On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:52:03 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
>news:crmbn457io812781v0vht4glfgca8hcdda@4ax.com...
>> I understand that Christoph. But I would have thought that the "hippie
>> philosophy" would endorse "open source". Free love and all that.
>
>Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>

I don't feel guilty any more I'm even cured of distaste for "Big Blue".

I gave up using OpenOffice.org as I still use M$ at work and my fingers can only
remember so many shortcuts ;)

>>>But I guess this may get us off-topic a bit...
>>
>> True, but that has never stopped me ;)
>
>Neither does it me... 
>

Well OT gets a bit On Topic at times :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:23:51 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Indeed... Same question here. I use OpenOffice.org to (almost) full 
>> satisfaction, and without feeling guilty towards MS... ;-)
>
>It usually confuses matters to try to analyze "real" open source software 
>(like the Linux kernel) with software that was created and given away as a 
>competitive advantage to the creators. Some "open" software was originally 
>created by a hardware company who wanted good software for their hardware 
>that would compete with the software available for other hardware. Giving 
>away the software made their hardware (where they made their actual money) 
>more attractive.

Some capitalists are sneaky :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I don't think so.  Most enterprises either build their private systems
> in house or pay a third party to build it and even hand over the source
> code anyway.  Private enterprise commercial systems are hardly portable
> or fittable to other organization needs so there's really no point in
> open-sourcing a one-fits-all kind of system and even if there was they
> would still hire software developers to customize it.

Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.
How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?

It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
*all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
alternatives out there; because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
the source code of the final product under the GPL as well, and provide
interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it; but at the same
time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
bus protocol details and such) secret, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

So it's no surprise the embedded Linux idea has not really reached full speed
yet.

While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
of free software.

An old african proverb says, if elephants (here: big companies and the FSF)
fight, it is the grass (here: small developers) that suffers.


> I see open-source primarily as a great way of diminishing production
> costs by sharing such cost of development and maintanence with other
> interested parties:  everyone benefit from it and the more interested
> parties, the better.  It's a very good development model geared
> primarily for general purpose infrastructure software, but not so much
> for user applications which are meant to be specific.

The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Their agenda leaves absolutely no doubt about it: Their aim is to make *every*
single piece of software "free" and open-sourced. They're just not going full
gear for strategic reasons (read for example their statements about when to use
the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself).

Honestly, I'd liken this to communism or socialism: The basic ideas might have
been good ones, but they have been bred in academic brains a bit too far from
reality (e.g. too optimistic about the nature of man), then pushed by
enthusiastic masses too far from the academic ideas, to ultimately fail - after
having caused a great mess that will not be so easy to clean up.

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
> of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
> typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Yes, most likely.

> Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
> trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.

Still, Google is doing it with the Linux-based GPLed android.

> How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?
> 
> It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
> *all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
> alternatives out there;

You could use BSD stuff or some other if you don't want/like GPL.  Or 
write from scratch. :)

> because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
> the source code of the final product under the GPL as well,

That's the license terms for it.

> and provide
> interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
> basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it;

Ubuntu doesn't come with source code and used to not even provide gcc. 
They were in the software repositoires, though.

> but at the same
> time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> bus protocol details and such) secret

Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL 
software for it to be required to be released in source form?

>, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so 
want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of 
Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

> While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> of free software.

So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis 
for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I 
call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as 
software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

> The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's 
unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> read for example their statements about when to use
> the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself

by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
> be afraid.

Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in 
the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not 
put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs 
tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all 
infrastructure tools are free as well.

Can you really picture a manager somewhere saying:  "Bwahahaha, we don't 
need no stinking software developers anymore as all software is finally 
free!  Coffee lady, tweak those scripts to run in the server before 
lunch..."

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > but at the same
> > time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> > bus protocol details and such) secret
>
> Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL
> software for it to be required to be released in source form?

But that's exactly the problem: With LGPL it wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
is.

Binary data? No way. Doesn't count as source code.

> >, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> > the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.
>
> Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so
> want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of
> Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

Yeah, if bad people want to do bad things, they do it... but then you as the
developer of that thing may be sued for not restricting access to it well
enough...


> > While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> > their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> > of free software.
>
> So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis
> for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I
> call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as
> software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

Nay, we're not talking about software pirating - we're talking about the FSF
promoting a license scheme that some developers would possibly not opt for if
the FSF didn't tell them that it is the thing that will save the planet.

Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing software
from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code all by
myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in the
public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of the
PNG lib.

Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really care
about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the PNG lib
I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by himself from
scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine with
his work to be placed in the PD.

So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and also
perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me to GPL
the software.

Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that other guy
wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.

THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of software
comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the PD -
but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do anything
with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the GPL.


Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this may
not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that *all*
people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine with
a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.


> > The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> > towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> > applications custom-tailored for an individual website.
>
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll
> be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's
> unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

I do believe they believe in their ideals: Total domination of the "free
software" idea over all the software market. I haven't seen any statement to
the effect that they will be happy with anything less.

From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that makes me
very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> > read for example their statements about when to use
> > the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself
>
> by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
> surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
> competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
> about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
> don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
> is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
> that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

From what I gather, the main driving force behind this is the desire of some
software developers, who code for fun or as an aside, to be able to use and
modify other people's software for free as well (I'd call *that* a very
*sneaky* way of piracy, actually).

They are willing to give away their work for free - well, no problem with this,
thanks guys; but they're not willing to pay anything for what they get.

This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't enforce this principle with quite a
lot of success onto other parts of the software world. It is their publicly
declared(!) agenda to "flood" the software market with free software libraries
under the non-virulent LGPL to "drown" commercial alternatives, and then switch
over to the virulent GPL in order to force all software authors that make use of
to those libraries to make their software free as well - even those authors that
would be willing to pay for the functionality provided by the libraries, but
cannot because there are no commercial alternatives anymore.

Yes, I guess "a sneaky way of software piracy" quite hits the mark.


I think the worst about it is that when the FSF and GPL are criticized, the
broad public doesn't get the details of any side's messages, and naively
equates FSF = free software = open source = I don't have to pay for it = good,
and FSF-critics = anti-free-software = commercial = only want to have my money
= bad.

I also wonder how many people releasing their software under the GPL actually
know about the FSF's agenda. But then again, people are greedy, so "free
software for everyone!" sounds like a great message for all those who don't get
paid for their own software development work anyway.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in
> the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not
> put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs
> tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all
> infrastructure tools are free as well.

The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
and leave no room for "small developers".

Either you will work for a big company to adapt & extend existing software to
their needs (which then *may* happen to be released to the public for free as a
spin-off), or you will develop software as a hobby just for fun. No in-between
anymore.

No room for people writing comparatively small pieces of software for fun *and*
making a living on it.

Can you imagine anyone paying for shareware if it is not only *technically*
possible to circumvent trial periods and registration code checks (because the
source code must be made open), but also *morally* perfectly fine to do so
(because after all the author did release it under the GPL, i.e. as free
software, so actually he has no right to demand money for it from me, has he)?

Well, I can imagine people paying for such tools, but I guess their number will
drastically decrease, and the feeling that it's still right to pay for
shareware will erode over time even in those people who currently still have
that attitude.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
> and leave no room for "small developers".

"Will"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message