treating them as though they are the same thing. Since these are all dealt with differently in law the term Intellectual Property is really a confusion. To quote wikipedia (because it's concise)


Another, more specific objection to the term, held by Richard Stallman, is that the term is confusing [5]. Stallman argues that the term implies a non-existent similarity between copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other forms of exclusive rights, which makes clear thinking and discussion about various forms difficult. [6] For example, those that pertain to intellectual content (copyrights and patents) have limited terms, hence differ from conventional property, whereas trademarks, which have unlimited terms, are merely signs and lack intellectual content. Furthermore, most legal systems, including that of the United States, hold that exclusive rights are a government grant, rather than a fundamental right held by citizens.

az
February 22nd, 2008, 04:56 PM
Speaking about free beer: most breweries would rather give away some of their beer than their recipes.

More than any other statement in this thread, that one most clearly demonstrates the differences in both development models.

In the proprietary world, the bottle of beer is the only product. That's what the maker of the software sells. The client has no idea that there even is a recipe.

In the F/LOSS world, the recipe is the product. It's a product in an altogether different market, and that confuses people when they try to compare both worlds.

In the F/LOSS world, the bottle of beer is also a product which is sold in a different market. And most of the money made in that model is made by providing the service of turning the (known) recipe into bottles of beer and selling them.

Most of the people who drink F/LOSS beer don't care about the recipe. Others do. Some really like knowing what goes into their beer. One thing is certain: If three companies all sell beer made from a common recipe, the one who does it the best, either by providing a fresher product, or by using higher quality ingredients, should sell more beer and therefore make more money.



The tenor of some contributors to this thread appears to be that buying proprietary (non-open) software somehow weakens the concept of open source or somehow threatens the 'open source community'.

When the concept of a proprietary recipe is a perfect analog, then it is a logical conclusion that the acquisition and use of non-open recipes (or other kinds of trade secrets) somehow weakens the concept of open-source trade secrets or threatens the 'open recipe community'.

Yes? No?

No. The topic is simple whether Photoshop on Wine is a good thing. I can think it's not such good thing without meaning that I think it's bad, per se.





It would not be wholly inconsistent with many of those statement to reduce them to the simple fact that the funding of software is a zero win game. Hence, any funds going to non-open source software are not going to open source.

The F/LOSS ecosystem is not really limited by funds. Since anyone can contribute, the software can (and does) improve without any injection of funds. Sure, when someone pays a developer for work it benefits everyone, but this is not the most significant force in developing software.



You can bake and sell cakes. Baking a cake takes a recipe. Recipes for cakes and other items of food are closely guarded trade secrets.

Some recipes are secret not because the author wants to prevent you from seeing how beautifully it is written, but to prevent you from producing products which are just as good.

That's what patents do. Patents are useful in some cases, but in the field of computer programming, preventing the use of ideas is counter-productive.

Patents exist to protect an inventor who has spend a lot of time and effort on an idea and would need protection from more established/more powerful companies who would steal the idea and developing products from it without returning anything to the original inventor. In the case of software, patents can prevent developers of truly original ideas from publishing them because they may violate someone else's patent for an idea that is completely unrelated. Software is developed in tiny logical increments. Patents protect huge, complicated ideas, and are not suited for logical progressions of ideas. This is the opposite of the desired effect which is to encourage people to invent new ideas.





If you find dishes trivial, look at pharmaceutical products. The production of pharmaceutical products relies on recipes as well.


The world would be a better place is pharmaceutical companies were not able to use patents to protect their ideas. Back to the "push the button and feed the world" analogy, the pharmaceutical industry makes their fortune by not pressing the button.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 05:08 PM
re the comparison with pharmaceutical products and cooking

It's not really such a good comparison. the difference between a food recipe and a formula/recipe for a medicine is that the ingredients for cooking are available legally to all and the equipment needed to cook is simple and affordable to every family . Many pharmaceutical ingredients are tightly controlled for good reasons and extremely expensive equipment may be needed to process the medecine. Essentially this means that legally and financially we have the means to copy a dish but not the financial means or legal right to obtain the elements needed to duplicate a medicine.

az
February 22nd, 2008, 05:51 PM
re the comparison with pharmaceutical products and cooking

It's not really such a good comparison. the difference between a food recipe and a formula/recipe for a medicine is that the ingredients for cooking are available legally to all and the equipment needed to cook is simple and affordable to every family . Many pharmaceutical ingredients are tightly controlled for good reasons and extremely expensive equipment may be needed to process the medecine. Essentially this means that legally and financially we have the means to copy a dish but not the financial means or legal right to obtain the elements needed to duplicate a medicine.

Not really true.

Not many drugs are controlled substances, and anyway, that's a completely different set of laws. The manufacturing and distribution of anti-aids drugs do not involve controlled substances, nor dangerous manufacturing techniques, just pharmaceutical patents.

A better analogy would be a surgeon who knows how to perform a particular operation, but cannot perform the surgery without first getting permission from the "owner" of the procedure. In this case, the owner enforces the "protection" that patent law creates at the detriment of everybody except that one person.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 05:57 PM
Not really true.

Not many drugs are controlled substances, and anyway, that's a completely different set of laws. The manufacturing and distribution of anti-aids drugs do not involve controlled substances, nor dangerous manufacturing techniques, just pharmaceutical patents.

A better analogy would be a surgeon who knows how to perform a particular operation, but cannot perform the surgery without first getting permission from the "owner" of the procedure. In this case, the owner enforces the "protection" that patent law creates at the detriment of everybody except that one person.

the recipe analogy was fine, the surgeon one is fine. I don't think we need any others, particularly ones that have unforseen complexities. Can we stick to recipes? :lolflag:

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 06:03 PM
(...) the "push the button and feed the world" analogy, the pharmaceutical industry makes their fortune by not pressing the button.

I am not quite comfortable with this analogy, mostly because some of it has been tried with ghastly side effects. I can not tell how far those side effects would apply to FLOSS, though.

Consider: Some first world country was being helpful and donated lots of bread to a badly limping economy in the third world. One of the few things that had been working, sort of, were the local bakeries.

Since everyone now got their bread for free (as in beer), the local bakeries went out of business. For lack of a local supply chain, whole communities became dependent on foreign supply chains with local lords in control. Famine much 'improved' in that process.

I can not find the sources on short notice, sorry. I can recall that there were some reasonably credible magazines.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 06:08 PM
re the comparison with pharmaceutical products and cooking

It's not really such a good comparison. the difference between a food recipe and a formula/recipe for a medicine is that the ingredients for cooking are available legally to all and the equipment needed to cook is simple and affordable to every family .

Secret recipes (for food) are not usually relevant for running households. They are relevant for your local bakery at the corner or for your national bread and cake factory, i.e. for small and large industries.

It is perfectly possible that all kitchen ingedients can be purchased without any restrictions. That has not always been true. Some ingredients - such as rosewater - were tightly controlled just a few centuries ago.

az
February 22nd, 2008, 06:28 PM
Consider: Some first world country was being helpful and donated lots of bread to a badly limping economy in the third world. One of the few things that had been working, sort of, were the local bakeries.

Since everyone now got their bread for free (as in beer), the local bakeries went out of business. For lack of a local supply chain, whole communities became dependent on foreign supply chains with local lords in control. Famine much 'improved' in that process.


Just as I mentioned before, it's not about the bread.

I would not suggest that pharmaceutical companies should be obliged to produce pills for third-world countries. But should they be allowed to keep their recipes secret from third-world countries who would need to make those pills for themselves?

My point of elaborating on the pharmaceautical industry is that it more precisely states the importance of the source code (recipe), rather than the program (Boxed-set CD) than the bread analogy.

DM was on fire!
February 22nd, 2008, 06:44 PM
I thought you could run PS on Wine?
I run PSP more than I use PS, so if they can make PSP run, I'd be thrilled. :D

And on a side note, and I'm too lazy to go through all the past posts...why did this discussion go from Photoshop to food? XD

forrestcupp
February 22nd, 2008, 06:47 PM
I don't really like the analogy of pharmaceuticals because the medicines are an actual tangible product. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, it takes an extraordinary amount of money for research and development. If the company doesn't have a fair chance to make back their investment before other company's are allowed to start selling the product at a generic price, the companies will not make the investment into R&D in the first place. Then we're all a 3rd world country.

I do believe that the pharmaceutical industry is gouging us more than they should, though.

forrestcupp
February 22nd, 2008, 06:48 PM
I thought you could run PS on Wine?
I run PSP more than I use PS, so if they can make PSP run, I'd be thrilled. :D

And on a side note, and I'm too lazy to go through all the past posts...why did this discussion go from Photoshop to food? XD

Because the discussion got majorly off topic and switched to an argument about FOSS vs. proprietary software. I guess if you stretch it, this conversation could be considered 'on topic'.

Phasmus
February 22nd, 2008, 06:49 PM
This is not spectacular news. People should not be enticed to use the operating system that respects the user's rights so that they might use applications that do not. If simply having a large number of users were the most important goal, there would be no GNU/Linux with which to run Photoshop at all. Having binary compatibility isn't bad, I just can't see the joy in knowing that we are celebrating the ability to offer ways for users who have freedom to start giving it up piecemeal for applications that do jobs which free applications can already do.

I would argue that this is very good (spectacular might be excessive) news for folks who require (or really want) Photoshop but prefer to use or want to try open software. I am not in that group, but I will mooch off their joy anyway.

Nobody is going to be enticed to use Linux by the availability of applications which presumably already exist for their current OS. That availability just removes an obstacle to adoption. The 'enticement' comes from the things that are good about Linux: freedom, security, stability, etc.

My guess is that the 'good' of folks who can used improved Windows-app support to entirely get rid of their Windows partitions well outweighs the 'bad' of people already using Linux backsliding toward Windows applications.

It looks like most people on both sides of this discussion already know what free-software means and why it's a good thing. I think the 'conflict' here comes from the insinuation that improving the condition of a subset of (potential) free-software users via some proprietary software is somehow worse than forcing them to chose between 100%-freedom and using the software they want.

toupeiro
February 22nd, 2008, 06:54 PM
The overall digression and misconstruing of freedom, license and intellectual property versus copyright patents and trademarks in this thread is overwhelming.. Google funding a project to get photoshop working on linux does not directly or indirectly take anything away from its open source alternatives because no development on those projects are being dropped in lieu of this one. an Open Source OS with Open Source applications does not, and SHOULD NEVER exclude the development and support of proprietary software on a free OS. Everything has its place. Photoshop has some legitimate capabilities, copywritten, patented capabilities, that no other graphics suite can implement quite the same way (if at all). I don't know what those are for myself, so I couldn't tell you, but my Fiance does graphic arts for a living and She has pointed out some things to me that she could not do in gimp which she falls back to CS2 for. I smile and nod because they are honestly things above my aptitude with graphic arts, and for the little things I do, gimp is fine, but I recognize that there are gaps, and thats fine. That should be expected. Maybe they will be remedied in the future, maybe not. It doesn't take anything away from Gimp, and because it is her profession, the cost of photoshop is justified, and she chooses to use their product. How does this hurt FOSS when she starts running it on linux? I do not think there is any detriment in getting CS2 working more fluidly in linux. Should those in graphic arts as their profession be denied these tools simply because they choose to run an Open Source OS? A license model can be open or closed in my opinion so long as I can choose to use it, or choose not to. Photoshop (closed) vs Gimp (open) != Windows(closed) vs linux(open).

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 08:35 PM
Having read this thread several times over, and after some discussion which greatly helped me understand some of the points raised here, I come to the very same conclusion as toupeiro, Phasmus and others did.

It's a very fine thing that the people who can not or will not do without Photoshop can enjoy the same OS and the same (other) applications as we do.

I must admit that I get a bit impatient when IT geeks without the faintest notion on photography and graphic arts go on telling to the world at large that there are no sensible reasons to prefer Photoshop over the GIMP.

Not that it matters greatly, but just the point about CMYK support is very telling. Professionals tell us that they must be able to process pictures in the CMYK color space. Some point out that the GIMP could do CMYK and refer to pages which tell us that the GIMP can render into that color space. There is a difference. Anyone who does not know that difference has no business advising pros on which of those applications to use.

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 09:01 PM
Having read this thread several times over, and after some discussion which greatly helped me understand some of the points raised here, I come to the very same conclusion as toupeiro, Phasmus and others did.

It's a very fine thing that the people who can not or will not do without Photoshop can enjoy the same OS and the same (other) applications as we do.

I must admit that I get a bit impatient when IT geeks without the faintest notion on photography and graphic arts go on telling to the world at large that there are no sensible reasons to prefer Photoshop over the GIMP.

Not that it matters greatly, b]ut just the point about CMYK support is very telling. Professionals tell us that they must be able to process pictures in the CMYK color space. Some point out that the GIMP could do CMYK and refer to pages which tell us that the GIMP can render into that color space. There is a difference. Anyone who does not know that difference has no business advising pros on which of those applications to use.

Nobody has been "telling to the world at large that there are no sensible reasons to prefer Photoshop over the GIMP". Mostly the debate has been about if we feel it's a good thing or not to have more proprietary applications arrive on the free desktop. You aren't in a position to judge that contributors are "IT geeks without the faintest notion on photography and graphic arts".

If anyone wants to read what actually can and can't be achieved with cmyk plug in for gimp they can look at http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml

julian67
February 22nd, 2008, 09:06 PM
The overall digression and misconstruing of freedom, license and intellectual property versus copyright patents and trademarks in this thread is overwhelming.. Google funding a project to get photoshop working on linux does not directly or indirectly take anything away from its open source alternatives because no development on those projects are being dropped in lieu of this one. an Open Source OS with Open Source applications does not, and SHOULD NEVER exclude the development and support of proprietary software on a free OS. Everything has its place. Photoshop has some legitimate capabilities, copywritten, patented capabilities, that no other graphics suite can implement quite the same way (if at all). I don't know what those are for myself, so I couldn't tell you, but my Fiance does graphic arts for a living and She has pointed out some things to me that she could not do in gimp which she falls back to CS2 for. I smile and nod because they are honestly things above my aptitude with graphic arts, and for the little things I do, gimp is fine, but I recognize that there are gaps, and thats fine. That should be expected. Maybe they will be remedied in the future, maybe not. It doesn't take anything away from Gimp, and because it is her profession, the cost of photoshop is justified, and she chooses to use their product. How does this hurt FOSS when she starts running it on linux? I do not think there is any detriment in getting CS2 working more fluidly in linux. Should those in graphic arts as their profession be denied these tools simply because they choose to run an Open Source OS? A license model can be open or closed in my opinion so long as I can choose to use it, or choose not to. Photoshop (closed) vs Gimp (open) != Windows(closed) vs linux(open).

I don't think your Fiancee is doing any harm as apparently she's using the software legally, some problems will really begin if/when warez become endemic on the free desktop as they now are in Windows. Photoshop is probably, after Windows, the software least likely to be used legally.

popch
February 22nd, 2008, 09:25 PM
If anyone wants to read what actually can and can't be achieved with cmyk plug in for gimp they can look at http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml

Thank you for the link. The page referred to states plainly that the plugin will Convert an RGB image to individual CMYK layers, using specified source and destination Colour Profiles.

That's the same as saying the plugin can render an image into the CMYK color space. I am sure that the plugin will do a beautiful job of that conversion.

You can do many things with the rendered CMYK image, but you can not work with that with the GIMP unless you convert it back into the RGB color space.

The transformation between RGB and CMYK is lossy. Not all colors in the RGB color space can be translated to equivalent colors within the CMYK color space. The lost colors are very noticeable to graphics professionals.

Adobe claims that you can process images within the YMCK color space without any transformations for printing.

k2t0f12d
February 22nd, 2008, 10:53 PM
Google funding a project to get photoshop working on linux does not directly or indirectly take anything away from its open source alternatives because no development on those projects are being dropped in lieu of this one. an Open Source OS with Open Source applications does not, and SHOULD NEVER exclude the development and support of proprietary software on a free OS.

You must be following a different thread then I. No one has said that those who wish to develop proprietary software should be excluded. Furthermore, no one is funding any development of Photoshop at all. Google is paying CodeWeavers to improve compatibility with the Windows API on GNU/.Linux. Adobe, the only party able to perform development on Photoshop, has not yet expressed any interest at all in Photoshop on Linux, and is certainly not developing their software for the free OS.


Everything has its place.

Like a heartattack? Sure they have their place, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be very excited when I get one.


Photoshop has some legitimate capabilities, copywritten, patented capabilities, that no other graphics suite can implement quite the same way (if at all).

Yes, software patents are a huge social, political, and technical problem for any software developer. However, while free software developers might be legally restrained from implementing a feature, there is no technological reason to believe that a free software isn't able to implement a feature. Could you please explain to me what an illegitimate capability is?


I don't know what those are for myself, so I couldn't tell you, but my Fiance does graphic arts for a living and She has pointed out some things to me that she could not do in gimp which she falls back to CS2 for. I smile and nod because they are honestly things above my aptitude with graphic arts, and for the little things I do, gimp is fine, but I recognize that there are gaps, and thats fine. That should be expected. Maybe they will be remedied in the future, maybe not. It doesn't take anything away from Gimp, and because it is her profession, the cost of photoshop is justified, and she chooses to use their product. How does this hurt FOSS when she starts running it on linux? I do not think there is any detriment in getting CS2 working more fluidly in linux. Should those in graphic arts as their profession be denied these tools simply because they choose to run an Open Source OS? A license model can be open or closed in my opinion so long as I can choose to use it, or choose not to. Photoshop (closed) vs Gimp (open) != Windows(closed) vs linux(open).

No one in free software is even trying to prevent Windows API compatibility, whether that compatibility is for use with Photoshop or any other program. No one has advocated that Google and CodeWeavers be forced to stop trying to improve said compatibility then be forced to put their resources into a free software program. If it were solely a matter of choice, the only party expressly preventing you from using Photoshop on GNU/Linux is the developer of the program, not free software. Adobe, the primary benficiary in the sale of usage rights for Photoshop, does not support GNU/Linux at all. If you want to complain about not being allowed to choose the OS for the programs you want to use, stop blaming the people who aren't doing anything at all to stop you, and start blaming the people who could help you but won't.

EDIT: It isn't quite true that there isn't anyone, trying to prevent compatibilty between GNU/Linux and the Windows API. Evidence has been raised in anti-trust and civil class action cases against Microsoft proving that they have been expressly trying to hide details of their API from everyone, including the develpers of free software.

Zeroangel
February 23rd, 2008, 03:21 AM
No one in free software is even trying to prevent Windows API compatibility, whether that compatibility is for use with Photoshop or any other program. No one has advocated that Google and CodeWeavers be forced to stop trying to improve said compatibility then be forced to put their resources into a free software program. If it were solely a matter of choice, the only party expressly preventing you from using Photoshop on GNU/Linux is the developer of the program, not free software. Adobe, the primary benficiary in the sale of usage rights for Photoshop, does not support GNU/Linux at all.
This I agree with. The act of trying to prevent compatability with even proprietary formats is a counter-productive action at the least. When such energy could go into improving an existing FOSS format to compete with proprietary formats.

If a format wins out, then it should be done so on technical merit -- where FOSS counts as only part of that technical merit. Where such merit provides incentive to innovate. I dont think microsoft would be pushing OpenXML if it werent for OpenDocument.


If you want to complain about not being allowed to choose the OS for the programs you want to use, stop blaming the people who aren't doing anything at all to stop you, and start blaming the people who could help you but won't.
Why blame anyone? AFAIK toupeiro isnt placing the blame here, he is simply saying his wife prefers CS2 and asking what is bad about these programs being able to run on an FOSS operating system.

You must be following a different thread then I. No one has said that those who wish to develop proprietary software should be excluded. Furthermore, no one is funding any development of Photoshop at all. Google is paying CodeWeavers to improve compatibility with the Windows API on GNU/.Linux. Adobe, the only party able to perform development on Photoshop, has not yet expressed any interest at all in Photoshop on Linux, and is certainly not developing their software for the free OS.
Codeweavers is, with their time and effort. Photoshop compatibility is one of the top priorities for wine developers. If linux becomes a more mainstream OS, *then* Adobe will have to pay attention to it.

I would say that *some* commercial involvement here is a good thing. Simply because commercial products tend to be built more coherently than FOSS software tends to be.

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 03:43 AM
I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear in that post. I wasn't speaking about an overall lack of care. What I meant was that in that particular instance for that particular software need, I don't care about GNU software freedoms for myself as much as I care about having an application that can get what I need done. But I definitely didn't mean that I have an overall lack of care for free software. There has to be a gray area.

And if I've been using a proprietary app, and a viable free replacement comes out, I will switch, file bug reports, and help others with their problems when I can. If my ideals are not good enough for you, we'll have to agree to disagree, and exercise our freedom to use our own computers how we see fit.

Honestly, I really don't think we disagree at all. At this point, I think all the friction is coming from one thing you said with an unfortunate choice of words that I took literally and then have proceeded to figuratively pound you on the head with. For that I apologise.

There really isn't any gray area, there is simply an area of contention between what you said and what I believe where all the points have not been properly defined.

You have said on at least two occasions, in this thread, that you won't be guilt tripped into or told how to use your computer. I have looked and found no instance where anyone, including myself, has actually said something to that effect; however, saying this shows you won't accept other's control in your personal matters. That is exactly what software freedom is all about, and it is unfortunate where advocates for software freedom cause people, like yourself, to frame in their minds that there is a motivation in the free software movement to control how a person may use their computing. In those cases, the admonition to others to choose the programs whose usage and distribution terms are ethical and respect the user's rights have overreached their grasp. If I am to believe that the four freedoms of free software are correct, then the freedom to run the program however you wish includes the right and freedom to use a free software operating system to run a proprietary program, if you wish. It is only my opinion that it is not the best way to promote GNU/Linux for reasons I have already described at length.

I have said, and you agreed, that one can use proprietary software simultaneously to supporting free software. What triggered me in your statement was that you claimed that software freedoms no longer had any value in the absence of a free software program to perform a needed task. It think that was a mistaken choice of words made in the zealous defense of the right to choose. The right to choose the programs you run is endemic to the spirit of free software.

In your last post, which I have quote above, you have claimed there is a "gray area" in valuing software freedom. If one thinks carefully about everything you've posted, there really is no gray area, because choosing to run a proprietary program does not disclaim the value of software freedom, even if the terms in the license of the proprietary program do. That is the onus of the developer, not the user. Even using the proprietary program when there is adequate free software to do the same job doesn't disclaim the value of software freedom, though I would be confused why anyone, regardless of their opinion on software freedom, would want to pay more to get more restrictions and less control in a program they couldn't trust if it were avoidable.

So to clarify, did you really mean that there are conditions where you personally feel software freedoms stop having value? I don't think anyone who does value software freedom under any circumstances needs to stop in order to employ a non-free tool to do a job.

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 04:21 AM
If a format wins out, then it should be done so on technical merit -- where FOSS counts as only part of that technical merit. Where such merit provides incentive to innovate. I dont think microsoft would be pushing OpenXML if it werent for OpenDocument.

Free software licensing is not a technical merit. A standard should be accepted primarily on its independence from any particular interest, then by how well it does the job. If it is restricted in any way, then it is pointless whether it does its job well or not, since it isn't freely available to everyone.


Why blame anyone? AFAIK toupeiro isnt placing the blame here, he is simply saying his wife prefers CS2 and asking what is bad about these programs being able to run on an FOSS operating system.

There is nothing bad about those programs being able to run on the free software OS. I just think it would be easier to put the features people want in a native free software program then try to wrangle a program written for an incompaible API, whose developer has not even lifted a finger to help.


Codeweavers is, with their time and effort. Photoshop compatibility is one of the top priorities for wine developers. If linux becomes a more mainstream OS, *then* Adobe will have to pay attention to it.

But why do we need to have Adobe's attention? They make money hand over fist selling usage rights for a program, only to have others who have not and will never directly benefit from those sales at all put the effort into making the software run better on GNU/Linux for them? I think that is a little backwards. Not only do CodeWeavers have to try and guess the details of poorly documented API, then they have to guess the details of a totally undocumented proprietary program, without source, to get it to work on a platform for which it wasn't written. Would it not be infinitely easier, faster, more reliable for Google to have paid that money to a native free software project and get a program with the same capabilties? Then they could say, "Hey, look what we got here. It does all the same work as PS without the restrictive terms and hefty price tag." This is about Google taking a shot a Microsoft, and any benefit ot the user is completely incidental to that.


I would say that *some* commercial involvement here is a good thing. Simply because commercial products tend to be built more coherently than FOSS software tends to be.

What does that mean? Free software and commerical aren't exclusive of one another. Also, to you have any meaningful proof that what you are saying is even true?

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 09:28 AM
(...) The act of trying to prevent compatability with even proprietary formats is a counter-productive action at the least. When such energy could go into improving an existing FOSS format to compete with proprietary formats.

Any office software unable to support the document format used by Microsoft Office would be perfectly useless for me.

I use a number of 'other' office products at home and have been doing so for years, at the expense of time and money. The license for Microsoft office I use at work allows me to use that product at home absolutely free of charge. If it did not, my employer would pay for it.

Practically the whole point of having office programs at home is, of course, the ability to work on documents needed for work. Under this aspect, I do not give a hoot if the format is open or well done.

The very fact that Openoffice and other products support the Microsoft format makes it reasonable (or even possible) for me to use Linux.


If a format wins out, then it should be done so on technical merit -- where FOSS counts as only part of that technical merit. Where such merit provides incentive to innovate. I dont think microsoft would be pushing OpenXML if it werent for OpenDocument.

There are two much stronger market pressures which are forcing Microsoft to do that move.

One: Governments across the world favor using Microsoft Office for a variety of reasons, not all of them irrational. Given the way government agencies and whole administrations arrive at decisions, many changes are reckoned in geological times.

However, even GOs are becoming aware of the pitfalls of using the now current Microsoft formats: Inability to read the documents ten years from now, inability to use the contents of the documents outside of the context of an office application and vendor lock-in are the first which come to my mind.

The number of governments mandating the use of document formats which satisfy some criteria not met by the current Microsoft Office format is increasing.

Two: Developers at Microsoft are also aware of the fact that the current office document formats are becoming dated and 'overloaded'. It is quite obvious that the poorly documented and less than perfectly implemented formats are becoming a liability for the further development of the flagship product.


Free software licensing is not a technical merit. A standard should be accepted primarily on its independence from any particular interest, then by how well it does the job. If it is restricted in any way, then it is pointless whether it does its job well or not, since it isn't freely available to everyone.

That's not how decision are made or should be made in government organisations and (large) corporations. As I have pointed out above, there are both functional and political requirements a standard has to meet. Excluding all options which do not meet the political requirements might leave you stranded with a choice of zero standards which meet all functional requirements.

That's why decision techniques have been invented which can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives within the context of a particular situation. Kepner-Tregoe comes to mind here.


Would it not be infinitely easier, faster, more reliable for Google to have paid that money to a native free software project and get a program with the same capabilties?

No.

There would exist a few strategies to do so: (1) to change the GIMP in a way to make it equivalent in all relevant aspects, (2) to change another existing project in that way or (3) to start with a new project from scratch.

The chances of success for each of those strategies depend a great deal on the objectives to be met. One could be (A) that the feature list of the product to be imitated is to be a subset of the feature list of the product to be made. Another - somehow related one - could be that (B) the paradigms, skills and work flows of the first product must be applicable to the second one.

Strategy (1) could possibly be applicable to objective (A) and would be unlikely to succeed for (B), even when applied to a fork of the GIMP in place of the whole project. I can not say if (A) alone would be easier, faster and more reliable than just running the original in an improved compatibility layer. It would be quite unlikely for (B) to be easier, faster, more reliable than the base variant.

Strategy (2) starts with another application within the same problem domain. Since the GIMP appears to be the one which already comes closest to the requirements imposed by (A) and (B), it appears unlikely that starting from anything but the leader will be easier, faster, more reliable as strategy (1).

Strategy (3) is exceedingly unlikely to be easier, faster, more reliable, even when only taking the requirements of (A) into consideration.

zetetic
February 23rd, 2008, 10:23 AM
That's not how decision are made or should be made in government organisations and (large) corporations. As I have pointed out above, there are both functional and political requirements a standard has to meet. Excluding all options which do not meet the political requirements might leave you stranded with a choice of zero standards which meet all functional requirements.


How could you impose a standard if it weren't freely available to everyone???

That would be impossible! Everyone required to use the new "standard" could easily and legitimately refuse it, simply by alleging that the format is now freely available to him!

Do you even know what a standard his?

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 10:35 AM
How could you impose a standard if it weren't freely available to everyone???

That would be impossible! Everyone required to use the new "standard" could easily and legitimately refuse it, simply by alleging that the format is now freely available to him!

Do you even know what a standard his?

Yes, I do know what a standard is. I have spent about half of my professional life so far pondering questions about adopting and implementing standards within large corporations and government organisations. That would amount to about seventeen years. What about you?

There are quite a few bodies which administer standards. Most of the major standards can be had by anyone. For a fee. Try to get the standard for the SQL language, for example. Is that what you mean by 'freely available to anyone?'

However, for people not familiar with standards and their application, there remains the noteworthy fact that every standard whatsoever has a defined reach. There are no galactic standards, only a few global ones and very many national ones. Some organisation may decree that something becomes standard within its premises or within its reach over which it has no control whatsoever. A case in point would be a local government which required all documents exchanged within its administration to be stored in the format defined by the office products by Microsoft.

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 10:59 AM
That's not how decision are made or should be made in government organisations and (large) corporations. As I have pointed out above, there are both functional and political requirements a standard has to meet. Excluding all options which do not meet the political requirements might leave you stranded with a choice of zero standards which meet all functional requirements.

That's why decision techniques have been invented which can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives within the context of a particular situation. Kepner-Tregoe comes to mind here.

Very interesting. And by interesting I mean verbose. What are you saying? Are you just trying to say that you feel there are legitimate reasons to consider including proprietary interests in making global standards?


No.

There would exist a few strategies to do so: (1) to change the GIMP in a way to make it equivalent in all relevant aspects, (2) to change another existing project in that way or (3) to start with a new project from scratch.

The chances of success for each of those strategies depend a great deal on the objectives to be met. One could be (A) that the feature list of the product to be imitated is to be a subset of the feature list of the product to be made. Another - somehow related one - could be that (B) the paradigms, skills and work flows of the first product must be applicable to the second one.

Strategy (1) could possibly be applicable to objective (A) and would be unlikely to succeed for (B), even when applied to a fork of the GIMP in place of the whole project. I can not say if (A) alone would be easier, faster and more reliable than just running the original in an improved compatibility layer. It would be quite unlikely for (B) to be easier, faster, more reliable than the base variant.

Strategy (2) starts with another application within the same problem domain. Since the GIMP appears to be the one which already comes closest to the requirements imposed by (A) and (B), it appears unlikely that starting from anything but the leader will be easier, faster, more reliable as strategy (1).

Strategy (3) is exceedingly unlikely to be easier, faster, more reliable, even when only taking the requirements of (A) into consideration.

That was very nicely done. Good organization, well thought out, and it raises one and only one meaningful point that I can see.

Strategies 2 and 3 can be completely dismissed. They add nothing to the discussion other then to act as a control group showing how vastly superior it is to either modify GIMP or get Photoshop to run. If there actually were another free software program as mature as GIMP that could appliy to strategy 2, strategy 2 becomes identical to strategy 1 anyway.

Objective A is completely feasible. Objective B pretends to be meaningful, but is really just a mask for preference in branding. I used to work in the industry, and have used:


Repri (which sucks btw)
Ulead Photoimpact
Adobe Photoshop
Jasc/Corel Paint Shop Pro
Manga Studio
GIMP
Ms Paint, Tux Paint, Kolourpaint, etc

all of which have similar capabilties, with some suites having obviously superior versatility and maturity. However, most of the programs work so similarly, especially the big suites, that a real professional is not going to get lost if widgit x is suddenly in a different spot.

The real disadvantages in developing the free software replacement is that it will become a competing software with an unknown brand on a competing platform against a well established brand on the other platform. It also does not address the interests of two major groups, those who want to hurt Microsoft, and those whose ends are to attract as many users as possible regardless of the means. I have neither interest, and think generating interest with proprietary software is not the best way to promote the GNU/Linux platform, and have the following concerns:


What will we do when Adobe breaks compatibilty in the next version? Will Google ride in on a white horse and fix it again? And again, and again?
Why spend the money and effort to get compatibilty with software whose spoils the developer never intends to share?
Why do we want to open new markets to the developer that has deliberately ignored them?
Why do we want to port a program that can't be trusted and offers more restrictions, no freedom or user's rights, no source code, and comes with an insanely hefty price tag?

zetetic
February 23rd, 2008, 11:09 AM
This is the first problem with the question. There is absolutely no such thing as intellectual property, nor is there any such thing defined in any law in any country of which I am aware. There is such thing as copyright, and patant, and trademark, etc. All of which are completely unrelated legally, work completely differently, and guarantee or limit different rights to different things in different ways. Calling them intellectual property is a confusion. If you wish to talk about the specific rights that a legal system is granting or limiting, name the system so we can speak intelligently about it.

Sorry but it is actually the contrary.

A concept like "copyright" only exists on a few countries in our world: those which use the system and principles of anglo-saxonic law.

The notion and concept of "copyright" has absolutely no meaning and no use on all countries based on latin and germanic law (almost all european countries, all latin american countries, many countries on Africa, etc).

Regarding the issue of immaterial objects, the only concept used and protected on all countries of latin or germanic law origin is the concept of "Intellectual Property".

And Intellectual property only gives the author one right: the right to exclusively obtain money from his work, the right to be the only one who makes profits with the work...

Anybody can use, enjoy, or get any sort of knowledge or information with/from his work, but only he, the author, can make money with it.

That's what distinguishes immaterial or incorporeal objects (the objects of intellectual property) from the material objects.

The right to restrict or obstruct the use or access to an object (v.g., a chair, a television, a house, etc), belongs strictly to the world of material objects!

It's perfectly legal to do those kind of things here, where I live, as long as I don't economically explore other people's work. For instance when I obtain or make a copy of a book, CD or software program, I am just USING these works (in order to obtain entertainment or knowledge); I'm not earning money with other people's works!

For instance, I wasn't selling pirated CDs, I was not making public or payed exhibition of movies or songs. I was not getting payed (for instance in the form of advertisements) for distributing the corporeal substratum of other people's intellectual properties, and so on... That's why all I was doing is perfectly legal.

On these countries is perfectly legal to enjoy, access, study, distribute or use other people's intellectual property, as long as no one but the author makes profits with the intellectual work.

And it is not only legal but also moral, because of this:
When someone comes with a new intellectual work, that work is only possible because the new creator relied in other people's work, in intellectual works and ideas that were created before, by other people. And as you know, those previous work almost never gets payed, cause it belongs to the community as a all.

Are you paying for using programmers languages? When you play piano are you paying for using the music scale? If someone had to pay for all the knowledge it takes to make a movie or a song, please tell me: who could make new songs or new movies??

And you most not forget that the object of intellectual propriety are IDEAS, something that is immaterial. That's why the only right an author has is the right to be the only one to EARN MONEY with his work, not the right to restrict other people's ability to use or take contact with his work!

Why? For some good reasons. But first of all because it's impossible to prevent people to use ideas, intellectual properties!

If you own a chair, off course it's fairly easy for you to prevent me from sitting on your chair. And you can do that without transforming this world in a totalitarian madness!

But if you, for example, made a song or a piece of software (software are just ideas in the form of instructions given to a computer) how can you prevent all other people to enjoy, get knowledge or take contact with your work??

I've listened to your song on the radio, or on a concert you have given, or on my friend's house. How can you prevent me for singing that song when I decide to take a bath or how can you prevent me for playing that song on my guitar and teach my friend to play it???

If I went to my friends house and have contact with your software, how can you prevent me for getting knowledge from it or to enjoy your software (imagine that it's a computer game, for instance)??

If you have made a poetic book which I've read in a public library or in my friend's house, how can you prevent me for using your poetic words on a romantic meeting with my girlfriend, or on a love letter??

The answear is: YOU CAN'T!! Or you could only prevent those things if we lived in a completely and unbelievable totalitarian regimen (far worst than that achieved by the Talibans)!

For instance, no privacy could exist! I could not take a bath alone, cause I certainly would sing your song. I could not be here alone, on my computer chair, cause I could be using "illegal" software.

That's why all those fanatic and desperate attempts to prevent other people's to access or use "copyrighted" intellectual property are almost always condemned to a ridiculous failure...

PS: just one more thing: If you want to sell 100 chairs, you must build 100 chairs. If you want to sell the corporeal materialization of 100 computer programs or 100 songs, you only need to make a computer program or a song... You see... material and immaterial objects are to completely different animals, for bad and for good...

zetetic

zetetic
February 23rd, 2008, 11:18 AM
Yes, I do know what a standard is. I have spent about half of my professional life so far pondering questions about adopting and implementing standards within large corporations and government organisations. That would amount to about seventeen years. What about you?

There are quite a few bodies which administer standards. Most of the major standards can be had by anyone. For a fee. Try to get the standard for the SQL language, for example. Is that what you mean by 'freely available to anyone?'

However, for people not familiar with standards and their application, there remains the noteworthy fact that every standard whatsoever has a defined reach. There are no galactic standards, only a few global ones and very many national ones. Some organisation may decree that something becomes standard within its premises or within its reach over which it has no control whatsoever. A case in point would be a local government which required all documents exchanged within its administration to be stored in the format defined by the office products by Microsoft.

I don't want to sound rude or anything but you must be living on a curious country...

A country which enforced, upon its citizens, standards not freely available to everyone???

A local government which required all documents exchanged within its administration to be stored in the format defined by the office products by Microsoft?

On my... Are we talking about corrupted or totalitarian regimens?

And what kind of people would allow its own government to make those kind of decisions? I would like to see my government trying to impose a decision like that...

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 11:22 AM
snip

Im only snipping because your post is incredibly long. You are very well-spoken on that subject, but we disagree on the term intellectual property. You cannot go to a court, at least in this country, and pursue a lawsuit over a violation of intellectual property. It simply does not exist. You absolutely have to prove it is a violation of rights granted under copyright law or patent law or trademark law, etc. If I went to court and made the statement, "Judge, the defendent has been violating my intellectual property, please make him stop." No further argument would be possible at that point without also identifying which of my rights and under what system of law I believe the defentant has been violating and then showing some proof. Upon doing so, the argument immediately abandons the term intellectual property and either becomes about copyright or patent or trademark depending on what it is the defendant has done with what invention, idea, or expression to which I am claiming rights.

zetetic
February 23rd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Im only snipping because your post is incredibly long. You are very well-spoken on that subject, but we disagree on the term intellectual property. You cannot go to a court, at least in this country, and pursue a lawsuit over a violation of intellectual property. It simply does not exist. You absolutely have to prove it is a violation of rights granted under copyright law or patent law or trademark law, etc. If I went to court and made the statement, "Judge, the defendent has been violating my intellectual property, please make him stop." No further argument would be possible at that point without also identifying which of my rights and under what system of law I believe the defentant has been violating and then showing some proof. Upon doing so, the argument immediately abandons the term intellectual property and either becomes about copyright or patent or trademark depending on what it is the defendant has done with what invention, idea, or expression to which I am claiming rights.

That's because you must be living on a country of anglo-saxonican law, which is a very specific and unic type of law, only used on some of the former british colonies.

On countries based on the latin or germanic law would be exactly the contrary.

The completely nonsense of the "copyright" concept and its implications, as opposed to the concept and logical implications of "Intellectual property" were always evident to continental european jurists and jurisconsults, but it only became obvious to everyone with the advent of the digital era (epoch), when everybody started to see it was virtually impossible to effectively enforce that "copyright" concept...

RSLxH
February 23rd, 2008, 11:49 AM
I know of many people who would gladly switch to Linux if it weren't for the PS problem. I will be keeping an eye on progress. Thanks for the news.

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 12:12 PM
I don't want to sound rude or anything but you must be living on a curious country...
.

Then try not to do so. Also, you questioned my qualifications to make any assertions about standards. I invite you again to state yours.


A country which enforced, upon its citizens, standards not freely available to everyone???

I did not say anything at all about any citizens, the inhabitants of the state or any legal persons interacting in any way with government agencies. What I said was about the agencies working within or on behalf of the state's administration.


A local government which required all documents exchanged within its administration to be stored in the format defined by the office products by Microsoft?

Every organisation has the right to restrict the technologies used within its organs. There are, for instance, at least three major providers of telephone technology. All offer proprietary products which are - needless to say - mutually incompatible. An organisation which tolerates its organs to use different phone 'standards' is wasting money. In the case of the state's administration, it is the taxpayer's money which is wasted.

Similarly, given that there are competing proprietary systems for processing, storing and transmitting documents, it is not only within a government's rights to define the kind of products to be used for those purposes, but it has an obligation to do so. For want of a better word, it can be said to 'define the standard for documents to be stored within its premises to be the format used by the products by the software maker X'.

Failure to do so would result in a damage far in excess of merely using mutually incompatible systems.

No one said that it is fun to arrive at such a decision, or that it's easy. To be truthful, it's plainly frustrating.

But then, what globally accepted independent standards for text documents, presentations or calculation sheets existed a few years ago which were reasonably supported on a fair number of desktop systems and were freely accessible to every one?


A country which enforced, upon its citizens, standards not freely available to everyone???.

You did not answer my question about what you mean by 'freely available to everyone'.

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 12:31 PM
@popch

Yes I see now. The necessity in the "openness" of a standard is relative to the body setting the standard. In which case, the choices in standards within certain bodies have no effect on parties outside the deciding body. ISO certifications in manufacturing are determined by the compliance of a manufacturer with ISO standards, but do not directly effect the choice available to an individual outside that manufacturer if the ISO standards are not disclosed to them as well.

I do maintain that the greater the deciding body is, the greater the importance in not to holding standards that give one party special priviledges in society.

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 12:57 PM
(...) I have neither interest, and think generating interest with proprietary software is not the best way to promote the GNU/Linux platform, and have the following concerns:

Since the content of my last post appears to be beyond the range of your expertise, let's stick to the points quoted above.

The OP is, of course, just about making PS work after a fashion in Linux. There have been some voices which clearly stated that they found this good news because it enabled them to use Linux. Clearly, the users which profit by this development are those who already are using PS.

The aim of promoting the GNU/Linux platform was introduced into this thread later, and as far as I recall, by you.


What will we do when Adobe breaks compatibilty in the next version? Will Google ride in on a white horse and fix it again? And again, and again?

Since Wine is a Windows compatibility layer, the risk of breaking PS in Linux again would presumably lie more with Microsoft changing the API again and less with Adobe using a different API. Of course, your concern about the sustainability of that kind of solution is valid. However, other environments have been known to change their APIs as well, thus breaking existing native code.


Why spend the money and effort to get compatibilty with software whose spoils the developer never intends to share?

Which developer do you address here? Adobe is scarcely gaining something here, since the users most likely to use PS in Linux appear to be those who would use PS in any event and in other environments.


Why do we want to port a program that can't be trusted and offers more restrictions, no freedom or user's rights, no source code, and comes with an insanely hefty price tag?

'We' do not want so. Serious users who presumably know what they are doing have decided to use Adobe products. No amount of ranting is going to influence their decision.

Photographers live with the fact that their equipment costs money. I have heard of one (1) photographer living in the former USSR who grinds his lenses himself. I have not heard of any others even though the blueprints of some high quality lenses are publicly available. The cost of Photoshop is hefty but obviously not a show stopper.

I repeat:

There are people who need to use Photoshop. Some of those people are glad to get the opportunity to use that product in the Linux environment.
Google has an agenda of its own in funding that work.
It is perfectly within Google's right to spend money in a way which is not the best way to promote the GNU/Linux platform.
It is within our right to be excited or not to be excited by Google doing so.And: Yes, I know that it is to be called properly GNU/Linux, and I acknowledge that people have the right to keep on doing so in every context.

popch
February 23rd, 2008, 01:06 PM
I do maintain that the greater the deciding body is, the greater the importance in not to holding standards that give one party special priviledges in society.

We are absolutely in agreement in that point, even if I would use different terms.

In practice, I think one must even accept that the process by which a standard is arrived at will favor those parties who have a strong position to begin with. That's quite obeservable in most standards concerning the TelCo industry.

k2t0f12d
February 23rd, 2008, 01:44 PM
Since the content of my last post appears to be beyond the range of your expertise, let's stick to the points quoted above.

Uncalled for. Simply because you make your responses verbose does not proportionally increase the amount of value in what you had to say. In the post to which I was replying, you wrote a lot of words to arrive at just one meaningful thought, as far as I could decipher. I am not fluent in pedantic.


The OP is, of course, just about making PS work after a fashion in Linux. There have been some voices which clearly stated that they found this good news because it enabled them to use Linux. Clearly, the users which profit by this development are those who already are using PS.

There are also presumably a large number of people who also use Linux but have not yet tried Photoshop but might if it could be executed through WINE on GNU/Linux. You can neither prove that everyone who will use Photoshop on GNU/Linux already does so, nor that new users will not be reached because it can run on GNU/Linux.


The aim of promoting the GNU/Linux platform was introduced into this thread later, and as far as I recall, by you.

I don't specifically recall. I don't think it was, I think there were a lot of people who said it would be good for the platform. How does that even make any difference?


Since Wine is a Windows compatibility layer, the risk of breaking PS in Linux again would presumably lie more with Microsoft changing the API again and less with Adobe using a different API. Of course, your concern about the sustainability of that kind of solution is valid. However, other environments have been known to change their APIs as well, thus breaking existing native code.

I follow WINE development somewhat closely, and am aware of various charts of the API they keep on their website that shows an estimate of the progress in being able to provide compatibility. Microsoft would not have to change any API for a new version of Photoshop to break, Adobe would just have to include part of the API WINE hasn't been written to cover. However, anything Microsoft changes could potentially cause breakage as well.


Which developer do you address here? Adobe is scarcely gaining something here, since the users most likely to use PS in Linux appear to be those who would use PS in any event and in other environments.

Pure speculation. There is no way you could possibly prove how much or how little Adobe will gain. Initially, most of the users may very well have been preexisting. Either way Adobe doesn't have to raise one finger or spend a single dime to provide their own software to GNU/Linux.


'We' do not want so. Serious users who presumably know what they are doing have decided to use Adobe products. No amount of ranting is going to influence their decision.

Photoshop users are not the only to which one may apply the term serious, or the only ones who "know what they are doing". No one was advocating that users of Photoshop stop using Photoshop. They don't have to have GNU/Linux be able to run it to use it. If it isn't about promoting the platform, why do they need it to be able to run Photoshop? I only said that it makes more sense to me to push the development of native free software program instead of the software whose developer can't be bothered.


Photographers live with the fact that their equipment costs money. I have heard of one (1) photographer living in the former USSR who grinds his lenses himself. I have not heard of any others even though the blueprints of some high quality lenses are publicly available. The cost of Photoshop is hefty but obviously not a show stopper.

What does that have to do with anything?


There are people who need to use Photoshop. Some of those people are glad to get the opportunity to use that product in the Linux environment.

Thats great. I certainly don't think they should be excluded. I do however think that it is the responsibility of the developer of the program to provide that service to their paying customers, not a thrid party. If not to attack Microsoft, I would have been very perplexed why Google would even care.


Google has an agenda of its own in funding that work.

Yeah, we've both said that.


It is perfectly within Google's right to spend money in a way which is not the best way to promote the GNU/Linux platform.

Yeah, we've both said that. If you don't like that I have voiced a difference of opinion with Google ... *shrugs*


It is within our right to be excited or not to be excited by Google doing so.

Well, I haven't given any of my permission to those who are excited about PS on GNU/Linux, but I was sorta thinking that my claims not to be excited wouldn't bother them as much as you seem to think it has.


And: Yes, I know that it is to be called properly GNU/Linux, and I acknowledge that people have the right to keep on doing so in every context.

What does that mean? Did I just call it "Linux" somewhere? I won't tell Stallman if you won't. :rolleyes:

Zeroangel
February 24th, 2008, 08:08 AM
Keeping up on the debate for the past few pages. Very enlightening, on the different systems of law. I can see some well-informed viewpoints here.


Photoshop users are not the only to which one may apply the term serious, or the only ones who "know what they are doing". No one was advocating that users of Photoshop stop using Photoshop. They don't have to have GNU/Linux be able to run it to use it. If it isn't about promoting the platform, why do they need it to be able to run Photoshop? I only said that it makes more sense to me to push the development of native free software program instead of the software whose developer can't be bothered.
Because we do. If you didnt get the picture before, then more talking or 'logical debate' isnt going to help you. People have their own reasons for making decisions, and if you are not truly willing to understand the thought processes that go into that, then you will never be able to do so.

Just leave it at that.

julian67
February 24th, 2008, 11:05 AM
re copyright law. 1st it's Anglo-Saxon, not saxonic or saxonical but never mind.

2nd yes legal systems in UK and countires which derived their systems from British systems are different from (for example) various European countries and those countries who adopted European models. The European models are heavily influenced by their origins in Roman Law. Clearly they are different from British system both in criminal and civil process. But these days the majority of Europe is bound by EU law (which in the case of copyright and related rights implements global treaty). This takes precedence over their domestic legislation. The EU copyright legislation is derived from the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, which directly deals with copyright and related rights. So it's not true to say that copyright exists only in the Anglo-Saxon system. Zetetic stated earlier that
It's perfectly legal to do those kind of things here, where I live, as long as I don't economically explore other people's work. For instance when I obtain or make a copy of a book, CD or software program, I am just USING these works (in order to obtain entertainment or knowledge); I'm not earning money with other people's works!

For instance, I wasn't selling pirated CDs, I was not making public or payed exhibition of movies or songs. I was not getting payed (for instance in the form of advertisements) for distributing the corporeal substratum of other people's intellectual properties, and so on... That's why all I was doing is perfectly legal.

On these countries is perfectly legal to enjoy, access, study, distribute or use other people's intellectual property, as long as no one but the author makes profits with the in

I don't know where Zetetic lives but if it is any of the 184 countries that is a member of the UN body WIPO (non members being the states of Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, the entities of Palestinian Authority, Sahrawi Republic, Solomon Islands, Taiwan, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. according to wikipedia) then it is definitely not the case that anyone is free to do as they please with copyrighted works as long as no profit is made.

btw I have no legal training or expertise and as far as I can tell by reading this thread neither does anyone else who posted here. If someone wants to be accepted as qualified or expert in a field they need to demonstrate their credentials, not simply challenge others to do the same.

k2t0f12d
February 24th, 2008, 11:28 AM
People have their own reasons for making decisions, and if you are not truly willing to understand the thought processes that go into that, then you will never be able to do so.

I'm very confident that CodeWeavers can succeeed, and can easily see why those who love Photoshop would want it to run with GNU/Linux as well as possible, however, I fear that the end result will not be as wonderful as everyone hopes.

graabein
February 24th, 2008, 01:19 PM
I hope they put some time in on City Of Heroes also. I'm running Wine 0.9.51 and it's pretty darn close to running perfect. That would be fantastic.

Good thing if they get Photoshop to work 100% on GNU/Linux cause that's what's holding a lot of users from switching to Linux.

k2t0f12d
February 24th, 2008, 01:36 PM
I hope they put some time in on City Of Heroes also.

It is entirely possible that improving coverage for the API that supports Photoshop will yield unexpected (or expected) benefits in the support of other Windows binaries. I pull the lastest git and build semi-frequently (currently version 0.9.55 git2472e81). I might get CoH and test it on the current head.

EDIT: I guess I won't. I heard of CoH, but didn't realize it was a MMORPG. I don't play those to begin with, and couldn't even if I wanted to since satellite internet latency prevents any multiplayer gaming...sorry...