Slashdot Mirror
Software Livre, Anyone?
tbray writes "They just had this
huge OSS conference in Brazil. One good write-up by Simon Phipps is here. And hey, down there, OSS and Java play nice together."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Finally, 3rd world countries are getting it!
Free / Open Source software is the way to go.
You can't make your country a developed one by importing overrated and overprized propietary technology.
By the way, the brazilian goverment is also doing a good job negotiating FTAA (ALCA), not like most other countries in Latin America, which are desesperatly yielding to "free trade" agreements with the US, which only benefit big bussines and make more restrictive IP regulation, like the DMCA, software patents and extensive pharma patents for their countries.
An interesting tidbit of this article is that they "wants to annually recycle 240 a thousand computers" anually for public telecenters, libraries, and schools. Couldn't tell if they plan to put Open Source OSes onto these computers, but I would assume so. This is a lot better than wasting valuable hardware. Not to mention most schools can function fine with slower processors as opposed to 3Ghz ones, which are substantially more expensive.
I disagree.
OSS is not being embraced because its zero cost, but because you have the freedom to do what you like with the source.
For example the performance of Oracle in certain situations may be preferable to any of the zero cost DB's, even to the point of justifying the large expenditure, but if there is a bug you *really* need fixed or a feature you want to add, then you are dependent on Oracle to change the codebase - which could be an even bigger cost!
Of course java has the source code available for you to do this. The concern there is that may not always be the case.
Actually I suspect it's both kinds of free propelling acceptance. Think about it.
Without both I'd likely have never tried linux.
Plus bussiness have to meet a bottom line. The lack of up front cost for the software is attractive for that reason, and fact that they can tailor it more exactly to thier specific needs can improve efficiency and again impact thier bottom line.
Joe sixpack is much less likely to replace windows with something doesn't run moose sniper 9 and let him do that online billing thing if he has to pay out any significant $$ for it.
And of course your local computer geek gets all sorts of toys he can actually play with without having eula's threaten to do evil things if takes it apart and requiring his imortal soul and first born simply to run.
It's a good and altruist a motive to sing the virtues of open source I agree. But not paying $200+ a pop to mearly be able to actually run that nice shiny computer is a pretty nice thing as well.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
The razorblade industry. They give away the razors, and charge for the blades. In the software industry, some companies give away the software and charge for the support.
Economics 101.
I don't understand why the open source community is so anti-Java. Now after reading that sentence don't think I'm leading into a rant against that anti-Java mentality. Instead, I'm pleading ignorance here -- I just want someone to enlighten me :)
:)
Even though the Java API & implementation are controlled by Sun, why should that discourage OSS developers from writing software in it? If you can still release your source code freely while the Java VM remains free for download, what's the harm?
Case in point, Azureus is a great BitTorrent client/server written in Java, and released under the GPL. As its source code is made freely available, it receives the same feedback as other GPL'd programs receive developed for an open source language.
And just recently, I've found Java useful for controlling my Lego Mindstorms robots (see Lejos) to making my own peer-to-peer program (working on it in my spare time... coming soon, hopefully). I'll be releasing all the source code for these projects online, under the GPL -- isn't that what really matters?
Again, I'm just ignorant. Please enlighten me!
- sm
Also, you say that rights to modify programs can be bought from any company, but you can't find software that costs nothing. Let's take a look at a company almost everyone hates: Micro$oft. They certainly provide some free-as-in-beer software to the public, especially when it bolsters their monopoly. An example is the Visual C++ compiler. What I've never heard of is someone buying the source code to, say, Windows.
Allowing people to get the software for free is one of the many reasons free software can compete with proprietary programs, but that's only a byproduct of the real purpose: to let people actually buy software and do with it as they please, not just a license to use it in the way the author envisioned.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
I think you're being a little too sensitive about the term "Third World". Granted, it's developed all sorts of strange connotations over the years and maybe is best avoided, but it might be useful to go back to the original definition before you get all worked up.
Here's what a quick Google turned up.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I'd hardly call making the software industry a commodity, service industry destruction. More like evolution and maturation.
At the moment broken IP law means that we have the completely farcical situation of a dominant mindshare company like M$ writing a program and getting paid billions for it and smaller company like Sun writing an identically functional program and getting paid 1/100 or less. The so-called free market is broken when that happens and it needs to be fixed.
The free market is a myth. A truly free market would be warlordism, might makes right. Instead, we have laws that discourage negative competitive behaviour (truth in advertising, product liability etc.) and allow positive competitive behaviour (improving the product, decreasing prices etc.). We now need new IP law that encourages fair, equivalent payment for equivalent software writing effort and true competition in product, not manipulation of the law with patents and the like.
Answering your question: Personally, I've got no problem with charging for software in principle but I have a big problem with broken IP law that allows wildly different renumeration for writing software. I don't mind a 10 times difference in charges to encourage innovation and competition but more than that is not on. Life is unfair enough as it is without creating laws that make it even more unfair.
---
User friendly Windows/XP
User unfriendly Windows/XP license.
And hey, down there, OSS and Java play nice together
The problem with Java and OSS is that even the specifications for the Java environment are proprietary, that Sun does not permit independent reimplementations without their express approval (in the name of "compatibility"), and that once you look at Sun's source code, you are forever barred from participating in open source implementations (because Sun could claim them as derivative works).
See, the problem with OSS and Java is not the OSS side--OSS developers have gone out of their way to accomodate Sun around the world. Maybe Brasilian developers are more gullible and less critical than elsewhere, but the party who isn't playing nice is Sun. And, unless Sun has changed their licenses for Brasil (which I doubt), OSS and Java have the same problems in Brasil as everywhere else.
And you would prefer a country where you cannot criticise your own governement???
Isen't that the exact reason why U.S. "claims" they removed saddam from power? Because it was not a democracy? And you sit here attacking the most important part of a democratic system???
Are you a confused American?
Posting useless rant since 2003.
Do you live in the US? I don't agree that the poorest people in the US live better than people in brazilian favelas. Being poor in the US is seen as an individual's fault: you had your opportunity but failed to take advantage of it. The poor are often treated with contempt. That's not the case in Brazil, where there people are more understanding and supportive of the poor.
Whether the extremely poor live better in Brazil or in the US is very questionable.
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
I'm a blue collar worker so I am always amazed at the idea that somehow cheaper/freer/more useful tools are somehow bad for the economy. Man, cheap/free/better is GREAT to increase productivity. Like today, I have to go work on a medium sized diesel mower (kubota f2000 to be exact) that has some busted hydraulics. I have to stop my real productivity (mowing in this case),experience unexpected "downtime", the stuff that makes me my real coin, rummage through my tools, hope I have enough of everything I need to get to the busted part, then hope I can fix it without purchasing an entire new part. If there was a way I could replicate what I needed, make a copy, and if I knew I could just go get all the tools I needed for cheap/free, MAN 0 MAN would that be nice. I know I might have to pay a fee for a part, but if it's too much, and they want to charge me for the knowlege of how to deal with that part, and insist I can only use their brand tools to work on it, etc, it starts to slide into the sucky range. There needs a common sense balance here.
Charging through the nose for tools, I mean, say if I had to subscribe to tools, and had to constantly keep paying for tools that never improved much, and kept breaking, etc, would really suck. The REAL productivity would never get much better, I'd be stuck in tool/parts cost expense hell, productivty would keep dropping, not improving, and everyone starts to suffer.. Whenever the cost/price of tools and parts drops, and when the aggregation of the tools and parts (in this case a functioning tractor) increase, I am more productive, make more loot. Less downtime, less hassle, less headaches etc. I'm not out to make the tool companies rich,they can make a few clamss off me but not so much that it makes my job impossible. They have to stay real and keep their tools and parts good enough and cheap enough and functional enough for me to keep going in my real job. There's a symbiosis here that benfits all, but it would never happen if the tools and parts cost more than what the job makes. If it gets to the point that the aggregate is just not worth it, then that's that, it no longer is profitable for ANYONE concerned in the whole deal.
My point is, tools and parts are for the REAL WORK, they, in and of themselves, are NOT the entire real work. That's the major difference in see in the softwarez and IT world between closed/expensive/propietary and cheap(er)/free(er)/ and more open.
My best guess is, for example, the way-just a randomness here, say redhat- is approaching this situation fits closer to a profitable/workable arrangement for all concerned, shifting to non tangible products and tools. It's not perfect, not yet, but getting better and evolving to a happier medium that benefits all concerned. The over all societal benefit in having closer to free/cheap tools and parts, and tools and parts that people are free to modify for a particular purpose (say I need a wrench to fit into a tight spot, I can bend it in a vise to make it fit, no license or permission required, and I can share the design with others and still not suffer), then this is a good thing.
And I HAVE done this in meat space. There's an industry specific tool that's used all over that I designed and had built the first examples of.(It is not relevant the exact tool for this discussion) previous there were a lot of home made widgets that functioned similarily, but I made a professional one that was useful and durable enough that several companies are now producing and making them. I initially made a few bucks on it,and that was it, I recovered my costs basically and still own several of the first run, and have used them in *real* work, which was the original idea. I benefited initially from just borrowing a home made cob job example of the tool, then greatly improving on itwith my meagre 'developer" skills. But the design, etc, I just threw out to the world, no patents, copyrights, nuthin, just dumped it, free, because I understand having better tools is a good idea for the people who use to
I think that countries should be rated by the number of parties, not the number of dollars. In that case, Brazil wins.
If you actually read the line below it says:
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
What that means is that I CAN force you to pay whatever I want you to pay BUT then you can go off and undersell me. That makes it fine for contract work (one or two big payments) etc but not that good for Shrink Wrap as if it's get's popular someone else will try and sell it or give it away. What that means in real life is that if you try and GPL software you tend to sell the product + service which is standard once you get beyond shrinkwrap products. The besta example I can think of is ntop