Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Day Around The World
depechemodem writes "In a follow-up to Microsoft Leaves U.N. Standards Group, it appears that it may have been in reaction to the UN's sponsorship of the 1st annual Software Freedom Day in which its International Open Source Network (IOSN) will educate Asian users on the benefits
of Free and Open source Software (FOSS). FOSS promotes several high-profile applications including OpenOffice, Mozilla, MySQL, and Apache." An anonymous reader says of the U.N. effort, "Events will be organised in Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam on Saturday, August 28th." According to another anonymous reader, "Go Open Source, funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation and HP, expects up to 10,000 visitors at the various Linux install-fests around South Africa this Saturday, says the Mail & Guardian."
Sorry... early morning thought.
What would happen if other things in the world were free? What if budding designers and contractors demostrated their skills by building free pubic buildings?
Musicians and artists already use the free model to start their careers.
AC
The fact that Microsoft hasn't seen the future just shows that they resemble the record industry in the most simple ways. Both MS and the record industry don't want to understand that soon they may have to change their buissness model, so they're trying to fight tooth and nail to keep the old one, they don't care about the cost to consumers or the economy.
Just more proof that if you don't adapt you die.
(PS: First Post)
Isn't it great to see people like Mark Shuttleworth (second space tourist, and the First African in Space) investing in these kinds of worthy programmes?
Now if only someone can convince the SA government that cheap internet is VERY important to the economy. At the moment communication in South Africa is controlled by Telkom, a monopoly. They charge more than R800 (about US$120) per month for ADSL, and they cap your bandwidth to 3 gig a MONTH. There's a good reason for the so called "digital divide" in South Africa, it's the prohibitive cost. There's a great site highlighting the grievances against Telkom, called Hellkom.
It amazes me to no end how many people talk about "Linux apps" and Linux. We have the BSDs (which aren't encumbered by the GPL), we have other OSs like Syllable, NewOS, OpenBeOS, ReactOS. But it's always GNU/Linux that gets all the hype and press notes.
Mike Bouma, Amiga, Inc.
It might end up being a total flop
that is up to you (points fingers around the room)
if you want it to be a guaranteed success, get involved ! help someone get that latest distro on their aging PC, go answer questions, fix that dodgy driver conflict, fdisk that win95 box, help out any way you can and maybe it will be a success, the way to make sure it fails is just to do nothing
OK, somebody PLEASE tell me how these things are connected. Seriously, this is a pretty pathetic attempt to spin a news story. This is a follow-up how? Are these two events connected in any way? If not, then please just report the stories. Or perhaps the tagline should be changed to "Speculation for Nerds".
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but my impression was that one of the main points behind the whole free (speech) software movement is that most other forms of information already are free.
That is to say: Software is in quite an unusual situation, because the machine instructions are not nearly as useful as the source code from which they were derived. This is not the same as something like a book or a song, because even though there may be copyright restrictions on the distribution, those who do get it can still see and manipulate the actual building blocks of the information once they have it... at the very least for their own personal use.
What the GPL and "free" software movement does among other things is to make sure that if someone distributes the software, then they must distribute the source version at the very least, to ensure that the person getting it has all the same rights and abilities that they would normally have with other types of information.
An architect or builder probably won't build a free building as you've suggested, because a building isn't information in the traditional sense. (At least if they do, we're talking about something on a fundamentally different level.) But if an architect were to design plans for a building and sell them to a developer, the developer would naturally be able to adjust and perhaps continue re-distribute those plans... at which point whoever gets them can continue to do the same. Something like this isn't automatically possible with software, because it can be distributed in a form that can be used but not easily changed.
Similarly, some artists are giving their work away under a variety of free licenses, but those licenses aren't revolutionary to art in the same way that the GPL is revolutionary to software... (although perhaps they are in other ways). With or without those licenses, it's still naturally possible (legal or not) to obtain a song or an artwork, and derive something else from it. This is not so easy with closed source software.
I think the difference is that software information is directly used by computers whereas other blocks of information (at least those that are normally associated with distribution and trading) are directly used by people. You have to understand the words in a book to make use of it, but you don't have to understand the machine instructions in a software application... so the readable edition can be held back. Many software developers/businesses take advantage of the extra control-by-obscurity over the information that this technicality gives them. If we all had logic brains and could easily understand and manipulate the compiled software that was bought off the shelves, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Among other things, the GPL attempts to remove that technicality and make software like most other types of information.
I'm not exactly a strong advocate of free software besides using it for most things. If anyone thinks I've missed something important, please elaborate.
in which its International Open Source Network (IOSN) will educate Asian users on the benefits of Free and Open source Software
That's kinda funny. From what I hear, Microsoft products are all "free" (as in beer) in many parts of Asia.
You'd think that Microsoft would be thrilled to replace its products with FOSS ones on Chinese computers, for example. With a piracy rate over 90% in China, Microsoft must be "losing" billions of dollars there every year. If Chinese users simply switch over to Linux, they'll instantly become legitimate, fully licensed users instead of software pirates, Microsoft will no longer "lose" billions! What enterprising business wouldn't like to stick its rival with a market where piracy is rampant?
Erm, no, I guess that won't work. Chinese users switching to Linux means Microsoft suddenly loses control of the largest emerging market in the world, and the only thing it'll actually lose is the opportunity to wring as much money out of China as it can. And since you can't lose what you don't have, Microsoft doesn't actually lose money in China, it just doesn't realize all the potential sales. Microsoft would likely lose more sales in China if users there rampantly copied someone else's product than it does now with users rampantly copying Microsoft products.
I am simply stunned that /. people aren't seeing this for how truly bad it is. Once a "so called" standards body is supporting a particular type of software it is the END of those standards and there organisation. Standards bodies are supposed to be independant, wonder how you would all be reacting if they had come out to promote Windows or Solaris over open source. They haven't just shot themselves in the foot, they have blown there whole bloody leg off with this stupid move. Why would any vendor now take them seriously as they have proven they are no longer independant.
Being a college student, there was no way I could afford all those expensive production suites for windows, so Open Source was a huge help in perfecting my skill as a programmmer durig college not only with all the free software/development suites, but also, with being able to look over the source of any program I had, I was able to pick up quite a bit.
I suppose you could say open source software has not only been inspiring, but beneficial. It help fostered in me a view of programming as a hobby, and I'd definately say my time spent on open source projects really helps increase my skill level (keeps me turning out better code at work).
TO those of you out there who, like myself included now, are working hard on open source projects...
Thank You.
James CarrSoftware should be free because of its availibility and no-existant costs of production. I am considering production to be separate from development. Production is nothing more then running the ftp server so poeple can download it. Software is so cheep to manufacture it really should be gratis. Development on the other hand costs time and money. Licensing it is and always will be a stupid scheme because its always going to be pirated and or you will not at some point be able to compete with your previous versions. People simply won't want to pay to upgrade any more.
FOSS has done alot of great things but the gratest projects were born out of need and then generously gifted to the rest of society so that others can enjoy the work.
So what if your business is software and as such you have few specific needs? Then create your own market. Other industries have figured this out. For example: Make an inexpensive cartoon show, that can't likely sell enough advertizing time at first for you to break even. Get people hooked for a little while. Start selling card games and books, and posters related to the cartoon. Profit!
Software firms should be able to do the same. Make a hopefully killer app. Give it away create installed user base. Let companies and individuals pay $$$ you to implement feature X or customization y for them. Wait a release or two an d fold those features into the mainline(you have to get your userbase to upgrade so you not stuck maintaining really old trees). Repete above untill interest in the product dies off, then start on something new. Being open source can't individuals and companies implement stuff on their own and leave you out of the loop. Sure but if your app is of good quality and is substantial enough to be "commercial quality" chances are nobody can do a better job as quickly or cheaply as you can. The other reality is that if some third party does create a valuable patch you can fold it into your mainline imediately, takeing away any third party market for forprofit development on your product insuring you will have a monopoly withing the sphear of your own product.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Mike, trust me on this - if people weren't talking about Linux they wouldn't be talking about Amiga OS either. Sorry to burst your bubble.
PS. Isn't the OS4 developer release kind of reliant on GCC? Here's a free clue for you - GCC would most likely not exist without the "encumberance" of the GPL. I'm sure if you asked MS really nicely they'd let you include Visual C++ in your little toy "commercial" OS. Might put the price up a bit, but I somehow doubt it would have a significant effect on your sales figures.
I know this is a bit off topic, but why is it that MySQL gets attention that PostgreSQL doesn't? MySQL, as a database, sucks ass compared to postgres.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples like this. Does it have to do with the fact that there's a more commercially oriented company behind the MySQL development? If this is the case, what does this bode for the future of FOSS projects that don't have some commercial backing?
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
Sometime in the 1940's, Nestle Corp approach Mrs. Ruth Wakefield, and purchased her famous 'Toll House Cookie' recipe. They named it the 'Nestle TollHouse Cookie."
Even though they paid handsomly for the recipe, they started printing it on the bag of chocolate chips, and giving it away. Why would Nestle do this?
Nestle does not make money by selling cookies, and they do not make money selling cookbooks. they make money by (among other things) selling Chocolate Chips.
By giving away the recipe, people not had a reason to buy their chips. They made money, indirectly, by purchasing that recipe and giving it away.
In a very real sense, they 'open sourced' this recipe. Since recipes are not patentable, all they could do was 'trademark' the name 'TollHouse'. If you look at a bag of Hershey's chips, Ghiardelli chips, etc, they all have the same recipe, just named differently.
You can use this recipe with no obligation... you could break up your own favorite chocolate bar, and not have to buy any chips. You could leave the chips out entirely, and add M&Ms if you want. If you can make your own cookie for about 15 cents, why would you go to a store in a mall about pay a dollar for a cookie (US Currency)? You are paying for convenience, labor, expertise, etc.
This is how Open Source makes money.
Now, information is fundamentally different than tangible property. With tangible property, you don't have it once you give it to someone. Information is not like that. So how does this change the equation?
Lets say I'm building a house. I may have to pay for the bricks and mortar, but how much does that really cost compared to the price of the house? The material for an individual brick is cheap (but not free). BUT, it takes labor, time, and expetrise to move it to where it needs to be, and assemble many of them into a structure. THIS is the majority of the cost. If I were to own the brick factory AND be the bricklayer, it might be 'worth it' for me to give away the bricks in order to charge for my time.
Open Source philosophies are not new... they just seem to be thought of as new because of the impact they are having in a relatively new marketplace.
-db