Being Free is Hard to Do

ValourX writes "What is more important to you -- the four freedoms of Free Software, or the ability to maximize the value of your computer? It's a question that comes up on Slashdot often, but rarely is it so well argued as it is in this NewsForge article. How important are the FSF's four freedoms to you? What are you willing to sacrifice for those freedoms?" NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.

Comments

Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Neil Blender]

Slashbot: Four freedoms.
Slashbot (wakes up, rubs eyes...thinks about mp3s, dvds, games): Max use.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Epsillon]

Look up the following: Mplayer, Kaffeine, Xine, LibDVDRead and BZFlag. Not replacements for closed source, really. Far better, IMO. As for ruddy games, that's what the Cube, PS2, Xbox et al are for (yes, in direct contradiction of me mentioning BZFlag. I can be ignorant, too).

You may also want to look at Mozilla, Firefox, Kmail (which, IMO, is the best graphical mail client ever coded), The GIMP, the FreeBSD networking stack and ipfw. These are all bits of open source software that I use on a daily basis that are "in-my-face" and noticeable. They are also the reason I would be lost without my open source OS, along with the myriad other packages running out of sight and mind that keep my computing and networking ticking over without a hitch. Being free hasn't cost me anything, so I guess I'm not qualified to comment...

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Neil Blender]

Look up the following: Mplayer, Kaffeine, Xine, LibDVDRead and BZFlag

Dude, you are preaching to the choir. I am a full on linux junky and have been for many years. But tell me, who's the fool: My boss (who has been in the computer business for 30 years) who is given a perfectly capable dual boot(linux/xp) laptop and asks me how do view a dvd under linux OR my wife with fuckall computer experience who can buy an ATHF dvd off ebay, stick it into her XP laptop and be watching it (with sound) inside of 10 seconds?

Me? I will spend the hour or two it takes me now (as opposed to the weeks or months it would have taken me 3 or more years ago) to figure out how to get it to work. My boss - I'll set it up for him, 'cause he's an idiot. My wife? She'll have watched the dvd three times before I'm done.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Epsillon]

I suppose I'm spoilt by FBSD's ports system where stuff generally works out of the "box" immediately. I hear Debian's apt-get does similar, looking after dependencies automatically, although I would be a bit disappointed with Debian's time-to-update.

You're right, of course. Folks don't want to spend an hour compiling things, and this is where Big Bill and the TC mob have the upper hand. They just want to slam the DVD in the hole and get the latest drivel on the screen and to hell with privacy and control. Me? I like knowing I'm in control. With FOSS, I am. With XP and Media Player who knows who is pushing the damn buttons? Have you ever run a tcpdump on a router supplying a virgin XP SP2 machine with connectivity? It's all subjective.

In a way, FOSS has forced me to learn a bit more about what I'm using. It now takes me ten minutes to install a fully functional Kaffeine using libxine on a FBSD box. When I first tried with gmplayer on Slackware, it took me two days full-on geeky head-in-the-Makefile messing and that's without getting X working in the first place. My family now happily do all the things they once did on Windows on a FreeBSD desktop system, replicated from my own desktop after each upgrade, which is far easier than keeping XP updated. The subjective here is have I lost or gained? Me? I reckon I've gained. Of course, the AMD64 helps with the wall time figure I just quoted ;-)

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Neil Blender]

In a way, FOSS has forced me to learn a bit more about what I'm using....The subjective here is have I lost or gained? Me? I reckon I've gained.

And that is the defining difference between me/you (0.0001%) vs my wife (99.9999%) of the world. I want gain computer knowledge and experience whereas my wife, well, she wants to watch Ignignot cleverly trick Meatwad into stealing racks of DVDs and to smoke while he does so.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[hdparm]

For a Linux junky you made some very surprising overstatements. Few days ago I reinstalled Fedora 3 on my son's computer (from scratch - HD clicked out). PC is not terribly fast - 733 MHz PIII. FC3 custom install (3.5 GB), all updates, flash and java plugins, Real player, mp3 addons, xine (for DVD), mplayer + mplayer plugin, TT fonts, Nintendo emulator - all together took around 4 hours.

All these but mplayer were rpm installs, so it's pretty easy. Mplayer is also not too hard to compile but takes time on a slow machine, plus takes another chunk of time to re-configure prelinking, so Windows media plays nicely.

Granted, I had all updates, additional rpms and tarballs ready on a home server but that's what any Linux junky would do, isn't it?

Ah, yes, takes single mouse click and about 5 seconds to play DVD.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Epsillon]

So is this the fatal flaw of FOSS? Do folks like you and I fall into the trap of assuming just because it's easy for *us* to do what we do, others should find it easy too? Is this the one obstacle that, if overcome, FOSS could indeed rival others in the desktop market?

Taking an objective look at myself, you're right. I do find myself projecting what I find easy onto other people as if they should too, and that is something I'm going to have to modify. Thanks for the insight.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[opqdonut]

I compiled Gentoo on a similar machine, took less than one day. I update my system about once a week, takes ~20min usually, ~60min if there is something big to compile (gcc, glibc, xorg). I don't use kde or gnome, though. I've heard they can be real bastards to compile.

I haven't got a dvd drive, so I can't comment on that. I play my dvds on a PS2.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[ichimunki]

I'll take four hours installing GNU/Linux over four hours trying to recover from the latest virus invasion on my Windows system any day. Really. How many people do you know that run Windows who haven't had some terrible corruption issue from spyware, viruses, worms, etc?

This four freedoms discussion is more interesting if we're talking about whether to use Photoshop on Mac OS X over the GIMP or whether we're comparing Oracle on some proprietary Unix over postgresql or mysql on GNU/Linux.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Neil Blender]

For a Linux junky you made some very surprising overstatements. Few days ago I reinstalled Fedora 3 all updates, flash and java plugins, Real player, mp3 addons, xine (for DVD), mplayer + mplayer plugin, TT fonts, Nintendo emulator - all together took around 4 hours.

All these but mplayer were rpm installs, so it's pretty easy. Mplayer is also not too hard to compile but takes time on a slow machine, plus takes another chunk of time to re-configure prelinking, so Windows media plays nicely.

Granted, I had all updates, additional rpms and tarballs ready on a home server


Thanks for the additional examples, I forgot to add them in my original post.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[hdparm]

You're not supposed to use words postgresql, mysql and Oracle in a single comment on Slashdot unless you were planning to stay around for a long, long time.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[molnarcs]

It's a question that comes up on Slashdot often, but rarely is it so well argued as it is in this NewsForge article

Says the submitter about his own article :)) Shameless Narcissism!

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[hdparm]

You are welcome - but it's not any easier to put all that onto XP box + SP + AV + critical updates + anti spyware... and you still don't have Office installed. By the time XP machine completes all required reboots, I would have been in a middle of a light supper, after finished watching LOTR.

Whole bloody trilogy.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jacksonj04]

I use Windows as my primary desktop machine. I've been using windows as my primary desktop for about 10 years now, and in all those years I have never once had it corrupt drives, catch a virus or become infested. Why? Because I know how to use it.

By contrast, I have twice screwed my Red Hat linux box which I use for testing and development because I am unfamiliar with the system. This, coupled with the fact that I am unfamiliar with the install, means it takes about 10 hours to get it back to a useful state. By contrast, I can rebuild my entire XP box in about 3 hours.

I take usability and convenience any day. Don't get me wrong, half the apps on my PC are FOSS, but only because it was more convenient to me to download, install and learn those than to go out, buy, install and learn a propriatary software.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Neil Blender]

You are welcome - but it's not any easier to put all that onto XP box + critical updates + anti spyware.

lol, what? You think the general public installs that?? I don't. I batten down the hatches on my netscreen, write scripts to log ssh brute force attacks and have tripwire page me on critical notices. But my mom, brother and wife? Again, lol, they roll with the punches. "Don't use outlook or IE" - what the hell else can you do - "Oh, you need linux 'cause it's Free (not free, let me bore you for an hour explaining that), oh what, you can't read the email grandma sent you, well let me tell you about how Micro$oft is teh suXors and blah blah fucking blah...."

(posting from a RHE3 ws box, via firefox using tor/privoxy THANKS SLASHDOT! cause I'm banned - I am no Microsoft/Apple fanboy and I have no agenda)

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[ichimunki]

and what I'm saying is that people like you are exceptions when it comes to Windows issues. How many other people do you know who haven't been bitten by something in Windows and spent many hours fixing their situation? How often do your friends and relatives come to you for help with that stuff?

I'm not saying GNU/Linux is a magic bullet that never has security or install problems, just that my experience leads me to believe that any talk about Windows being a timesaver in terms of install time or maintenance is mythological. The amount of time spent futzing with systems seems constant, therefore not a reliable indicator of which one to choose.

Which brings us back to applications and freedoms questions.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[thephotoman]

I'll take the two hours for a GNU/Linux install (got it down that quickly...I know my preferences fairly well) instead of the 24 hours needed to get a Windows computer running from scratch--especially if it's a reformat. Have you ever had to go and try to find that software key? My God, what a pain in the ass. And then there's the whole activation bit, which can't be done online because it's been activated before, so you've got to call them...and then you've got to do it again with Office. Then you've got to hunt down your drivers.

All this is already there when I get my GNU/Linux side done installing. Sure, I've got to get Flash, Java, XMMS (if the distro doesn't have it...not hard, I can select it in the upgrade process), and MPlayer...but that takes far less time.

Software freedom means never having to look for CD Keys or activating products...more time to be productive. I'll take that over slaveware any day.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[kryptkpr]

"Don't use outlook or IE" - what the hell else can you do

Use Firefox and Thunderbird (+Sunbird if you need a calendar, most people don't)?

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[mrbcs]

Same here. I've either screwed up, or coundn't get working at least 10 linux distros. I like Linux, I like where it's headed... but it's still way too damn easy to install windows. The only distro I've personally installed that found ALL my hardware was Xandros. They now seem to be going the Microsoft lockout way though ;-(. I do have SME server running on my server though and that is one incredible piece of software.

I have an AMD 64bit 3000+ at home and I can install windows 98 (yes windows 98) in under 8 minutes with all the reboots. 20 mins later and all the drivers are in. Then I burn an image so the next time (usually every couple years) is about 10 minutes total.

With this os I can load Photoshop 6 in about 3 seconds.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[marcello_dl]

I'm no linux guru either. Got xine nicely packaged by a simple apt-get install. Installed. Gave error /dev/dvd not found. ls /dev/dvd confirms. ln -s /dev/scd0 /dev/dvd fixed it (now it would be /dev/hdc, it was like 2 years ago). worked. On a laptop, on powerpc, on the oh so much difficult to use debian.

I agree that it takes a bare minimum of linux knowledge but it also takes more time to fill out the forms to run windows media player 9 even if it came pre installed.

I, can't stand registration or shareware forms anymore. YMMV.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[marcello_dl]

Wait. I forgot. I had also gotten the decss package in advance. Add a couple minutes to the installation :)

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Sepper]

How often do your friends and relatives come to you for help with that stuff?

How True, How true!

Just last week, I spent time clearing a computer infected with (I kid you not) around 700 Spywares and 125 virus (and /or worms)...

The poor user didn't have a single clue how to maintaint a computer. She use it witout any Anti-virus, firewall, or even installing any updates. She called me when the dman thing stoped working. I can't blame her:

-"It worked yesterday... What did I do wrong?"
-"Nothing much... But if this was a house it would mean you left every door and windows open and you didn't clean it for months"

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Azureash]

Oh man, has the original poster actually used Sunbird in a real business environment??

That software is definitely not a viable and mature product, and even the Mozilla product page agrees:

Check out the Sunbird project for a promising endeavor in this area.

Nobody who genuinely needs a full-featured, integrated calendar product would use or suggest using Sunbird.

The original poster has illustrated the biggest problem in the open source community, namely that assumption that everyone has the same needs, experience, and strengths that he does. I for one am happy that there are people in the world who are not engineers or computer science students, but are knowledge doctors, teachers, designers, managers, etc.

The fact is that some open source apps are the best in their respective niches (apache http server, firefox) and some are not yet on par with proprietary alternatives (Sunbird, GTKpod, and yes, Open Office.) We should all be encouraging and praising the continual refinements and improvements made by open source developers; we should NOT be chastising regular people when they choose a polished and full-featured proprietary app over a juvenile open source app.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[garaged]

get a real wife that knows difference betwen quality and crap, the kind of wife that would ask someone who knows before buying a damn DVD reader (husban Duh!)

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Gene_K123]

I basically agree with you. My basic is XP Prof using Norton's Internet Security software Firewall and Anti-Virus. This has been my configuration for three years. I update these every day. In all that time, no virus problems. I do use some Linux applications, one being Thunderbird. In my opinion, the vast bulk of the computer using public tends not to want to be bothered with usage or security details. Most usage is simply E-Mail and lookin around the WWW with Internet Explorer. Ease of use is paramount. Problems, both real and perceived, are turned over to the family or neighbor "Computer Guru". Computer shops earn a lot of money solving simple problems. Windows is dug in deeply and everything else is still a very minor fringe. That may change over a long period; who knows.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[swillden]

although I would be a bit disappointed with Debian's time-to-update.

No, you wouldn't. Run Debian unstable. Don't let the name fool you, you'll have a rock-solid system that is always extremely up to date.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[koreaman]

What's wrong with doing all that on Linux?
I do it almost every day.
(I will admit that I do still need Windows for gaming)

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[man_of_mr_e]

I think you're missing the point of the article. It's not talking about Open Source, it's talking explicitly about the Four Freedom's enforced by the GPL.

In effect, it's saying that would you give up, not only closed source software, but all your non-GPL'd open source as well to stay "Free"?

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[westlake]

Why must linux emulate the behaviour of these other OSs'? To get more wide-spread adoption? Why is that useful?

It is useful because it takes time, money and talent to develop and promote a significant program, package or service. All things being equal, the platform with the greatest market share gets first claim on all three.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

Look up the following: Mplayer, Kaffeine, Xine, LibDVDRead and BZFlag. Not replacements for closed source, really. Far better, IMO. ... but to use MPlayer for the most part you have to use a whole slew of DLLs illegally copied from Windows distributions.

Replacements for closed source that need to steal closed source code to work aren't really "replacements".

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[cammoblammo]

Mplayer... Not replacements for closed source, really.

You're right. Mplayer isn't a replacement for closed source, because it is.

As I understand it, it relies on a few closed libraries and so on.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[georgewilliamherbert]

So is this the fatal flaw of FOSS? Do folks like you and I fall into the trap of assuming just because it's easy for *us* to do what we do, others should find it easy too? Is this the one obstacle that, if overcome, FOSS could indeed rival others in the desktop market?

Dingdingdingdingding

We have a winner.

There's no reason to claim that all proprietary software has better UI than FOSS, nor that no FOSS has excellent normal user intuitive UIs. However, there is a huge gap between average UI experience in "popular" proprietary software and FOSS in general.

"normal people" don't want to be learning contorted UIs like geeks groove on. They want to be using functions, fast and as easily as possible. Software with less functions but which gets the user to them faster and more easily is superior in "normal users" eyes.

My spouse is both a longtime UNIX CLI and X user with some CS classes in college, and a graphic artist and designer. What she has to say about the quality of the FOSS graphics tools is unprintable. She's used Macs for graphics and layout consistently, and would probably be ok with Windows programs (whose UIs are now roughly tied with Mac) if the platform didn't suck so badly.

The sad part is that the User Interface ideas are things that can more or less be freely adopted from good commercial products into FOSS, if people cared about the problem...

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

Hell, it isn't even the viruses that eat up time if your machine is well-maintained (i.e., a simple free AV like AVG and a simple firewall like Kerio on my Windows side of the machine).

What eats up my time on Windows is fighting the software! I just spent SIX HOURS the other night fighting Winamp because my MP3s and music videos started sounding like they were playing underwater. Some freakin' codec must have hosed a Registry key or something.

I had to uninstall and reinstall Winamp plus a dozen codecs, then fight for which codec would run the music videos, THEN fight Winamp's lousy media library which insisted on putting all but the MOV videos in the audio view and the MOVs in the video view.

Winamp has seriously pissed me off, so I'm going to have to look around for some other player that can handle all the video formats I want to play.

But I am fairly sure that the ORIGINAL problem was that WINDOWS hosed some Registry key in the first place. I mean, why would a codec suddenly fail? It's a freakin' program, and programs don't just "fail". They fail when something outside themselves gets changed. And the Windows Registry is the dumbest goddamn idea Microsoft ever had!

I had to reinstall Windows 2000 TWICE within the first six weeks of using it when a third party software screwed up the Registry (the first ime) and then Windows did it all by itself the second time.

Then I had to reinstall Windows XP when it got hosed after a Windows 2000 program locked up and I had to hit the power button - and it wasn't even the OS that was running at the time!

Installing Linux can take a while, but once installed, even if application programs fail, they don't take down the OS. And that is a net savings of time!

Just saving time on update reboots is enough to justify drop-kicking Windows!

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

"Because I know how to use it."

Oh, and meanwhile we're not supposed to recommend Linux to "granny" because "granny doesn't know how to use it and can't learn"?

What's wrong with this picture?

"in all those years I have never once had it corrupt drives, catch a virus or become infested."

"By contrast, I can rebuild my entire XP box in about 3 hours."

Does one see a conflict between these two statements?

It takes you ten hours to install a recent Linux distro? It should take you less time than installing Windows XP.

Not to mention the fact that there is such a thing as image backups...

I will admit that I still use Windows more than I do Linux at the moment. This is because I started with Windows three years ago, and learned Linux shortly after. Mostly, it's because I haven't found the time to do the work needed to install and convert over to Linux equivalents to the Windows software I'm used to using (ALL of it freeware, by the way). In fact, during this winter break from City College, I intended to do that, but still haven't found the time yet.

But every time Windows drives me nuts, I swear it's time to drop-kick it and move over my daily non-Windows work. (I have to keep Windows on the machines because I do PC tech support.)

I KNOW Linux can do everything I do on Windows - and more easily. It's just the personal time and effort needed to totally convert. This IS a problem for home users (but not for corporate ones, since IT is in charge of that) and I think it's the ONLY REAL problem preventing most people from converting to Linux - not the ability to use Linux or even the ability to learn a new OS - it's just the TIME needed.

I think for most people, the time needed to do the INITIAL conversion outweighs the benefits.

But the bottom line is: it shouldn't.

It's like quitting smoking: do you endure the conversion or do you accept cancer?

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

In other words, because somebody encodes a media product using a closed source codec, then we must all abandon OSS?

And who says it's illegally copied if one owns said Windows distro?

Let's try this again.

Get rid of closed source codecs. Stop encoding media with same.

Now we can all be free.

Better, right?

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jacksonj04]

I know Linux can do everything my XP box can do. But I also know that I *can make* XP do anything useful that a Linux box can do. No new skills need to be learnt to make XP do what I need, the most I need to do is read TechNet.

Alternatively I could struggle through a Linux install, have to make 14 different drivers, configure a USB header that for some reason doesn't feel like working, make another couple of drivers to deal with that change, have to configure KDE or Gnome to do what I want, then convert everything.

Until Linux can do what I need quickly and easily without me needing to spend 3 weeks learning new skills, I'll stick with Windows. There are some Windows users who can make the system dance to our own tune.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jonadab]

> How many people do you know that run Windows who haven't had some
> terrible corruption issue from spyware, viruses, worms, etc?

I ran Windows for years and never had those problems. My family still runs
Windows 98 on the PC in the living room -- I did have to run Ad-Aware on it
*once* in the last several years. But, on my workstation I had to compile a
new X server just as often in that same timeframe, and compiling an X server
is significantly more involved than running Ad-Aware to clean off Gator. I
also had to install new versions of GTK on numerous occasions, because the
new version of some application required it -- in the most recent case, I
had to do this twice in as many weeks, which annoyed me significantly more
than needing to run Ad-Aware to clean off Gator. (I'm not going back to
Windows, don't get me wrong. Windows annoys me too much with its lack of
configurability and suboptimal UI that makes you minimize everything all
the time just to get it out of the way, because you HAVE to get to the
desktop, because MS couldn't bother to implement panel drawers or a decent
CLI (though I hear the latter is coming in Longhorn, only about six years
too late to stop me from switching). But my point is, it's easily possible
for a clueful person to maintain a Windows desktop that's reasonably secure.)

The difference here is, my family's Win98 PC is atypical, because a clueful
person administers it. So it has Pegasus Mail instead of Outlook Express,
accesses the internet through a NAT gateway, doesn't have an IE shortcut
on the desktop, has a registry merge running out of autoexec.bat to clean
the IM out of the Run keys (so it only runs when someone actually clicks
on its icon -- it's amazing how much more stable this makes the system),
and so on. And this works with four clueless users using the thing --
when I used Windows (95 OSR2) myself, I didn't *need* a NAT gateway or
registry merges to protect me or Ad-aware to clean up after me, because I
didn't do foolish things. (Though with Windows XP the NAT would be a good
idea even with only clueful user(s), due to the ports it opens.)

Linux is more secure than Windows on the whole, don't get me wrong, recent
kernel news notwithstanding. But it's not as *much* more stable as you'd
think by looking at the frequency of incidents, because, frankly, people
who understand computers gravitate toward it (mostly for reasons that have
nothing to do with security, although security can also be a factor), and
people who understand computers maintain more secure systems on average.

What RMS doesn't understand is that some of us have lives, and familiarizing
ourselves with the codebase of every piece of software we use is utterly and
completely beyond the bounds of all reason. I use a lot of open-source
software, for a variety of reasons -- it tends to be fairly configurable,
which is important to me, tends to be of decent quality on the whole, and
tends to be dirt cheap to obtain, which is important on my budget. But how
many open source projects have I *actually* contributed anything useful to?
I can count them on the fingers of one hand, even if I count filing quality
bug reports as a useful contribution (which IMO it is, but definitely not
quite the same as sending in patches). I've done bug reporting and testcase
work for Mozilla, coded a proof of concept that gave rise to an Emacs module
(though approximately 0% of the code in it now is from my original), and
recently have made significant contributions to the Open Clip Art Library.
But I only have so much time. I use lots of other software, that I *don't*
have time to work on at all. In practice, even with the source code, I
can't work on it. Not even if I wanted to. Under those circumstances, the
"freedom" I gain by having the source code is marginal to nonexistant. The
value I gain because *other* people who can contribute to it

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

In other words, because somebody encodes a media product using a closed source codec, then we must all abandon OSS?

And who says it's illegally copied if one owns said Windows distro?

Well, the fact that it's distributed separately from said distro is a bit of a giveaway. The fact that it's distributed outside of Windows at all is in violation of the copyright on the material - whether you own a copy or not. Especially so if you're a Linux user using it on your system and you don't own the copy of Windows that they came from.

So yes, it's illegally copied.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jonadab]

> It takes you ten hours to install a recent Linux distro? It should take
> you less time than installing Windows XP.

He didn't say ten hours to install; he said ten hours to get it into a
usable state. (Though, how he gets XP into a usable state in 3 hours is
beyond me; it takes about 3 *days* last I checked, and I've reinstalled
Windows quite a lot of times, and have a very good idea what I'm doing
and a good ordered checklist. OTOH, I couldn't get a Linux system into
what I consider a useable state in 10 hours either; maybe my standards
for "usable state" are just higher than his.)

Getting a system into a usable state means configuring the internet settings,
downloading and installing and configuring various things it might not come
with out of the box, setting up your preferred applications to be the system
default for this that and the other, configuring the preferences in all the
major apps and in the OS and GUI, installing fonts, copying various data,
testing all of the above, and assorted other tasks. On Windows this means
you've got to install PowerTools (especially TweakUI), any of the corefonts
that are missing (WHY aren't they always included? They're Microsoft's
*own* core fonts!), a decent web browser (and maybe Java if you care), a
decent text editor, a decent mail reader, an office suite, and a graphics
editor, then configuring all of the above plus going through the control
panel and the Windows Explorer options to ensure sanity, fixing up the
registry associations for certain filetypes and protocols, downloading and
installing the latest drivers from the manufacturers for any hardware that
give you trouble (usually: the video card; frequently: the network card or
modem; occasionally: any random other component, including possibly the
PCI bridge or the ATAPI CD-ROM drive (I speak from experience)).

On Linux, getting the system into a usable state involves less downloading
but more configuring. Usually you have to edit some of the config files,
such as XF86-Config (e.g., if you have a PS/2 scrollmouse and want to be
able to middle-click and scroll), wgetrc (if you are behind NAT, you
probably need to use passive ftp), or fstab. The install process also
asks you more configuration questions, and then you've got to configure
things like xdm, in addition to your actual desktop environment and, of
course, your applications. There is usually also some downloading: you'll
want some fonts probably, and maybe Java, and although Perl will be
installed, it usually doesn't have all the modules it should (such as
WWW::Mechanize and DateTime), and Emacs, similarly, will have Gnus but
may be missing other key components, such as eshell.

I don't know, off the top of my head, which system takes me longer to get
into a usable state after a fresh install, but the timeframe is definitely
measured in days, not hours, for both of them.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jonadab]

> On Windows this means [stuff]

Ugh, I forgot to mention Perl and Cygwin. Obviously no operating system can
be in anything resembling a usable state without Perl installed, and Perl is
not in a usable state without CPAN.pm working, which in Windows seems to
require cygwin.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[geminidomino]

The fact that it's distributed outside of Windows at all is in violation of the copyright on the material - whether you own a copy or not.

Actually, it would be in violation of the license, not the copyright if he owns a copy.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

Actually, it would be in violation of the license, not the copyright if he owns a copy.

No, it'd still be in violation of copyright. The distributor is the person doing the violating, not necessarily the end user. In this case, that distributor is mplayer.hq

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[crazyphilman]

Actually, when I first saw the line "four freedoms" I had a brief image of Sam Fisher, the protagonist of Splinter Cell, being assigned by Richard Stallman to take out Microsoft's development servers. I game way too much...

Seriously, though, the article makes its subject seem a little more of a big deal than it is, and it takes WAY too long to get to the point. Here is my much more succinct summary:

Open source is great, but it doesn't do everything. There are a couple of things you might find an alternative, less open tool for (like Java, Flash, etc). This is perfectly OK, even though some open-source advocates freak out over such thoughts. Just be discreet about it so they don't have a coronary, and enjoy your software regardless of its source.

Wasn't that easier? I think it was.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[geminidomino]

Oh, I thought you were referring to the user getting it from his own windows install. My bad.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

Really - you can make an XP box run on IBM mainframes...or isn't that "useful"?

Nice. You must be making a lot of money as a system programmer then, I take it?

Your basic point is certainly valid - that if you don't want to learn new skills for the benefits, you won't.

I wouldn't brag about it.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

I am the one referring to the user getting it from the copy he owns. The parent apparently believes that OSS companies distribute illegal copies of Windows products, which is of course nonsense in most cases I am aware of.

And as I said above, if you own a copy of Windows, you can certainly use the DLLs under Linux - even if the Windows EULA prohibits it, which it may in some cases. The EULA does not remove my fair use rights.

This is even true under Windows open source. Bart's PE creates a bootable CD of a minimal Windows XP system which uses system objects from your own copy of Windows XP. If this were completely illegal, Bart would have been sued out of existence by Microsoft by now.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

I gotta tell ya, I get by with Windows with a LOT less juggling than you do - and I suspect I'll get by with Linux with a lot less juggling, too.

What you call a "usable state", I call fully loaded. When I say "usable", I mean the OS is loaded and running, and any critical security such as AV and firewall are up and running, oh, and Internet access is up and running, of course. And maybe my favorite browser, email client, music player and text editor are installed.

Anything else is for later.

Which is why one DOES image backups - you don't want to freakin' reinstall everything every time the OS gets hosed! Of course that takes days! Back when I was running Windows 98, I must have had fifty or more programs installed - and that was less than I probably will put on Linux since I have several GIG of programs sitting on the Linux side of my system now waiting to be checked out - not to mention 20 or 30 CD's full of Linux Format stuff to check out!

Reinstall all that once I get my Linux to what *I* call a "usable state" - no fraggin' way! There WILL be an image backup!

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[jacksonj04]

No - if there's no point learning new skills then I won't. I haven't yet had to work with IBM mainframes, and when I do then I'll learn how to best utilise whatever OS they are running.

But for the most part, XP can do anything useful (as a desktop) that Linux can, without refering to meaningless man pages, badly written tutorials, and obscure command switches.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

I am the one referring to the user getting it from the copy he owns. The parent apparently believes that OSS companies distribute illegal copies of Windows products, which is of course nonsense in most cases I am aware of.

This is an example of an OSS company illegally distributing copies of code from the Windows operating system.

http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs /w indows-all-20041107.zip

Happy now?

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

I am still unable to find any references via Google that this is either illegal or has been prevented by Microsoft in any case other than the recent Lindows case.

Cite the relevant law and/or Microsoft statements.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

I am still unable to find any references via Google that this is either illegal or has been prevented by Microsoft in any case other than the recent Lindows case.

Cite the relevant law and/or Microsoft statements.

The Berne Copyright Convention of 1864 should just about cover it.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

Really?

And Microsoft doesn't care (except in the case of Lindows, which was really about the name anyway)? Explain why.

It's bullshit, that's why. It's valid only to trolls who want to prove that OSS is somehow "communist" - as Bill puts it...

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

Really?

Yes. The people redistributing the files are not the authorized copyright holders, ergo it's in violation of copyright law going years back.

And Microsoft doesn't care (except in the case of Lindows, which was really about the name anyway)? Explain why

Perhaps they haven't been told.

It's bullshit, that's why. It's valid only to trolls who want to prove that OSS is somehow "communist" - as Bill puts it...

Don't just claim it's bullshit - explain why it's legal to do this. Because according to the law, it's not.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

"The people redistributing the files are not the authorized copyright holders, ergo it's in violation of copyright law going years back."

Not necessarily - there are plenty of cases where people who are not the copyright holders are allowed to redistribute certain files. Novell for instance allows people to distribute some of their stuff as long as it's not for cash - just saw that on some Linux site yesterday - forget what the product was. It's up to the copyright holder to complain if they don't want it to happen. The law grants copyright holders the right to prevent it - it doesn't automatically make redistribution illegal.

As for Microsoft not being "told", c'mon, gimme a break here - even MS isn't that stupid. They complained loudly when Visual FoxPro was run under WINE, for crying out loud.

As I pointed out in another /. story, Bart's PE, the bootable Windows XP CD, uses the individual owner's XP components in its build (ie, they don't distribute, they tell you to copy the stuff into a directory before you build it - which is certainly covered under fair use - although the EULA might prohibit it - as if anybody gives a shit about the EULA.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

As I pointed out in another /. story, Bart's PE, the bootable Windows XP CD, uses the individual owner's XP components in its build (ie, they don't distribute, they tell you to copy the stuff into a directory before you build it - which is certainly covered under fair use - although the EULA might prohibit it - as if anybody gives a shit about the EULA.

Which is ENTIRELY different to taking a bunch of files from a Windows distribution and redistributing them on a website.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[Master of Transhuman]

But the suggestion was that copying Windows files - EVEN IF WINDOWS IS OWNED BY THE COPIER - was illegal.

It's not. Unless Microsoft says so, at least, and probably not even then (unless you count a shrink-wrapped EULA as legitimate, which nobody does.)

And distributing some files from a Windows distro for use in another system is not illegal for the same reason.

Re:Four freedoms vs Max use?

[spectecjr]

But the suggestion was that copying Windows files - EVEN IF WINDOWS IS OWNED BY THE COPIER - was illegal.

You're the only person in this debate who has been suggesting that.

The ONLY case where copying the Windows files is legal is IF Windows is owned by the copier, AND their copy of Windows is not being used at the same time as the copied files are.

The case I'm talking about - distributing some files from a Windows distro for use in another system - IS illegal, whether you want it to be or not. That site is acting as a distributor of someone else's copyrighted material - which makes them violating the copyright on that material. EULAs don't even come into this.

FTA? Same to you, pal

[alex4point0]

I hold grave fears for Australia, from an IT and Legal vewpoint, now that we've signed that FTA ... which could really stand for Fuck The Australians. The patriot in me thinks it stands for Fuck The Americans ... but why should I listen to him anymore?

Alex four point oh -- currently experiencing identity crisis, please hold

=====
zer0th post! http://livejournal.com/~b0rken free australia now! (from the 'free trade agreement' with the US) this has been a community disservice announcement

Re:FTA? Same to you, pal

[eno2001]

They have koalas in buggered arses? ;)

Depends...

[SealBeater]

What is more important to you -- the four freedoms of Free Software, or the ability to maximize the value of your computer?

I suppose that depends on how you define "value". Personally, having Free Software and using Free Software has done more to "maximize the value" of my computer far more than anything else I can think of.

SealBeater

Re:Depends...

[Neil Blender]

I suppose that depends on how you define "value". Personally, having Free Software and using Free Software has done more to "maximize the value" of my computer far more than anything else I can think of.

I agree with you 100%. However, if anyone asks me for a recomendation, do you really think I am going to tell them to go with my solution? Hell no. I have spent the last 10 years tinkering with linux and bsd, getting it to satisfy my every computer related need from personal to professional. It works for me because I will work for it. It was a hell of lot harder in 1995 than it is in 2005, but outside of the server environment, (F|f)ree is not ready for the real world. And cynically, I think it never will be. </-1 flamebait backed by real world experience>

Re:Depends...

[kg_o.O]

I suppose that depends on how you define "value". Personally, having Free Software and using Free Software has done more to "maximize the value" of my computer far more than anything else I can think of.

My thoughts exactly. The only reason I'd need proprietary OS (ie. Windows) on my PC is to play games -- not having it saves a lot of my time :) Surely there are people who need software available only for Windows that is actually required to do their work, luckily I'm not one of them. Besides, I find Linux simply more comfortable to work on, though some things could obviously be improved, but that's a totally different topic.

Re:Depends...

[devhen]

Hmmm... Wise words.

I remain on Windows for one reason and one reason only: Games. Like many other geeks, video games have become my release (so I don't have to drink.. or hell knows what else). And not a one of the games I am playing right now could be run on Linux. Aside from games, I have all of the tools I need to "live" on Linux.. Internet, email, web programming, software programming.. everything but the games. This is precicesly why I keep an up-to-date and functioning copy of Linux on my drive at all times. It just so rarely gets booted. So unfortunate...

Re:Depends...

[moz25]

I agree with that, but I also appreciate it when devices I buy work with Linux. I've been browsing for laser printers for a while and I find that the cheaper variants all use proprietary windows drivers... but that value loss comes from the manufacturer's choice. Many common components do work quite well with Linux these days though...

Re:Depends...

[Liberals_Are_Gay]

Proprietary software is superior because of its UI. Free software still has this philosophy "fast UI", but with todays hardware you don't need to have a fast UI or GUI (eg KDE, Gnome) because relatively "slow GUI"(eg explorer) runs just as fast and looks much better with faster CPU and more RAM.

Re:Depends...

[Decameron81]

It also depends on what your definition of "free" software is. While I personally like the idea of the GPL and open source software, I don't really think about similar licenses as a choice of freedom.

A license that ensures freedom is a paradox. Real freedom in software can be achieved by only letting both the developer and the end-users choose what's best for them. So why not accept both closed source and open source as valid solutions?

Isn't this the kind of freedom of choice that's important?

In short: a meritocracy.

Re:Depends...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the first paragraph from gnu.org's philosophy page:

Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects--such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline--in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.

Note the emphasis on useful. The argument, contrary to the typical sophist presentation of it being some kind of political viewpoint developed sans any consideration of practical concerns, is eminently pragmatic. By embracing the freedoms the FSF espouses, better software can be produced and made available to you faster than if the know-how is balkanized and made unuseable by innumberable vested proprietary interests.

The counterargument is usually something as simple-minded as "but proprietary software package X does Y, which I like, and there is no free alternative". Forget theory for a moment, the countervailing free software argument is empirical. As the free software movement continues to gain momementum, the number of such examples continues to diminish. Despite the historical record, people continue to say things like "the free software model works for some kinds of software, but software category X isn't amenable to a free software solution, only proprietary will do". It's been said about databases, for example. It's been said about GUI desktop applications. It's been said about multimedia applications. And in every case, free software has put the lie to such assertions.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", as they say. Free software is going to eat proprietary software's lunch, in every category of software imagineable.

Re:Depends...

[Oligonicella]

'"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", as they say. Free software is going to eat proprietary software's lunch, in every category of software imagineable.'

Only when there are enough programmers with enough free time and motivation to devote their lives to providing software for others that works in "every category of software imagineable".

Me? Personally, I have quite an imagination. So much so, that I believe I can come up with an application explicit to me. Then show me the free software that will do my bidding.

Good dream, and worth shooting for. Limited by reality, I believe.

Re:Depends...

[raxxerax]

Me? Personally, I have quite an imagination. So much so, that I believe I can come up with an application explicit to me. Then show me the free software that will do my bidding.

Regardless of whether you wish a free (as in freedom) solution or a proprietary solution, it would seem that you would either have to develop the program yourself or pay for its development. Proprietary software provides no better solution for your imaginative need.

Re:Depends...

[thephotoman]

I've got to disagree with Explorer looking nice...it really doesn't. Sure, it's got a lot of eye candy...but the amount of such is enough sugar to make my eyes sick.

GNOME on the other hand is sleek, simple, and clean. KDE has a bit more eye candy, and is far more Windows-like, but frankly, I don't like Windows.

UI shouldn't be the only focus of software. At some point, you've got to actually do something with that computer, and I don't want to wait forever for all of that eye candy to load in order to type up a paper.

Re:Depends...

[Liberals_Are_Gay]

I use StyleXP which skins explorer to make it look really sleek. :)

Re:Depends...

[RollingThunder]

You are more likely to have a free software version of the application you mention, than a closed version, unless you pay out the nose to have it made.

Think about it - why would some commercial developer make an app that is specific to you, without knowing you will cover all of their development costs, plus profit margin?

Re:Depends...

[sydb]

Come on, it used to take technical knowledge to use Free Software but this is 2005. Maybe you need to try something more up-to-date than RedHat 5.2.

I recently set up a Debian unstable box for my mum who is in her 70s, has *never* used computers before and is completely non-technical. She uses it for email (Evolution), word-processing (OpenOffice.org) and web browsing (Firefox). I spent about half an hour showing her to use it. She doesn't need to ask for help.

About two years ago I set up my brother and his two kids with a Debian Woody box, it's showing its age now but they are happy with it. He's a nursing managager so brings no special skills to the job. I'll be sending him a CD with Sarge on it when it goes stable in 2007 (he doesn't have broadband).

His wife, a nurse, has an XP box which she uses for her studies; I recently had to replace Outlook Express with Thunderbird because Outlook refused to display the text of any emails it had ever received or sent! I poked about in OE settings then searched on the web for 10 minutes before I realised it would be quicker just to install a sane email client rather than trying to fix Microsoft's broken one. I didn't even have to show her how to use it and she is pretty computer illiterate.

So, from my personal experience, you are wrong.

Re:Depends...

[HeyLaughingBoy]

I've been browsing for laser printers for a while and I find that the cheaper variants all use proprietary windows drivers

Don't know how cheap you want, but I picked up a Brother 5140 for $199 to avoid buying another toner cartridge for my aging Canon LBP430. It runs just fine under Linux and Brother does have Linux-specific setup instructions.

Re:Depends...

[secolactico]

Offtopic:

I recently had to replace Outlook Express with Thunderbird because Outlook refused to display the text of any emails it had ever received or sent!

That bug is still around??? I remember having that problem back in the days of "Internet mail and news" (remember those?). I had to erase the index files of the mailboxes so the program would rebuild them. I ended up switching to Eudora.

Re:Depends...

[GreyWolf3000]

Real freedom in software can be achieved by only letting both the developer and the end-users choose what's best for them.

You mean, real freedom can only be achieved by letting either the developers or the end-users give up freedom to the other party?

It is the developers who are tempted to restrict the freedom of the end-users, not the other way around. They're the ones that generate the product and decide how to proliferate it.

I have no problem with other people choosing a piece of software or operating system that restricts their freedom until enough people choose a proprietary platform that suddenly I'm out of luck when I can't get drivers for my new camera, I can't read that document file you just e-mailed me, I can't help develop a port for my favorite piece of software, etc.

The problems with proprietary software in a world where FOSS users and the proprietary users roughly equal eachother are few. When you guys get 95% of the market, then we have a problem.

Re:Depends...

[Mike Savior]

My thoughts exactly. The only reason I'd need proprietary OS (ie. Windows) on my PC is to play games -- not having it saves a lot of my time :) Surely there are people who need software available only for Windows that is actually required to do their work, luckily I'm not one of them. Besides, I find Linux simply more comfortable to work on, though some things could obviously be improved, but that's a totally different topic.

I agree. I'll play a game, or check -some- of my mail on windows, I have no real problem with it. But if I want to play around with the little bit of Python that I know, or do more than just "Screwing around", then I'll go to Linux for that. It's not the easiest to get working sometimes, but learning it isn't half as bad as hearing about and fixing -other- people's screwed windows boxes.

Re:Depends...

[Haeleth]

The counterargument is usually something as simple-minded as "but proprietary software package X does Y, which I like, and there is no free alternative".

But I'm not sure that is the counterargument. For some reason proprietary software continues to exist, even where the free alternatives have long been recognised as completely viable, and are indeed generally recognised to be more powerful, more flexible, and just generally superior.

Like text editors, say.

Is emacs not obviously more powerful than any general-purpose closed-source editor? Is there anything that other editors can do that emacs can't do better? Not that I can think of. And yet a huge number of people, myself included, continue to buy programs like UltraEdit-32, TextPad, and so on. Why?

I mentioned emacs, so doubtless people will assume I'm about to bash the interface. And certainly interfaces are important - vi and emacs both get a lot of flamage for sticking with their non-standard interfaces, and we've all seen what happens every time GIMP is mentioned on Slashdot. But there are free editors out there that do use standard layouts and shortcut keys, both general-purpose editors such as jEdit and IDEs such as Eclipse. The time to learn to use one of those would probably be measurable in minutes rather than hours. And still I and many others pay for shareware text editors.

It's strange, really. Of the programs I use heavily on a day-to-day basis, only three are proprietary - the operating system, the text editor, and the graphics package. Yet in the first two cases, the free alternatives are clearly viable in all circumstances, and in the third GIMP really would almost certainly meet my needs. In other words, the areas where free software has not entered my life are among those where one might think it was strongest.

I think this may identify an interesting point: where free and proprietary software compete directly, people will not bother switching if they don't need to. If I ever need the freedoms free software promises, I know GNU/Linux, *BSD, vi, emacs, GIMP, etc. are all there. And if the freedoms are available to me any time I actually want them, doesn't that mean I'm essentially free already?

Re:Depends...

[SillyNickName4me]

> because relatively "slow GUI"(eg explorer) runs just as fast and looks much better with faster CPU and more RAM.

When I can get 5-7 years of use out of a machine instead of about 3, a computer becomes substantially cheaper for what it offers or I can buy a lot more quality (better audio, video, disks etc) while spending the same amount of money over time

This is maybe not too much of an issue when looking at a single $450 POS x86 pc every 3 years, but it can be a substantial saving when dealing with a few thousand office machines as a business.

It does of course require the appropriate software in good enough quality, which can be a problem when using FOSS solutions, depending on what you need exactly.

Re:Depends...

[HiThere]

Interesting. I don't let my MSWind machine anywhere near the internet. And wouldn't consider doing so a safe practice.

Now I'll admit that the MSWind box I have is MSWind95, but I haven't heard such great things about the more recent versions. (After 95 they started putting on these draconian EULA's, so I jumped ship. I wasn't about to agree to the 2000 version EULA, and my understanding is that they've just gotten worse since then.)

Re:Depends...

[HiThere]

It can be difficult to tell ahead of time, particularlly given the way printer companies mangle their model numbers, but Linux comes with printer drivers for most printers.

For help you might check http://www.linuxprinting.org/, unfortunately, as I said earlier, printer models come and go like mayflies...and the same model can occasionally have a different chipset than other copies. Which *can* mean that even though a driver exists, it's difficult to find. (And, of course, sometimes it just isn't there.)

Re:Depends...

[HiThere]

This kind of an instability shows that there is a fundamental problem with proprietary software as it currently exists. Companies should be *required* to provide interface specifications. That should be a condition of the product being considered merchantable.

The other loophole, however, is more basic. Politicians should be forbidden to accept campaign donations greater than the median weekly salary of a worker once per year from any identifiable person, and all persons making a campaign donation to a politician should be identifiable. Also, persons does not include corporations. Neither companies, corporations, nor any other governmentally created organization should be allowed to donate to political campaigns at all.

Re:Depends...

[HiThere]

EMACS is powerful, no question. It's also clumsy. My particular dislike has to do with the way it handles opeining files, but others are more bothered by the arcane key combinations needed.

But that's NOT a good argument. EMACS does what the users of EMACS want it to do. If that's not what you want, then pick KEdit or GEdit or Kate or...

To claim that because some one particular tool doesn't do what you want the process if broken is foolish. It ignores that there are other alternatives, and that it DOES do what a certain group of people want.

OTOH, I do need a particular application that can probably only exist as a closed source program. Because it needs to be able to read files created by another closed source program by a company that no longer exists. (That oversimplifies, but it's the essence.) Finale will do the job, but Rosegarden certainly won't, and NoteEdit doesn't even exist any more (a pity, as it had a much nicer interface than Rosegarden).

Re:Depends...

[kirkjobsluder]

The counterargument is usually something as simple-minded as "but proprietary software package X does Y, which I like, and there is no free alternative". Forget theory for a moment, the countervailing free software argument is empirical. As the free software movement continues to gain momementum, the number of such examples continues to diminish....

Certainly that is the case. However, what this article is trying to address is what do you do until the this vaporware of free software becomes available? One example of this is an intelligent bibliographic citation system within OpenOffice. The current bibliographic functions for open office only work for a few citation styles, and don't work for the citation styles used by a large number of academic departments and publications. Although quite a bit of work is being spent trying to improve the OpenOffice.org bibliographic system, it is still vaporware that is quite a bit away from being implemented. Should a user who finds that this feature is something that saves hours of time in the production of manuscripts write it off as a matter of "convenience?"

Re:Depends...

[Mike Savior]

Interesting. I don't let my MSWind machine anywhere near the internet. And wouldn't consider doing so a safe practice. Now I'll admit that the MSWind box I have is MSWind95, but I haven't heard such great things about the more recent versions. (After 95 they started putting on these draconian EULA's, so I jumped ship. I wasn't about to agree to the 2000 version EULA, and my understanding is that they've just gotten worse since then.)

Ha, my windows machine is still a 98'er, I'm familiar with the newer versions as much as I am the older ones (Which is pretty well), but I refuse to update this box'o mine to anything higher. Maybe 2000. But I'm at least smart enough to keep away from IE and all that proprietary crap no matter what version I'm on.

Re:Depends...

[Dwonis]

gvim has a nice interface. The only thing you need to know is to press "i" to turn on insert mode (and if you use "easy mode", you don't even have to do that).

Re:Depends...

[krewemaynard]

I use StyleXP which skins explorer to make it look really sleek. :)

so you CAN polish a turd? wow, gotta get a new line now...

Re:Depends...

[starm_]

I think there is a bigger issue behind all of this. People really are starting to trust the free and open source software community more than commercial software companies. This is no surprise since private companies act as your enemy as soon as you buy something from them. They try to extort money from you by pushing upgrades that patch vulnerabilities and making sure your product only stays compatible for a short period. They make you subject to small prints, EULAs with mysterious and suspicious content, advertisement that is manipulative, misleading and dishonest. They give you poor quality support for their products and even worst support if the product is more than a year old. They push expensive insurance on everything you buy.

Before the advent of opensource/free software consumers had no alternatives so they had to deal with unethical deceitful entities. But now open source has proven to be much more competitive on the ethical and honesty front. If private companies want to keep their market share they are going to have to earn the trust of the consumers. They will have to stop trying the fsck everyone in the behind all the time by pulling charlatan licensing tricks on everyone otherwize consumers will slowly move away from them.

Re:Depends...

[Decameron81]

You mean, real freedom can only be achieved by letting either the developers or the end-users give up freedom to the other party?

No. I mean that real freedom can only be achieved by letting the developer choose how to develop and the customer choose what to buy.

It is the developers who are tempted to restrict the freedom of the end-users, not the other way around. They're the ones that generate the product and decide how to proliferate it.

And that's why the customer has the right to choose what to buy. Exactly like in any other industry.

Through a similar meritocracy it is the market that makes the decision in the end. So if open source is a real and primal value to end users they are free to show their support to it (like you are doing right now). You are doing a good thing when you support what you think is valuable. But that works the other way round too.

Re:Depends...

[Fred_A]

I keep a copy of Windows on my drive for the exat same reason.
However it only gets booted every 2 or three days since I couldn't possibly work comfortably in there given my unixy ways. So I only start it whenever I feel like playing a bit.

It's like a playstation, it's nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Re:Depends...

[GreyWolf3000]

No. I mean that real freedom can only be achieved by letting the developer choose how to develop and the customer choose what to buy.

This is a rephrasing of what I said. The only case where our ideas clash is when developers decide to restrict the user's freedom. The freedom that you're talking about is the ability for the developer to take away this freedom from the end user.

And that's why the customer has the right to choose what to buy. Exactly like in any other industry.

If you get me to sign a contract that states that I shall hereby be your slave, the contract is not legally binding. In a sense, you don't have the freedom to enslave me with a contract, and I don't even have the freedom to give up my liberties like that in a contract.

I'm not advocating making proprietary software illegal. All I'm pointing out is that the only freedoms you're protecting here are ones that come at the expense of the freedoms of others.

If people don't value that freedom, however, it seems like a fair trade. Unfortunately, if enough people get together and collectively ignore this freedom, all sorts of nasty things start happening to everyone. If every user valued his freedom, and refused to support shackled software, we would never have to worry about things like trusted computing. They are a function of people accepting that, unlike any other product you can buy, locking down software and hiding what's in side is acceptible.

Re:Depends...

[Decameron81]

This is a rephrasing of what I said. The only case where our ideas clash is when developers decide to restrict the user's freedom. The freedom that you're talking about is the ability for the developer to take away this freedom from the end user.

If you get me to sign a contract that states that I shall hereby be your slave, the contract is not legally binding. In a sense, you don't have the freedom to enslave me with a contract, and I don't even have the freedom to give up my liberties like that in a contract.

But contracts and licenses are not illegal per-se. Now if you point is regarding abusive situations in contracts and licenses then I completely agree with you. But I can't really see the concept of close sourced products as abusive at all. And certainly not like the concept of slavery (no sarcasm intended).

Now as a developer who makes a living out of coding small programs I can't see at all the advantages of open source for me right now. Unfortunately if a bigger company picked up my product and developed it further I would have no chance to beat them myself. And given how much of my own time and effort I have dedicated to these projects I can't really see why the rest of the world should have the rights I have over it. It doesn't work like that in any industry that I know of.

Obviously, if I feel like it will be of great advantage to humanity I may eventually decide to share it with the world... but isn't the decision mine to take?

I'm not advocating making proprietary software illegal. All I'm pointing out is that the only freedoms you're protecting here are ones that come at the expense of the freedoms of others.

The only freedom that I think the GPL specifically doesn't protect is my freedom to decide what to do with my own work (= time and effort). And that doesn't restrict other people's freedom, because they still have the freedom to decide not to purchase my product. After all this is the basis of capitalism (and wether I like it or not, I still have to pay my bills here).

If people don't value that freedom, however, it seems like a fair trade. Unfortunately, if enough people get together and collectively ignore this freedom, all sorts of nasty things start happening to everyone. If every user valued his freedom, and refused to support shackled software, we would never have to worry about things like trusted computing. They are a function of people accepting that, unlike any other product you can buy, locking down software and hiding what's in side is acceptible.

I certainly am worried about concepts such as trusted computing and I will not buy any product that supports that idea. That's my way to vote.

But would I only get advantages if all software was open source?

I honestly feel like I can get the most out of my computing experience by supporting qualities rather than ideals. Why? Because by supporting qualities I am getting much more software that feets my needs. I am basically telling the developers that they are doing a good job.

PS: hope the persistance is not annoying. I really find this topic interesting.

Re:Depends...

[GreyWolf3000]

But contracts and licenses are not illegal per-se. Now if you point is regarding abusive situations in contracts and licenses then I completely agree with you. But I can't really see the concept of close sourced products as abusive at all. And certainly not like the concept of slavery (no sarcasm intended).

Of course not--let me be the first to say I'm sick of people comparing what is somewhat wrong with another thing that is universally deplorable. The pertinent portion of the example is specifically the question of whether or not we have the right to take away the freedoms of others with or without the other person's consent.

Now as a developer who makes a living out of coding small programs I can't see at all the advantages of open source for me right now.

Well, the only problem I can see with releasing your source code in your business model according to the terms of the GPL would be that others could take your binaries (or build new ones from the source code) and redistribute them for free and your hands would be tied behind your back if you wanted to get them to stop. This would shatter your profit model.

Open source development only benefits software intended to be used by a lot of people. If you make a living writing software for the masses, and your service is truly needed, I think that other folks out there, if they haven't already, will start working on some kind of open source alternative. If you write software on a contract basis, then not only does the FOSS movement not threaten your business model, but it actually isn't applicable, because no redistribution is involved.

My brother recently paid for Trillian pro on Windows. I actually prefer Gaim running on my Gnome 2.8 box here at home. Coding small programs is exactly what the FOSS world does best (which is why combining the FOSS model with Unix has produced a few pretty respectable operating systems).

Obviously, if I feel like it will be of great advantage to humanity I may eventually decide to share it with the world... but isn't the decision mine to take?

Of course. But if I decide to reimplement your program and share it with the world, that's my decision as well. And of course if I did, and the widespread interest were there, I would end up with a small army of developers helping me out, and my userbase wouldn't have it's freedom to use the software restricted.

The only freedom that I think the GPL specifically doesn't protect is my freedom to decide what to do with my own work (= time and effort)

Well, to be completely nitpicky (I apologize in advance), as the sole proprietor and copyright holder, you release the source under the terms of the GPL and release binaries under any other proprietary license you. Trolltech does this with QT. Of course, that model works great for libraries that you build other applications on, but terrible for end user software.

My point is that the GPL doesn't really concern itself with the author's freedoms because his are guaranteed. What it doesn't do is protect the author's business model, if the model is based on distributing binaries for a price. There are lots of ways to make money writing software that don't involve this business model.

Anyways, reading a recent blog entry from Nat Frieman (of Novell/Ximian and Gnome fame) really piqued my curiosity in a sort of communal bounty program for free software development. It would work in a pretty simple fashion--if I want a feature added to a program, or I want some new application or library, I offer a certain amount of money as bounty to whoever completes the task. Other people pile on to the bounty over time, and eventually highly requested features could potentially yield some pretty decent prizes.

I'm a bit skeptical about it's viability, and it's certainly a long way from even coming to fruition, let alone being a stable means of income, but I'm definately going to keep an eye on it.

There's always contract

Re:Depends...

[jc42]

Before the advent of opensource/free software consumers had no alternatives so they had to deal with unethical deceitful entities.

Actually, it's a bit more complex than that. If by "open source" you mean software whose source is available for examination and tweaking, it has been around since the earliest days of the computing industry. To a great extent, Microsoft was the "innovator" that started selling software without making the code available.

Thus, I worked on a number of IBM mainframes, all of which ran VM. We always had full source to the VM OS. Actually, VM originated in academia, and IBM started distributing and supporting it after they realized that they couldn't ignore it because most of their customers were using it.

One place I worked, around 1980, we brought in Amdahl's UTS system, a unix that ran on VM. When we asked them about access to source, their reply was "Source isn't an option. You get it whether you want it or not." Part of their reason worked out quickly: I found a problem in the kernel's clock routine (caused by an idiot VM guru at our site, but that's another story ;-). I quickly worked up a patch that fixed the problem. The kernel code was so clear that my patch worked the first time; I was impressed. I sent it to Amdahl's support folks. They thanked me, said I was now in their list of contributors, and it would be in future releases (for the benefit of other customers with idiots for VM gurus).

Amdahl's version of unix was proprietary (partly being derived from AT&T's unix). But it was open source. And this worked to everyone's benefit, as open source should.

As for "free", that only partly applied. We were free to read the source and modify it. We weren't free to sell our mods. But we didn't want to; that wasn't our business. Sharing our patch with Amdahl was just something we did because we were sensible people who liked to see the software improved.

(Well, I was partly motivated by the prospect of sharing a geekish chuckle with Amdahl's CS folks, at our VM guy's expense. ;-)

Re:Depends...

[bbtom]

Yep. I moved an XP-using relatively-nooby person over to Firefox recently. Although they were sceptical at first, they have found it to be not only a seamless replacement, but a big improvement.

Now, if only I persuade people to use The Gimp rather than PS, and Thunderbird rather than OE. Or even Linux instead of Windows. (I mean, having moved to Mandrake from OS X, I've got to say the waters good!)

Freedom 0?

[tektek]

They start at zero -- how cute. :)

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.

Re:Freedom 0?

[advocate_one]

very important... and a lot of people don't really get why... anyone who bitches about his gpl'd program being used by the military to suppress indigenous tribes with fails to appreciate that vital freedom. It's double edged and you have to fully appreciate this. If your conscience can't cope with it, then don't release it under an open source license. Use your own license to tie it down so that you can deny them the use of your program.

Re:Freedom 0?

[KidHash]

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.

Not necessarily - many programs allow plugins (winamp, photoshop), or provide SDK's (most new fps's), so that the community can provide addons and improvements without access to the source code.

Re:Freedom 0?

[godIsaDJ]

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.

Naahh, if you are worth your salt you don't need the source code, hell that's for kids!! True hackers only do assembler :)

Re:Freedom 0?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plugins can only take advantage of a small, previously exposed API. If the improvements you wish to make are not possible using that API, freedom #3 can not be true.

Re:Freedom 0?

[DrSkwid]

nonsense

see the difference between add-on and program

Re:Freedom 0?

[mondoterrifico]

How is it cute? I know the technical level here on slashdot is now quite low, and not everyone has a computer science background, but starting a list at 0 is quite the norm. I will let the man Dijkstra educate you. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/ EWD08xx/EWD831.html/

Re:Freedom 0?

[Liberals_Are_Gay]

In the English language an ordinal DOES NOT have to equal the number of elements preceding it in the sequence. Nice try though.

Re:Freedom 0?

[mog007]

Electronic computers, and more importantly, the Internet, are going to be the two most influential inventions of the next century. The 20th had the television, and the 21st has the Internet.

Computers can't be used for much without software, as the average /.er is no doubt aware. The key difference between the Internet and the television is that the masses control the Internet, it isn't available only to people able to broadcast over the waves, and it falls under no enforcement by the FCC. Of course only internet users in the United States have to worry about the FCC anyway. The point is this: freedom is important to most people, and it's something people are more than willing to die for.

Dying for software might seem extreme, but it's got to be more extreme to put someone in a life or death situation because of it anyway.

Re:Freedom 0?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Because it leads to fencepost errors, where the index number of the program is mistakenly used to count the number of elements in the list. You don't actually debug other people's code much, do you?

Re:Freedom 0?

[redhog]

Not quite so. The other way around, actually.

for (len=0; array[len]; len++);

is an obvious way to count the elements of a null-terminated array.

for (len=1; array[len]; len++);
len -=1;

isn't at all as obvious, is it? And there are several similar cases...

Re:Freedom 0?

[6800]

Naw, true hackers do machine language but they go blind from severe hexeyes after awhile.

Re:Freedom 0?

[Tony Hoyle]

They missed:

* The freedom to license *my* code any way I damn well choose. ..but the FSF don't believe in that...

Re:Freedom 0?

[NardofDoom]

Okay, go ahead and license *your* code. But don't license other people's code.

If you improve GIMP, license it and sell it who are you to say that all the people who contributed to the GIMP project don't get a cut of the revenue.

So, yeah, go ahead and license your code however the hell you want. Just don't license my code however the hell you want.

Re:Freedom 0?

[Leo McGarry]

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

I'm not really familiar with this whole neo-hippy, communalist, la-la-la, I see pretty colors thing, so maybe I'm missing something really well-understood here. Somebody can explain it to me, I hope.

Nobody has the freedom to run computer software for any purpose. There are lots of purposes that are patently against existing laws. For example, you couldn't run a computer program for the purpose of robbing a bank, or blowing up a 747. You don't have that freedom at all.

Given that this little manifesto seems to start with a fundamental contradiction of standing laws ...isn't it kind of wrong-headed?

Again, I'm sure I'm just not down with the street lingo, as it were, so surely somebody will come along and explain why I'm misunderstanding the point. At which time my critique will shift from "these rules are fundamentally stupid" to "these rules are poorly written."

Re:Freedom 0?

[Leo McGarry]

Okay. When you put it that way, it does make sense. But it's dumb, in that case, to talk about it in terms of "freedoms." Freedoms can't be granted by one person to another. That's not how they work. Freedoms are inherent, or granted to us by our Creator, whichever you prefer to believe. It doesn't really matter which you pick, because they both amount to the same thing.

What would be better would be for the people making the argument to talk in terms of licenses granted. But then, when you put it in those terms, the whole discussion becomes redundant.

I just don't understand why the "we want to give away our work" people don't just stop intellectually masturbating and simply put their work into the public domain. If that's their goal, that's the right way to carry it out. But they don't choose to do that, which means one of two things: Either they're not as smart as they seem to be (no), or their goal is not to share their work. Their goal, it seems to me, has more to do with bringing down the tradition of property than it has with sharing their work. But they know that just standing up and saying "we want to abolish property" wouldn't fly, so they try to sugar-coat their message in words like "freedom" which are practically Orwellian in their applications.

Which is a damn, damn shame.

Re:Freedom 0?

[An Onerous Coward]

I think it makes perfect sense. While the freedom to run software for any purpose does not literally exist, it isn't the responsibility of the software license itself to remind you that you cannot use the software to blow up federal buildings, run baby mulching machines, or mint counterfeit nickels. Furthermore, it is the acts themselves that are illegal, not the use of software in their commission.

The sort of restrictions on usage that could be put in a license agreement can be divided into two categories. The first are those which merely restate existing law (the sort of freedoms you rightfully claim don't exist), and those that go above and beyond existing law in limiting your ability to use the software. The first category aren't necessary to state. The second category are those which violate the so-called "freedom zero".

Any restrictions on usage found in a software license are either redundant or disempowering. Therefore, requesting that the creators of a piece of software place no restrictions on its use is sensible given the goals of the FSF.

Re:Freedom 0?

[HiThere]

If you don't want my terms, don't use my code.

Your copy of my code is still my code, not yours. You merely have a license to use it in certain ways as specified by the copyright law. If you don't like it, either start somewhere else, or get the copyright laws changed. (And I'm fine with EITHER choice.)

The GPL is needed instead of the BSD because the copyright laws are broken in an abusive fashion. If you don't like it, get them fixed. Make the copyright last for a sane period of time, e.g., like 20 years. Or less.

Actually, I'd prefer the GPL over the BSD even with sane copyright laws, but with sane copyright laws, it would be a much less significant choice.

Re:Freedom 0?

[crush]

You already have the freedom to license *your* code nay damn way you choose.

Write it, release it under a license that states that Microsoft and Apple shall be the sole and only recipients of the first-born children that are exchanged for your FrogGolfPlanner2003.

What you don't have the right to do is to take *my* GPL'ed code for GNUFrogGolf, change a couple of strings, make it buggy and unstable and release it under *your* license.

If you really believe the FSF needs to *tell you* that you can do any damn thing you please as long as you don't steal GPL'ed code then I hereby give you permission to get up tomorrow morning.

Re:Freedom 0?

[HiThere]

Worse than that, the first category vary from place to place, even from city to city. No widespread license *CAN* state them. And since laws change, any license that attempts to match them must not only be written by a lawyer familiar with all the latest court rulings, but it will also be aiming at a moving target.

Re:Freedom 0?

[iamacat]

And yet, software design principals frown on frequent changes to base classes, encouraging encapsulation, delegates and subclassing instead. Perhaps you are only complaining about poorly written, monolythic proprietory software? Certainly most changes you would want to make to Windows do not involve rewritting the kernel?

Re:Freedom 0?

[HiThere]

Baz-faz. That's nice rhetoric, but is essentially meaning free.

The license is an agreement between the author and the user. The author agrees to use a license that will not limit the freedoms of the user in certain, enumerated, ways. It will limit them in other ways. (E.g., if you create a derivitive work and then distribute it, that work must be placed under the same license. To make that requirement definitely limits your the user's freedoms.)

Freedom isn't just a piece of rhetoric, it describes the ways in which actions are not constrained. If you are put in leg shackles, you freedom to walk becomes quite limited. If they are removed, the freedom is regained. If you are found copying a piece of MS Software you are subject to having your physical freedoms constrained in many unpleasant ways as a result of violating a legal agreement. The FOSS licenses promise of freedom means that they promise that their agreements won't cause certain actions to cause the government to limit your freedoms in a very practical sense.

Re:Freedom 0?

[dossen]

Maybe because we don't just "want to give away our work"? We want to share it with the world, on the (IMHO) small condition that the world is willing to share what additions they do to it with us. Is that really so bad? Releasing software into the public domain makes it free of cost, as long as someone is willing to distribute it to me free of cost. But what else does that give me?
The point is not to grant total freedom to anyone, since that would imply taking away freedom from others (i.e. if I'm free to take all your money, you cannot at the same time be free to keep your money), but to try to maximize the total amount of freedom - within the limits of the greater system.

Re:Freedom 0?

[mrroach]

How so? Do you mean that creation of derivative works based on GPL-licensed code must be licensed under the GPL?

I fail to see how you are being forced to do anything in that situation. You are completely free to not use that code at all. If you are making a derivative work of a GPL-licensed application, then, unless you are coding at gunpoint, you have made the choice to do so.

What I think you really want is to be able to license *other people's* code any way you choose. I'm not sure you'll get many takers on that.

-Mark

Re:Freedom 0?

[jmorris42]

> Your copy of my code is still my code, not yours. You merely have a
> license to use it in certain ways as specified by the copyright law.

You have that exactly backwards. When I BUY a copy of your code (note I said BUY and not LICENSE) I own your code. Copyright laws then come into play restricting me from engaging in certain uses of my property because the government has granted you an artificial monopoly on those things. Go Google up a copy of the Constituition if you don't believe me. The monopoly grant is expressly to "promote science and the useful arts" NOT to give you the right to tell me what I can and can't do or to give Disney an eternal revenue stream. Should we as a people come to an agreement (through our elected representives) that the current Copyright and Patent system is no longer promoting the things it was intended to do we can and should alter the laws. This means it isn't your PROPERTY, it is a government grant that is subject to change.

Re:Freedom 0?

[Dwonis]

Transistors? Pah! Those can't even survive the EMP from a nuclear blat!

Re:Freedom 0?

[sydb]

Only if you name your variable "len". Name it "element" and it makes more sense to count from 1, plus you don't have the semantic nonsense of the length of your array incrementing with each loop iteration.

Re:Freedom 0?

[Leo McGarry]

We want to share it with the world, on the (IMHO) small condition that the world is willing to share what additions they do to it with us. Is that really so bad?

Let me make this perfectly clear right up front: No, that's not bad at all. There's nothing bad about it.

What is, in my opinion, incredibly bad is the deceitful, misleading way that some people have chosen to go about "sharing" their work.

If you stood up and said, "I'm releasing this for the public to use, but not in any way they see fit. I'm releasing it only for use in very specific ways," that would be fine. That's honest and forthright.

But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that some people are standing up and saying, "Take this, it's free," when that's not true at all. They even go so far as to write lengthy manifestos describing lists of things they call "freedoms," when that word doesn't even begin to apply.

It's not the fact that some people choose to share their work in a very limited and narrow way that bothers me; it's a free country, so you can publish your work under any terms you like. What scares me is the Orwellian twisting of language that's happening where "free" means "draconially restricted" and "open" means "do what we say." Seriously, it's scary.

Re:Freedom 0?

[HiThere]

When you buy a book do you feel that gives you the right to distribute slightly edited copies of it? You bought a copy. You didn't buy the copyright.

That means that you are restricted by copyright law, and can only copy it if I say it's alright. And my terms are the GPL. (You can as Microsoft what their terms are if you consider mine unreasonable.)

Re:Freedom 0?

[redhog]

if the length of the array is what the code actually is to calculate, why call it something else than length?

Even the code

for (pos=1;array[pos];pos++);
len=pos-1;

is more unobvious than the one for 0-indexed arrays I wrote before.

Re:Freedom 0?

[sydb]

/* should be clear; people don't say "zeroth" */

for (element=1;array[element-1];element++);

Re:Freedom 0?

[rossdee]

Never mind the source code - modify the executable!

Re:Freedom 0?

[Jim Hall]

very important... and a lot of people don't really get why... anyone who bitches about his gpl'd program being used by the military to suppress indigenous tribes with fails to appreciate that vital freedom. It's double edged and you have to fully appreciate this. If your conscience can't cope with it, then don't release it under an open source license. Use your own license to tie it down so that you can deny them the use of your program.

Emphasis mine, above.

I'm afraid you are under a common mis-understanding between "free" and "open source". At its very essense, the term "open source" simply requires that you have access to the source code. "Free" (and specifically your use of "GPL'd") means that you have access to the source code, and that it meets the 4 essentials for "Free software".

You can choose to limit the distribution/use of your software, and still distribute the source code. For example, when Caldera released OpenDOS, they did so under an "open source" license. You could view the source code, but you were not permitted to do anything with it. In contrast, FreeDOS (or Linux) is completely free and GPL'd - you can choose to install it to run an arcade game or a baby-grinding machine if you needed to. We don't care.

Re:Freedom 0?

[jmorris42]

> When you buy a book do you feel that gives you the right to distribute
> slightly edited copies of it? You bought a copy. You didn't buy the
> copyright.

I a natural state of affairs I would have exactly that right because I bought a copy and could therefore do whatever I please with with it. However copyright law specificly forbids me from redistribution and public performance because we as a people, through our elected representives, decided that granting the original author a monopoly on those things was a good thing to do in the interest of promoting "progress in the sciences and useful arts" not because it is YOUR property that you deign to license.

I happen to agree with the general idea of copyrights and patents but think the "limited times" portion of the Constituition has been illegally tossed aside. But unless I opt for violent revolution I'm bound by my otherwise willing participation in our Former (and could be again) Republic to either abide by its laws or to engage in conspicious acts of civil disobediance and accept the penalties for doing so. So I don't tend to redistribute copyrighted material.

> That means that you are restricted by copyright law, and can only
> copy it if I say it's alright.

Within limits you are right. (Fair use doctrine, working copies, in memory copies of computer programs, certain other exclusions, but I'm not a lawyer and they have a illegal monopoly on dispensing legal advice so colsult one if you have questions.)

> And my terms are the GPL.

Which only grants rights otherwise removed by copyright law, on condition that all of it's conditions are met. Uses other than redistribution are outside of it's scope.

Re:Freedom 0?

[WNight]

He can't make copies, but if he modifies the one copy that he owns, he can distribute it that way.

This is what confuses most people. They've got the idea that their copyright means they control all the copies. Really, all they control is the creation of the copies. Once the copy is created there are only a very few things that are prohibited.

Well, EULAs also confuse people who seem to think that you don't actually have to have been told about a contract beforehand for it to be binding... That's another post though.

Re:Freedom 0?

[WNight]

Because us intellectual masturbators don't want everyone using our code - we only want to share with people who would share with us. We really aren't blindly altruistic, we have the common-sense to get rid of freeloaders.

I don't mind property at all, but I don't see my rights to use my things as something that you can call property. Yet that is exactly what "big media" is trying to push copyright law towards. They see my eyeballs as their property. They want to sell a movie and know that I'm going to have to watch it in a certain way. Tough I say - property doesn't work this way - that's slavery you want. Property belongs to someone and within the realm of non-criminal actions they're free to do anything they like with it - if they transfer ownership then the other owner can do what he wants with it, etc.

Trying to change what property is, and what a sale (transfer of property rights) entails is tantamount to trying to control someone's life. As soon as toasters won't toast blueberry waffles, or won't toast a competitor's bread, you've been sold a broken toaster that the seller isn't willing to fix or take back.

I fully support your property rights, in a way that even a libertarian would agree with. What's yours is *yours*. My rights stop where yours start and I can't control your property at all until it's my property and then your rights stop. If you write code that you want to own, fine. Don't sell it to someone and they won't do something with it that you don't like.

I like the concept of property and am certainly not looking to abolish it. My goal is to enforce the tradition of property - that the owner controls it.

Re:Freedom 0?

[WNight]

Ahhh, I see. You're mistaking EULAs and usage restrictions with copyright exemptions.

They aren't saying you can't use GPLed software for any use. Microsoft is entitled to take the latest GPLed software and study it, and run servers dedicated to bringing doom to the FSF, or whatever they might want. The *only* thing they can't do is release it to a third party without making the source code available.

It's very free. Wall-street can use GPLed software, orphanges can use it, Bill Gates can use it, Osama can use it. They can use it because nobody can stop them - it's perfectly legal to use any software you are given (or buy, or find). The thing you usually can't do is copy it for a friend. The GPL merely says (in perhaps many thousand words more than it needs - but this is the land of lawyers...) that you must give your friend everything that was given to you - including the source code - so that he has the same freedoms you have.

To me, that's one narrow restriction. Honestly narrow. I download tons of GPLed apps and I've only had to follow the GPL on the few occasions where I've wanted to modify it before giving it to someone else. I am completely GPL compliant and it doesn't require any real attention. I don't have to keep track of where I've installed software, of what I use it for, or how many times at once. I don't need to sign an NDA to see the source or modify it...

Honestly, how many users (1 in 20,000 maybe?) would want to download GPLed software and release their own proprietary version?

That's the ONLY thing that the GPL restricts. Personally I think the twisting is yours - where you try to imply that that ammounts to "draconian restriction".

Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

I develop software for a living. People pay me.

If it was 'free software', people wouldn't pay me. I probably wouldn't bother writing it in the first place. There are no free alternatives.

Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

Re:Should I bother?

[SealBeater]

Honestly, someone once said (+Orc, a very good cracker back in the day) that someone's work that is done for money will always be inferior to the work of someone who does it for love. I personally would rather use the OpenBSD team's ssh than a commercial one, because I know that the people behind it are doing it because they believe in it, and are going to do their best to put out a superior product, rather than being more concerned for the buck, not the software.

SealBeater

Re:Should I bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't quite get to the heart of it - if you didn't get paid for it, you couldn't afford to do it.

This is what "Free Software" advocates always fail to realize - in reality there is no such thing, only "Donated Software". And not everyone, no matter how pure their motives or how kind their hearts, can afford to donate their time.

Hey I have an idea - how about someone organizes Macarthur Fellowships for everyone who wants one, not just RMS? Then we could all step aside from economic reality and do what we like...

Re:Should I bother?

[Noksagt]

Many people do get paid making F/OSS. Furthermore, the freedoms have little to do with price. While having the source code and being able to share software might mean that a lot of people use it & don't pay for it, that doesn't mean there won't be people who do pay for it. This is especially true of custom-software.

Re:Should I bother?

[SealBeater]

Then how do they live? And in no way did you make my previous post any less true. A lot of free software out there is better than the commercial equivelents.

SealBeater

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

Okay. I'll wait for someone to write a free alternative.

Bill, holding my breath.

Re:Should I bother?

[SealBeater]

If you do a little looking, you can usually find someone who has.

SealBeater

Re:Should I bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I probably wouldn't bother writing it in the first place.

Stallman sez that when a significant need arises for that application, someone else will.

>> There are no free alternatives.

I can scroll through almost 10,000 "free alternatives" every time I want to add Linux packages, and that's not the complete list of what's available. I'll presume that you weren't responsible for any of that code.

>> Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

A common logical fallacy - you've omitted the correct answer (a choice between free and non-free software) in an attempt to boster your argument.

Re:Should I bother?

[mpcooke3]

Depends what your software does, maybe if it's interesting i will write a free(RMS) version.

Then what version would people want?

Re:Should I bother?

[nkh]

I always agree with this sentence: "Do it with your passion for CS."

But I'm just a student and wonder: if you do it for free how will you eat? And then someone always comes and say: "if doesn't matter, you'll always find a way to get money out of your work."

But WHAT is this way to make a living? And please, don't tell me it's "support", I don't believe it anymore... I agree that you can write OSS in your spare time, but I haven't met anyone who wrote OSS for a living (and I don't want answers like Alan Cox or RMS).

Re:Should I bother?

[Ngwenya]

Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

False dichotomy. There isn't an either/or except in your premise that you wouldn't have written software were it to be free.

I too write software for a living. People pay me to do it. It's also free software - because it falls below the value line for closed source software for my employer [along with at least 95% of all software written in the company].

I have also written software which has nothing to do with my employer. I do it for the love of it. There are many others in the world with a similar view. I would write software even if I didn't get paid to do it - sure, I'd need another job to keep body and soul together, but I'd still hack.

Anyway, why wouldn't people pay you if it was free software - do you only code for people who sell the software afterwards as proprietary? Most software (95%+) is generated for internal use - so it generally makes sense to release it as free software. Because then it reduces the amount of code the purchaser needs for any new products. The more free code there is generally, the cheaper software production gets in total.

--Ng

Re:Should I bother?

[ptaff]

Another soul who confuses free as in speech and free as in beer.

More than 80% of the software written never goes on the store racks; it's custom-made for a particular purpose for a specific customer. The customer wants software that works and he pays you to write it. Now, whatever licence you distribute your works with don't matter: you get paid anyway. It'll be free software if you grant the 4 freedoms to your customer, no matter what, you get paid anyway.

You wrote some code, and you got paid, get it?

Feel ready to own one or many Tux Stickers?

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

Alas, I don't do the customisation. I develop and maintain the basis.

Other people sell support contracts and customisations. Because I demand a cut of the support contract fee, I get paid. If I released it under the GPL, I could not make that demand.

Oh yes, I don't want to do the customisations and support myself. My skills lie elsewhere.

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

The software I have in mind has maybe about 10 customers in the world. (If I'm successful beyond my wildest dreams.)

I can demand to get a cut from support contracts for supplying the basis. I don't want to do the customisations myself.

Re:Should I bother?

[Ngwenya]

But WHAT is this way to make a living? And please, don't tell me it's "support", I don't believe it anymore... I agree that you can write OSS in your spare time, but I haven't met anyone who wrote OSS for a living (and I don't want answers like Alan Cox or RMS).

You seem to have excluded the set of available answers in the postamble to your questions. A bit like saying "What's the capital of France?" and then saying "Please don't say Paris".

There are many top flight coders who work for companies like IBM, HP, Sun, etc. (eg, Andrew Tridgell, Jeremy Allison, and so on). They all get paid to write F/OSS. But you don't have to be an uber-coder to get into that game. If you work for a reasonable enlightened company [yes, there are a few], they can see that most of the software generated internally has no value as a sales proposition. So get them to release it as free software. Explain that it means that the cost of developing new software will drop, because you can now use and redistribute the work of all the other coders.

Bang - suddenly you're developing OSS for a living. Maybe you do helpdesk other parts of the time, or are a tech support guy. So what? It's still code. The more there is of it, the more it'll get used.

Hell, even the stuff which I've written and been ashamed of is useful - because it let's people know how not to do something!

--Ng

Re:Should I bother?

[SealBeater]

Agreed on all points. No money, no life. But, that is the reality as well, I would rather use software that some guy in his basement worked on and polished vs. the equivelent commercial version. Not out of any high mindedness, but simple pragmastism.

SealBeater

Re:Should I bother?

[polysylabic psudonym]

Of course you'd get paid. Hell, I'd pay for good free software if no one were making it for free and I wanted it.

Okay, perhaps your employer wouldn't make quite such huge profits, but for example look at RMS, he made money for quite some time selling copies of free emacs.

Re:Should I bother?

[polysylabic psudonym]

By comparing "Free Software" to "Donated Software", you are, amazingly, missing the intended meaning of the word free. I say amazingly because of how many times the phrase "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer" turns up. Surely you're aware of your mistake.

Sell your free software.

If you can't manage that, go work for a company that uses custom software and spend your time writing, managing or updating their internal software. There's several hundreds of programmers employed at my place of work (an Australian government agency) who make a crust writing programs that are not intended to be sold or distributed.

Re:Should I bother?

[tdelaney]

Having done both, I'd disagree with that "always".

Where I currently work, we have strong, well-understood and well-followed processes that result in higher-quality code - source control, design and code reviews, requirements gathering, etc.

Too often in a project "done for love" these things get ignored (yes - that happens very often when done for money too). That's because (a) setting these things takes time away from the fun part of the project and (b) often the person doing the project for love just doesn't understand the need for it or (as in my case) isn't disciplined enough to do it without a framework in place (both process and social).

There are examples and counter-examples all over the place - I'm just saying don't be blind to the idea that work done for pay can be superior.

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

I can scroll through almost 10,000 "free alternatives" every time I want to add Linux packages, and that's not the complete list of what's available. I'll presume that you weren't responsible for any of that code.

I've looked. The people who supply and support my software would love to keep the bit they pay me for themselves.

This software is incredibly obscure with about 10 possible customers in the world. Its not like I'm developing a text editor.

Re:Should I bother?

[polyp2000]

Actually you are wrong to think that people dont get paid to write free software. It shows on your part a lack of understanding of how the free software industry works, or maybe what the term free means in this case. Have you read the "four freedoms" link in the article ?

Free software is not about getting something for nothing - it is about your rights, and freedoms and ability to do whatever and use however free software in any way you see fit.

Consider the many companies that sell free software- eg - linux distributions such as Red Hat, Mandrake , SuSe, Novell . Do you think these companies leech the free software in order to create the various distro's they sell ? No ... of course not .. while there may well be many projects they dont have involvement with and perhaps volunteer contributors to their product. They mostly have good teams of developers that "get paid" to work on free software and this in turn gets returned to the community so everyone benefits. While I could go on and find other examples such as IBM - ill leave the googling to you!

I think that you highlight the misconception that many people have - not just individuals but also businesses - that there aint any money in F/OSS. I think it is important to educate people such as yourself the virtues and dispell the myths that abound. In fact, in todays cut throat IT industry its either be Assimilated or die *cough*redmond*cough* free software and open source is rapidly becoming a form of protection for companies - companies like Novell for example - They couldnt have made a better businiess move than going down the freedom route. Think about this way ;companies like Novell may well benefit from the Kernel-Hackers at Red-Hat - While the Red-Hat team may benefit from the Ximian develpers at Novell. To put this in perspective look at Microsoft well , its kind of hard to find an example here because the only business that benefit from microsoft is microsoft since they dont follow this ethic at all.

Admittedly those that are lucky enough to get paid to write free software are severly outweighed by those who write proprietary. But year after year those scales are tipping and I think its fair to say that linux and free software is a like a snowball rolling down a hill, it just keeps getting bigger and their insnt a lot that can be done to stop it. Its changing the way people think!

Re:Should I bother?

[NanoGator]

"someone's work that is done for money will always be inferior to the work of someone who does it for love."

Hmm.. how'zat work when you love money?

Re:Should I bother?

[kfg]

There are no free alternatives.

What is this software you speak of. Me and the boys just might have a go at it. Some of us might even get paid for it. There are people who actually get paid for writing Free Software you know.

Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

Software that is truely needed and important gets written. Period. It doesn't matter what the enviroment is. If necessary the people who need it will write it themselves, or hire someone to do it for them. Sometimes they even release it as free software. Commercial software houses are not the only source of software, and not everyone gives a damn about making a profit from their software, because they are actually in some other line of work.

Software that would not get written at all if it had no commercial outlet is very likely not actually valuable or important, no matter how highly you yourself think of it for providing you with a salary.

Progammers like to think of their output as needed and important, but they're usually wrong. That's no crack at commercial code writers either. It goes quadruple for FOSS writers, and often the best first step of a project is to not do it at all.

The fact that a particular piece of software sells well is not an indication of its need or importance either. People line up to pay for all sorts of magic rocks, potions and magnets guarunteed to cure all their ills.

The customers are usally happy with their purchases.

KFG

Re:Should I bother?

[MPHellwig]

So, costumers will not hire you when they see how your work is written? I am sure that your not that bad.

I implement and administrate software for a living, customers want custom solution and they willing to pay for it, but they won't pay for vapor ware and they do want access to the source so that they do not have to bind them to 1 contractor.

You would be amazed how many customers are willing to hire someone just to reposition/rename a couple of buttons for there main administrative program. As long as the price is right.

Being better than the rest or just more available is the key strategy in here, do not close your customers into a dead trap, they will leave you sooner or later.

So what would I rather have? Free software, it is already out there and people are willing to develop it in there spare time, sorry your business strategy is going to have a rough time in the future.
Perhaps its time to rethink your position towards your customers and deliver service instead of software. Imagine that your car brakes down on the highway, would you prefer to pay for a tool set (software) or for someone getting you the hell out of the highway and repair your car for you (service)?

Re:Should I bother?

[kfg]

But WHAT is this way to make a living?

You seem to have excluded the set of available answers in the postamble to your questions.

Such as, something other than writing code.

KFG

Re:Should I bother?

[TheRaven64]

How many developers in the world write off the shelf software? 10%? Less than that? Off the shelf, boxed, closed source software is really the only distribution model that needs to violate any of the 4 freedoms in order to remain profitable. Most software is developed in house. The user / customer is the company that pays for the software, and it is worth more to them if they have all 4 freedoms intact. In fact, many of them will not pay you to develop products without granting them the four freedoms. Of course, in a lot of cases they will not choose to exercise the third one...

Re:Should I bother?

[kfg]

Didn't I tell you to always have big pot of stew in reserve?

KFG

Re:Should I bother?

[eno2001]

So far, I've found free alternatives for almost everything I do with my computers at home:

1. Web Browsing? Mozilla/Firefox
2. E-mail? Thunderbird or Evolution
3. Group Calendaring? Mozilla Sunbird + Apache/SSL/WebDAV + iCal
4. Audio CD Archiving? Grip + Ogg Vorbis
5. Advanced Media Player? Xine or MPlayer
6. Audio Streaming of Archived CDs? Icecast + Ices
7. Recording of online streams for archival purposes? ALSA + ALSA Utils + Ogg Vorbis + Any required media player format in Xine or MPlayer
8. Firewall? Linux Kernel + iptables
9. Office Functionality? OpenOffice.org
10. Digital Image Editing? GIMP
11. IM Client? GAIM
12. IM Server? Jabberd
13. File sharing? NFS
14. Sane storage management? LVM
15. File compression? BZip2, GZip, or 7Zip also File Roller if you really need a GUI
16. Digital Photo Management? Gthumb or Nautilus
17. PVR? Mythtv.org
18. Video streaming? VLC (Video LAN Client)
19. X10 Home Automation? Bottlerocket
20. Remote desktop/application serving? VNC 4
21. Remote assistance? x0vncserver or the vnc extension for Xorg
22. VPN/Tunneling? OpenVPN or OpenSSH with TCP port forwarding
23. Web Serving? Apache
24. Mail Serving? Courier
25. Server Based Spam Filtering? ASSP
26. Client Based Spam Filtering? Thunderbird
27. Image Scanning? SANE
28. Audio Editing? Rezound or Audacity
29. Multitrack Audio? Ardour
30. MIDI Sequencing? Rosegarden
31. CD Burning (Data and Audio)? cdrecord + various GUI frontends
32. Simple PC Based Puzzle Games? Too many to list from both the GNOME and KDE projects
33. SpyWare/Malware Prevention Removal? None at this point since I don't use the internet via Windows

If I wanted to do all of this with a Windows based home network do you have any idea how much money I'd have to spend to buy commercial software? Sure it's not as easy to set this stuff up as it is in Windows, but that's the price I pay to get this stuf gratis. On the other hand, setting this stuff up in Linux isn't that hard either if you are determined to do it. I would have to say there are plenty of free alternatives and the list above is just a sampling. The only area where I don't find alternatives is games. But I don't play games that much, so it's not much of a deterrent. And *IF* the U.S. ever does outlaw free software, then I guess I'm headed for a life of crime. Crazy that I would even have to think that, isn't it? After all, it's not illegal to own and use a hammer, saw, wood or nails? Just equate your computer hardware with those tools open source code files with the wood and you will see why the concept of trying to outlaw free software is ridiculous.

Re:Should I bother?

[strider44]

pssst: his last name isn't Godfrey, it's really Gates.

Re:Should I bother?

[Noksagt]

You said elsewhere that your sofware will have about a dozen customers. This might as well be a custom app that you do for a single customer. You can probably get money out of the customers--they are unlikely to share it with one another & only are allowed to do so (not forced).

Similarly, you should still be able to demand a cut of support fees: the support people will probably have to talk to the developers & may even ask them for maintenance releases. If you have a low demand product, no one will understand your work better than you & your time will be worth money.

Re:Should I bother?

[zoeblade]

But I'm just a student and wonder: if you do it for free how will you eat?

You could make customised software for companies that only they will get any use out of during the daytime, to get paid, to buy food, and then occasionally write free software on the side because you believe in it. The former would be useful to just the company you work for (like, say, a customised database front end) whereas the latter would be the kind of software that many different people can get a use out of (like, say, a part of an operating system or word processor).

Re:Should I bother?

[DrSkwid]

I develop software for a living. People pay me.

If it was non-free software, people wouldn't pay me because they would feel threatened by a binary only implementation locking them in to a solution they couldn't change.

There are no closed alternatives because it is all custom code.

Free software or no-software. They would rather have free software they paid me to write.

Re:Should I bother?

[tchernobog]

This is plain FUD. A friend of mine has company here in Italy and they release only under GPL/LGPL. I also worked for them for a couple of months (I'm still a student, so it was on summer only). His monthly income has doubled from the beginning of the last year.
Consider that more than 65% of software development (at least here in Italy) is released on a custom basis, where FOSS adds a value and takes away nothing.
Obviously, if you're a poor programmer, you've all to lose to release under GPL: if your users get fed up with you, then they own the source code of your (their? they paid for it, as you said) programs and they can look forward to another programmer. However, you're assured you can access to further modifications to the source code from third parties (by GPL), so you can re-balance the thing when you want by requesting it and continuing developing it from a still better starting point. We wouldn't have to start from scratch every damn time, we could simply get on doing better software.
Users aren't locked in to you any more, they're free to choose what is the best for them at any moment. Usually this is the base for capitalism.
I fear that people that are so reluctant to adopt FS licenses are just programmers that "rode the wave" in a favourable moment (back when you were a "pioneer", I remember people doing a couple of HTML pages back in 1997 and being paid >4000$), and now they aren't capable of keep up with the market anymore.
Oh Lord if I'm annoyed. These people are stealing our jobs, don't you realize that, people?? To keep their "status of wealth", they're cutting out capable individuals from the field.

To answer to the main question: free software values are far more important. They're something that remains in time, while money come and go. Maybe I'm a little biased: I would prefer doing a "poor" job, unrelated with computer science, and be free to develop software in the evenings for pleasure, than being forced to develop under a non-free license, which is something I find unethical.
You can see it how you want, but at least don't spread FUD like "with FS you're starving". It's just the system to make money that has to change, because it's (in my view) plainly wrong until now.

Sorry if my english wasn't too understandable.

Re:Should I bother?

[Neil Blender]

Uh, where's your financial package? Oh, gnucash you say? Oh, yes, I just installed that on a new Red Hat Enterprise 3ws box at home. Gnome, what? I prefer KDE... Okay then, don't forget these packages - oh, and by the way, these are only available for Fedora core, so please spend hours digging for rhe3.0ws rpms prior to figuring that little aspect out.

$ls /usr/home/me/half_of_last_saturday

bonobo-1.0.2 2-7.i386.rpm gnucash-1.8.9.tar.gz libghttp-devel-1.0.9-8.i386.rpm
bonobo-devel-1.0. 22-7.i386.rpm gtkhtml-1.1.9-5.i386.rpm libglade-0.17-12.2.i386.rpm gtkhtml-devel-1.1.9-5.i386.rpm libglade-0.17-12.2.i386.rpm.1 guile-1.6.4 libglade-devel-0.17-12.2.i386.rpm guile-1.6.4-17.i386.rpm libgnomeprint15-0.37-7.1.i386.rpm guile-1.6.4.tar.gz libxml-1.8.17
gal-0.24-2.i386.rpm Guppi-0.40.2 libxml-1.8.17-9.2.src.rpm
gal-devel-0.24-2.i386.r pm Guppi-0.40.2.tar.gz libxml-1.8.17.tar.gz
GConf-1.0.9-11.i386.rpm Guppi-0.40.3-16.i386.rpm libxml-devel-1.8.17-9.i386.rpm
GConf-devel-1.0.9- 11.i386.rpm g-wrap-1.3.4 oaf-0.6.10-8.i386.rpm
gnome-print-0.29-6.src.rpm g-wrap-1.3.4.tar.gz oaf-0.6.10-8.i386.rpm.1
gnome-print-0.37-7.1.i38 6.rpm libbonobo-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm oaf-devel-0.6.10-8.i386.rpm
gnome-vfs-1.0.5-15.i3 86.rpm libbonobo-devel-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm rc1.4
gnome-vfs-devel-1.0.5-15.i386.rpm libcapplet0-1.4.0.1-13.i386.rpm redcarpet
gnome-vfs-devel-1.0.5-15.i386.rpm.1 libgal23-0.24-2.i386.rpm slib-3a1-1.noarch.rpm
gnucash-1.8.9 libghttp-1.0.9-8.i386.rpm

Oh, and to use the canonical expample of my wife - well she's installed $30 version of Quicken, planned out 2005 investments, did our taxes and is having a glass of wine with one of her friends while I am hunting down gnome-vfs-devel-1.0.5-15 - WTF?!?!! I just installed gnome-vfs-1.0.5-15.i3 86.rpm, why do I need devel?!?!?!?! Red Carpet channels???? Didn't they used to be 'free'? Or was that'Free', cause now they want money...where the fucking fuck are those channels...deja news...oh, yeah, now it's goooooooooooogle....fuck...now they have appended the posts....shit they used to only do that with .binary....ok, this is a very serious tangent.....fuck, i need a beer.

(and this no joke, this all happened to me - a ten year vet of linux who abandoned Windows completeley upon the discovery of gnucash and JPilot several years ago - one week ago today.)

Re:Should I bother?

[im_thatoneguy]

Of course my work is always better when I'm doing it for the sake of doing it. But let me tell you somthing, I know for a fact I get a hell of a lot more work DONE when I'm getting payed to do it.

Me:"I should design a really cool character model and rig it." OtherSideofMe:"But you worked all day already just take a break and watch some TV." Me:"That makes sense... ok."

Don't believe me? Look at the sheer volume of OSS that never gets out of beta. Deadlines, profits and wages have a funny way of at least getting somthing to a mostly functional point. I think alot of minor software will always be OSS, like somebody mentioned about corporations releasing the little modules they design, an example of this would be the Blur Studios 3D Studio Max Plugins. Just stuff they work on and are willing to share with the world since they could never make money off of it. But let me guarantee you somthing, if ANY piece of software could be sold, somebody will find a way to sell it.

Re:Should I bother?

[bit01]

Hmm.. how'zat work when you love money?

Profit maximisation. Employees are automonous agents and they minimise the value they provide (their effort) relative to the money they get. Software is complex enough so that employees can (and do!) hide a multitude of sins.

---

Commercial software bigots - a dying breed.

Re:Should I bother?

[phyrz]

If you love money, you missed the point of money.

Re:Should I bother?

[BRSloth]

I develop software for a living. People pay me.

Right. Do you give your costumers the source code of the software you just wrote? Then you can licence it under GPL.

Being 'free software' doesn't mean 'Here everyone! Get this software!', it means, 'So, you paid for a house. Here is the house and here are the plants of it'.

[Free as in speech, remember?]

Re:Should I bother?

[niiler]

Based on the many DRM and Trusted Computing posts, I suspect that Free software will not become illegal. Rather, those of us who can tinker under the hood and write our own software will become obsolete like the mechanics who used to rebuild cars in their own garages.

While the do-it-yourself mechanic can still rebuild an engine, they need an industry built $10,000 diagnostic tool to do it. Likewise, once DRM sets in, we will need to buy expensive licenses in order to work on the new stuff.

I, for one, feel that this sort of mandatory licensing is like enclosure in the past. We are headed towards a no-individual-ownership society where corporations own everything and we lease the rights to use such things from them. There's something inherently wrong with this from an ethical viewpoint, IMHO.

Free software is not for everyone, granted. But for those of us who use and love it, it means the world.

Re:Should I bother?

[BJH]

Why are you using Red Hat Enterprise 3WS at home instead of Fedora Core or something else?

FC: # yum install gnucash

Debian: # apt-get install gnucash

After that, you just need to press the 'y' key. Once.

Re:Should I bother?

[grumbel]

### Honestly, someone once said (+Orc, a very good cracker back in the day) that someone's work that is done for money will always be inferior to the work of someone who does it for love.

While that is true, Free Software doesn't get developed just for the love of it, there is a lot of free software out there which development has been rolled back to 'maintaince only' and where there hasn't been much 'love' in quite some time.

Re:Should I bother?

[PrimeEnd]

If it was 'free software', people wouldn't pay me. I probably wouldn't bother writing it in the first place.

On the contrary, most free software is written by people who are paid to write it -- Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Miguel de Icaza, other employees of Redhat, Novell, Trolltech, etc.

Re:Should I bother?

[KarmaOverDogma]

I've seen some people who have responded to your post who just don't seem to "get" it.

If I had mod points I would have, instead of replying, modded you up insightful, but instead I reply:
you have a good point; with some software (note they key word "some"), if you want good/better quality, you have to pay for it.

Anyone who tries to refute this is full of Siht.

Re:Should I bother?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Wow. Nice list. There is one point against people's use of open source tools. A lot of the "free" tools tend to suck because people didn't work on their usability, and it's hurt their marketability. This got slashdotted a while ago, when Eric Raymond wrote a long rant about open source GUI's. But there's also amazing open source projects that show the foolishness of what happens in closed, proprietary source, such as the LinuxBIOS http://www.linuxbios.org/

Re:Should I bother?

[Neil Blender]

Why are you using Red Hat Enterprise 3WS at home instead of Fedora Core or something else?

Excuse me? BUT WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I NOT BE USING IT? Seriously, what the fuck? Are you dictating distros now? Is that the current mantra? Fucking christ, you people are so duplicitious.

Re:Should I bother?

[Oligonicella]

"We are headed towards a no-individual-ownership society where corporations own everything and we lease the rights to use such things from them. There's something inherently wrong with this from an ethical viewpoint, IMHO."

Ahhhhhhh!!!

Here we go again. If you want simpler stuff, you can always get it. You speak of a Sun machine, or similar. I have a mechanic friend. His machine for diagnosis of autos (newer models downloadable) is similar to a PDA. Compact and plugs in. He didn't have any trouble working on my truck.

There will always be those who work on/make alternatives.

Re:Should I bother?

[Afty0r]

If you work for a reasonable enlightened company [yes, there are a few], they can see that most of the software generated internally has no value as a sales proposition. So get them to release it as free software. Explain that it means that the cost of developing new software will drop, because you can now use and redistribute the work of all the other coders.

I hear this often touted as a way to get free software (development resources) for the organisation but none of the free software advocates seem to have considered the real-world ramifications, so I would appreciate it if someone could explain the following:

Code written for in-house software which would never see the light of day is written for a reason. Generally, that is because this software is not available for free, or to purchase at a reasonable price and the company *needs* it.
If you write some good software in-house (for less than it would cost to license commercial software to do the same job) that belongs to your company and your company alone, you have a competitive advantage over your competitors - that is, they either spent MORE money than you did, or they simply do not have the software do carry out the task.
If you then open source the software you have written you, may gain some cost savings on forward development of the software, but you LOSE the competitive advantage - each and EVERY one of your competitors is free to take and use your software (written at your own expense) and implement it.

The net result is that your competitors who used to spend more money than you on proprietary solutions now spend alot less money than they used to, and competitors who didn't have the software capability you developed now do have it, and they have it for free

Can someone from the open-source advocacy world please explain to me how this is a good trade-off for a business?

A (possible) small reduction in development costs seems hard to palatte when offset against a (probably) huge loss in competitive advantage...

(Bear in mind when answering, that if none of your competitors take up and use the software then there are likely to be few to no coders working on, so you have gained nothing except legal bills..)

Re:Should I bother?

[scorpionsoft]

To imply that software written that is eventually sold is not written for "love" is ridiculous! There are a large number of comercial developer that are only commercial developers *because* they love to write software (I am one)! Making a living in the real world doing what you love to do is just using your noodle.. I am of the opinion that open source software will continue to become mainstream as its pieces become replacements or better. I use Firefox and Thunderbird on my WindowsXP development box because they are better! Not because they are free..

Re:Should I bother?

[flossie]

Uh, where's your financial package? Oh, gnucash you say? Oh, yes, I just installed that on a new Red Hat Enterprise 3ws box at home. Gnome, what? I prefer KDE... Okay then, don't forget these packages - oh, and by the way, these are only available for Fedora core, so please spend hours digging for rhe3.0ws rpms prior to figuring that little aspect out.

You seem to be confusing separate issues here: the benefits of free software and the usability of one particular distribution of GNU/Linux. Doubtless you have your own reasons for using Redhat, but it is unfair to complain that difficulties with your distribution are sacrifices that have to be made to use Free software.

If you had chosen Debian instead, for example, installation of gnucash would be simple: apt-get install gnucash. Incidentally, it was this kind of thing that led me to choose Debian after getting annoyed with RH6 - I have never looked back.

Re:Should I bother?

[rpbailey1642]

A great example of what you are asking about is the company Sourcefire. The free program in question is Snort. Sourcefire improves the core of Snort and sells complete solutions (boxes with snort configured, support on boxes sold, etc). The improvements made to Snort by Sourcefire trickle back into the Snort codebase. End result is that a company makes a decent living off a free program, and the free program gets a professional staff working on it.

Re:Should I bother?

[flossie]

If you write some good software in-house (for less than it would cost to license commercial software to do the same job) that belongs to your company and your company alone, you have a competitive advantage over your competitors - that is, they either spent MORE money than you did, or they simply do not have the software do carry out the task.

Can someone from the open-source advocacy world please explain to me how this is a good trade-off for a business?

From my experience with defence engineering companies:

If your company can produce appropriate software at lower cost than the existing commercial alternatives, it is often the case that your competitors can do the same thing. Your "competitive advantage" therefore translates into each company doing the same thing.

This results in each company producing different and incompatible tools and having to train its staff to use the custom tools. Each company has saved money compared to the cost of buying the commercial software, but they have no advantage over their major competitors. The high transfer of staff between the companies means that it is not practical to hope that competitors will not know what your software does. Meanwhile, each of the competing companies have to bear significant costs for maintenance and training. They also have great difficulty when trying to work together on mega-projects.

The alternative approach is standardisation across the industry. This saves the whole industry costs on maintenance and training and makes it much easier to work together. It also allows the companies to compete on their core competencies rather than on things which are only incidental to their areas of expertise.

Re:Should I bother?

[SharpFang]

Still missing...

1. Vector drawing (Corel Draw functionality, Xfig nowhere near there)
2. CAD with 3D (AutoCAD vs 2D QCAD)
3. Flash editor.
4. A lot of games...
5. Specialised niche software. (camera, sensors, motion control, CAM, accounting, banking, navigation and all such stuff where you buy a very special device and it comes with a CD with Windows software...)

Re:Should I bother?

[damiam]

Since it evidently doesn't work well for what you need to use it, it was a poor choice. Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora would probably have been better. No one will stop you from using RHE3, but you have to deal with its limitations.

Re:Should I bother?

[arose]

ESR shouldn't rant about UI in free software unless he makes fetchmailconf (I haven't used that in a while so if it has become better enlighten me).

Re:Should I bother?

[sgtrock]

But WHAT is this way to make a living? And please, don't tell me it's "support", I don't believe it anymore... I agree that you can write OSS in your spare time, but I haven't met anyone who wrote OSS for a living (and I don't want answers like Alan Cox or RMS).

Gartner and IDC both estimate that approximately 70% of all changes to FOSS are now being made by people who are paid to do so. They base their estimates on several factors; self-admission by developers, company email addresses, etc. So, it looks like a lot of people are making a comfortable living at it. :)

Re:Should I bother?

[BJH]

I was referring to the fact that RHE WS is a product intended for corporate use, not individual use, and which when purchased from RH comes with a support contract.

If you want support for that distro, pay RH, but don't whine about it here, OK?

Re:Should I bother?

[JoloK]

Fortunately, those aren't the only choices we have, and, also fortunately, not everybody feels the way you do about the subject. Believe it or not, there are many people writing software with no real monetary compensation every day.

Re:Should I bother?

[JoloK]

I think the point being made is "Don't be such a dramaticist; it's not actually that difficult, and you [should] know that. Your point is not valid."

Get it?

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

Someone should kill rpm, it gives Linux a bad name.

Re:Should I bother?

[GreyArtist]

The "higher-quality code" reference is a bit too subjective. Where I work, I have written software that I use extensively and find to be very reliable and easy to augment. Other people at work who do some of the same things that I do would probably find the software I use to be of much lower quality (i.e. hard to use and less reliable - mainly because they are doing everything they are not supposed to be doing).

Programming for love means writing code you yourself want to use for a given task. I don't believe that writing code you want complete strangers to use and enjoy is a real, valid sentiment. It just means you have a hidden agenda. Programming for love roots its superiority in the fact that it is your solution and you can make it do things the way you want. The Free Software Foundation is simply trying to make it a trend for able individuals to start demanding the freedoms they need to make all their software solutions their own.

Re:Should I bother?

[jarich]

someone's work that is done for money will always be inferior to the work of someone who does it for love

What if I love money? :)

Seriously, the two are not mutually exclusive. I love to tinker with computers and am lucky enough to get paid quite decently to do that.

It's probably true that people who love what they do (in any industry) will do a better job... would it also be true that those who can manager to get paid for doing what they love are smarter than the people who can only manage to do what they want for free?

:)

Seriously though... do both. I work for money (writing 'enslaved' software) ~and~ contribute to various open (or 'free') projects. Of course, RMS doesn't agree with that, but who cares?

Re:Should I bother?

[jarich]

There are no free alternatives to Quicken that will sync up with your bank. We download transactions and reconcile. That's the one feature that keeps a lot of people of off Linux at home.

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

Often your company doesn't compete with other companies for which this software would be useful directly. Especially in the service industry many companies have maybe one or two competitor and many other companies doing the same thing somewhere else. Here all the relatively small companies can pool their development by open sourcing their software instead of each building their own software (or buying some not quite fitting off-the-shelf package).

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

This does not mean that you (as a company) can't decide to open source the result of your paid programmer's work.

Re:Should I bother?

[jarich]

If you write some good software in-house (for less than it would cost to license commercial software to do the same job) that belongs to your company and your company alone, you have a competitive advantage over your competitors - that is, they either spent MORE money than you did, or they simply do not have the software do carry out the task

You are correct. This software is ~not~ a good candidate for open source (in your manager's eyes).

Instead, pick something more generic that is of use outside of your specific industry. Then the pitch becomes "I can't complete this on my own, but we need it, and it provides no industry specific benefit to our competitors. If you let me open source it, then lots of other developers across the world will help me finish it because they need it too."

Don't pitch open source as the "right thing to do". Pitch it as a way to get free help finishing a product. That's something that makes business sense... and it's true.

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

The problem is that "it is done when it is done" is seldom used in commercial environments. This is IMHO the biggest reason for bad quality commercial software.

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

And there is a lot of commercial software out there where development/support has been rolled back to 'not existance'.

Re:Should I bother?

[Robo210]

For your vector drawing needs, let me point you to a program called Inkscape. While it is not yet as fully featured as something like Corel Draw, it is rapidly improving, and much, much better then a program like Xfig I believe.

Re:Should I bother?

[BJH]

Heh ;) That "one feature that stops the average Joe from using Linux" seems to change every year...

In any case, yes, I imagine you're correct (I don't live in the US so I don't know what your banks are like other than by hearsay).

Re:Should I bother?

[Taladar]

And if they want to give their neighbours the plans for the house they can but when the second house shall not be exactly the same as the first one they will most likely come to you with your plans since you won't need that much time to change your plans as another architect would who does not know the plans at all.

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

An awful lot of replies have been made since I last checked in, so I'll try and sum them up here.

Here's a hypothetical situation. This hypothetical is in fact my current situation with this project but simplified. (The simplifications make it hypothetical. I started writing this to show all the twists and turns my work made in reality, but it became a very long article with a lot of irrelevant detail.)

I have an idea for some software. I start developing. I do it in my spare and no-one is paying me to do it.

("Why is no-one paying?" I hear you ask. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks its worth investing in. Perhaps I don't want to be obligated to anyone to show results.)

After many hours of work, I've got something that people may be interested in. I alone hold the copyright because I alone developed it and I have no obligations to anyone. Now what do I do with it?

The universe splits into two parallel universes. In universe A, I keep it non-free. In universe B, I GPL it.

In both A and B, people with money want a support package, continued development and customisations.

For people who want the complete package including code, training, assistance, etc. Alas, sales, training and assistance isn't my thing.
In universe A, I come to deal with someone who is skilled in this area to sell the complete package. As part of the deal, I demand a cut of the payments. I can do that because I hold the copyright.
In universe B, anyone can sell my software without paying me a penny. My investment of time was for nothing.

People want customisations.
In universe A, I can do the customisation. If I don't want to, I can negotiate with someone who does.
In universe B, anyone can do the customisations. I'm competing on equal terms with others, people who did nothing to develop the software in the first place.

People also want development to continue. Bugs need fixing. My time is limited and there are people out there who can help out.
In universe B, anyone can work from my source code.
In universe A, anyone can work from my source code. You see, I don't have some religious attachment to keeping my code secret. My customers can opt to receive the source if they want to make modifications themselves. If I like what I see, I may negotiate to distribute my project with thier modifications, or negotiate for them to do future work. I could even hand my project over to a more organised organisation in exchange for a one-off payment or a cut of future sales.

"What about free alternatives?" Back in the real world (universe C?), there are no comparable alternatives. I've looked. But you are all quite free to do develop your own free alternative. Don't let me stop you. As yet, no-one has. No-one seems to want to invest the time/money developing a free alternative from scratch when my version is reasonably priced and of a very high quality.

"A lot of people make a living developing free software." Good for them. But why should I?

"You are only in it for the money." No, I do it because I love software development. If I was only in it for the money, I would have become an independent plumber.

Many thanks for reading this message. I hope to read lots more followups.

Re:Should I bother?

[Bulln-Bulln]

If I wanted to do all of this with a Windows based home network do you have any idea how much money I'd have to spend to buy commercial software?

You know there's also free software (beer and speech) for Windows. Almost every programm on you list also works for Windows. Firefox, Thunderbird, Apache, 7-Zip, etc.... works. Plus apps like iTunes.

Re:Should I bother?

[eno2001]

First of all, I don't like money so your assumption that I should have a financial package is a poor one. I don't have investments because I don't care. I let the AEtna people sort it out for me. Money is one of the least interesting and least important aspects of life to me. I'd rather let someone else handle it so I have more time to spend on what really counts: my kid, my wife and computers. Not all of us are infected with money mania. Given the choice of getting paid overtime or getting a day or more off, I'd always take the time over the money.

Next, you CHOSE to use RedHat Enterprise Workstation (god knows why) instead of thinking ahead and getting something more geared for home use. I suppose you wouldn't you are the same kind of guy who installed Windows NT 4.0 at home and then bitched about all the games and peripherals that didn't work with it? RedHat has designed the Enterprise products to be stable which means they pick and test the most stable versions of the software they package. This means that they may be a version or more behind and may not include newer programs that you are looking for or that support the program you're interested in.

Regarding KDE, I'm not inteterested in starting a flamewar. I happen to prefer GNOME but I still install KDE so I can use apps like Rosegarden or KMahjjong (I like it better than the GNome Mahjjaong) on the systems where I require it. Hard drive space is cheap these days and I have no problem installing a little more than I need if it's required to get an app working. On the flipside, I also know enoughabout Linux distributions to be able to just work directly from source which is what I prefer. RPMs are only for beginners in my estimation and they tend to really screw things up. Sorry, but I prefer tarballs to RPMs any day. Even if I have to go back and install a few new libs that aren't on my system, it's the route I use 95% of the time. Back when I was on Windows, I was the same way. I always prefered working directly in the registry and INI files to using stupid add-ons like TweakUI, but that's just me.

And before you start painting the Linux user with the broad brush of "elitist" or RTFM, I'll point out that it's not different in Windows. On the NT list I'm on at work, there will occasionally be a moron or two who will ask how to get a DOS or Windows 9x game to run in Windows XP Pro. They are usually met with the same reaction you're getting from people here. If you want to use your computer for typical home uses, then pick the right ditribution, just as you would pick the right version of Windows. Don't go bitching about it because YOU made the wrong choice. Or maybe you're just trolling? Trolling 4 Dollars perhaps?? ;P

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

pssst: his last name isn't Godfrey, it's really Gates.

No, it's Godfrey. Don't know where you got that idea.

Re:Should I bother?

[BillGodfrey]

So far, I've found free alternatives for almost everything I do with my computers at home:

Um, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I can't see anything even close to what I develop in your list. Maybe I'm just thick.

Re:Should I bother?

[pipingguy]

I notice that 3D CAD is not in there, but likely you have no need for it.

Maybe CAD is something that should not be open source.

Re:Should I bother?

[man_of_mr_e]

Interestingly enough, the majority of the software you list doesn't guarantee the four freedom's mentioned. Most of it is not GPL'd, but uses some other license such as a BSD license, Mozilla license, etc...

They're still Free software, but they are, according to stallman, compromises and contrary to the goals of free software.

Re:Should I bother?

[tom's a-cold]

Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

I'd rather have free software and no false dichotomies. And I've written software for money for over 25 years, and work for a firm that did $100M in business last year providing consulting and development services, much of it to clients using free software. So where's the either/or choice?

The reality is that creators of software seldom benefit from its commoditization. Let me tell you the benefit I derive from the software I've written that my employers got paid for, besides the paychecks when I did it: I got the satisfaction of a job well done.

Your error is in assuming that your salary is in some way derived from the price of the software. It might be, but probably not. The services market has always been huge and is independent of the cost of the software being customized and integrated. Demand for these services doesn't go away just because the underlying OS, or the apps, are free software.

Unless, of course, you think that you know better than those airhead hippies at IBM, which, when faced with a strategic choice between continuing to be a software creator or a professional services firm that uses free software, chose the latter. My guess is that the reason for that was that there was more money in services.

One impact of the GPL is that software becomes more like a service and less like a product. It will take a better economist than either of us to tell whether this increases or decreases the overall value of the software business and of all the economic activities that interact with it.

Re:Should I bother?

[pipingguy]

I do it for the love of it. There are many others in the world with a similar view. I would write software even if I didn't get paid to do it - sure, I'd need another job to keep body and soul together, but I'd still hack.

You have hit the nail right on the head. With the increased power of computers and software, it no longer takes 10 people to do the job that can now be done by 1 or 2.

The long-term question is what do we do (economically) with these people whose work is no longer required? Before anyone starts freaking-out , "no longer required" refers to the displaced people that will be without jobs and are essentially unemployable, not some sort of Soylent Green-type scenario.

Marshall Brain of howstuffworks.com is thinking about this and has some proposals. I think that this coming reality is largely ignored because it challenges modern western societies' concept of worth.

I'm one of those people that gets self-motivated for the love of the work and am not particularly impressed with expensive, essentially useless toys, status and ownership of stuff.

Re:Should I bother?

[eno2001]

I don't need your app at home. So I would never buy it in the first place. Plus, you never mentioned what app you develop. So... um... what point are you trying to make?

Re:Should I bother?

[Zontar The Mindless]

> I haven't met anyone who wrote OSS for a living

Stop by where I work sometime and I'll introduce you to about 100 people who do.

Re:Should I bother?

[LWATCDR]

Someone also said that the best thing in life is to get paid for doing something you love.

Re:Should I bother?

[jonadab]

> Uh, where's your financial package?

I just use a spreadsheet for that in OpenOffice. If your finances are so
complex that you need special financial software because a spreadsheet
can't handle entirely them, you seriously need to hire an accountant.

As far as dependency problems, yeah, that can be a real pain. The correct
solution to this is static linking for everything but the core system
libraries, but the open-source community is violently opposed to static
linking, because it might (gasp) use up an extra two gigabytes of disk
space per computer, in addition to freeing up tens of billions of system
administrator man-hours worldwide.

Re:Should I bother?

[eno2001]

And for me time is a means to an end. I prefer doing certain things myself and others I have no interest in. Why should I share the same leve of interest in money that people who follow their investments do? It's not like money is essential to living. Here is the way I look at money, it's like a toilet. Nice to have around when you need, but otherwise keep it out of sight and out of mind. I shouldn't have to manage my own retirement or get into investing if I don't have the interest. But, I do need to know how to cook, how to make my own furniture, build my own appliances, write my own code, fix my own house and car. For me that kind of knowledge is far more important than obessive investing and money grubbing. It's that same as if I ripped you for not sharing the passion that I do for the things I just listed above. There is no mandate that you MUST know these things. The same goes for being heavily involved with money.

Re:Should I bother?

[eno2001]

One more thing. Buy nice things for my wife? She's very capable of buying things herself. Sure, I'll get her the nice gift for her birthday or christmas, but she doesn't need these things. They are a luxury. Additionally, why shouldn't I be able to do all of the above that you mentioned with a reasonable salary in the $30,000-60,000 range? Why must it be essential that I take an interest and waste copious amounts of my personal time on something as stupid as stocks or other types of investing? Sorry, but I prefer to work for my money insted of gambling or playing games for it.

Re:Should I bother?

[geminidomino]

Since it was St. Stallman and the Holy FSF that "defined" that list of freedoms, I'm going to remember the agenda they've got and be a little bit dubious when the GNU/Gospel says that more restrictions(GPL vs BSD, for example)=="Free"

Re:Should I bother?

[KarmaOverDogma]

What you say is very true.

However, that is entirely up to the company, or individual(s) who owns the rights to the software (assuming it isn't free/GPL). When it happens, it sure is nice, but absolutely not a duty or expectation in any shape or form.

*You* may not be impying it, but apparently some here think and/or assume that companies/persons *should* do this for the betterment of (insert your reason here).

To those who do, I say: Bully for you, go ahead and do it yourself, and be happy when others do so, but may I also sell you a lovely piece of swampland I have in Florida? Or perhaps some of Tinkerbell's Fairydust?

.

Re:Should I bother?

[Benanov]

I also write custom software as well, and that's a statement I agree with. Unfortunately I don't have control over the licensing, but there are a few projects I am starting independently where I will, and it will be free software I'm paid to write. :)

(RMS has said himself that as long as you respect your client's freedom, writing custom software does not go against any principles of free software.)

Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[theapodan]

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice the convenience of flash animations, or of photoshop, for a free (as in beer) solution. I'm cheap. The fact that the free (as in beer and in freedom) software often is excellent quality, FreeBSD being my favorite, doesn't hurt either.

However, I can see it being an impediment to adoption of free software because of the sometimes unreasonable demands placed by restrictive licences. The GPL does prevent advances and progress in some cases, such as device drivers, that otherwise would be possible. Same with flash and other non-free media solutions, whether DRM or CSS on DVDs or what have you.

I myself feel however, that sacrificing utility for the benefit of using a free software package, is only rational if the resulting loss in utility is no greater than the benefits. However, it is easy to quantify the benefit of free as in beer software, but harder to economically evalutate the benefits of free as in freedom software.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[krumms]

The GPL does prevent advances and progress in some cases, such as device drivers,

The GPL is only half the issue. IIRC, the kernel developers intentionally and frequently break API/ABI compatibility between minor releases so as to "encourage" vendors to release drivers under non-proprietary licenses.

I find that a bit extreme. Zealous even.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[kasperd]

kernel developers intentionally and frequently break API/ABI compatibility between minor releases so as to "encourage" vendors to release drivers under non-proprietary licenses.

People keep saying that, but I have yet to see just a single case where it happened. Kernel interfaces do change, and they change for the better. But I have never seen a change, which happened just to encourage rease of driver sources.

Right now I can remember a single change between minor releases, somewhere in the 2.4 kernels the up_and_exit function was removed, and a new complete_and_exit was introduced. I don't know how many drivers where affected by that, but at least the USB driver had to be changed. Of course the change didn't happen to break compatibility. The purpose of up_and_exit was to avoid a race condition when removing a module which had a kernel thread running that needed to be stopped before removing the module. If the module had just called up to signal it was terminated, and afterwards called exit, the module code might have been removed before the up call returned and caused a kernel crash as it returned to an undefined address. Having the up_and_exit function solved that problem. But it turned out there was still a race condition. Though no code was accessed inside the module, the sempahore itself would be a part of the module, and it could be removed before up had finished accessing it. This is why completions were introduced, they are different from semaphores, and are designed exactly to avoid this problem. So every user of up_and_exit had to be changed to use complete_and_exit instead. Nothing would have prevented leaving up_and_exit in the kernel, but any user was known to have a race condition. Had the function been left in the kernel, a lot of those buggy users of it might not have been noticed. By removing up_and_exit all instances of the bug would be revealed, and could easilly be fixed.

This was just one example, there might be more. The point here, is that the change did not happen to intentionally break binary compatibility. The change happened to fix a problem. And while you might think it broke the compatibility, it really just revealed all the modules, that were already broken. And kernel developers frequently make changes to make debuging easier, that is part of the reason the code is of such a good quality.

The kernel developers don't intentionally break binary only modules, in fact it seems they ignore binary drivers as much as possible. If a change can improve the kernel, it happens. In stable branches such changes only happen if they are necesarry to fix a bug, or if they don't cause major breaking. If all drivers in the kernel can trivially be updated to the new interface, there is no reason not to make the change.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[NanoGator]

"Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice the convenience of flash animations, or of photoshop, for a free (as in beer) solution. I'm cheap. The fact that the free (as in beer and in freedom) software often is excellent quality,"

Ugh. Any other pixel pushers out there wince at that comment? Heh.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[Mycroft_VIII]

Just curious, but why not change the old function to simply eliminate the problem, or even just simply be an alias of the new function?
I could only assume the new function needed data not suplied in calls to the old function.

Mycroft

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[nightfallsonhoboken]

There is a good article explaining this at http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable_api_nonsense .html?seemore=y

Summary: "You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first place. "

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[bluGill]

Most likely because they are not the same. If you replace the engine in your car (with something bigger) you shouldn't be surprised if the your old spark plugs don't fit. Even if the old wires would physically fit, if the new engine needs resister wires, your old wires might not work right!

In this case the change is more than the name of the function used, it is also several internal changes you need to make. Part of the motivation for changing the name is hoping that whoever is assigned to make things work with the new interface looks at why the change was done, and makes those internal changes so they don't have the problem the name change was trying to avoid.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[HiThere]

Personally I prefer the Gimp to Photoshop, though I do admit to prefering Deneba Canvas to either.

There may be some things that recent Photoshop versions are better at. I doubt I'll ever find out. I bought my last Adobe product before they siced the FBI on Dimitri Sklarov.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[kasperd]

Just curious, but why not change the old function to simply eliminate the problem

Probably that wasn't possible. The semaphore implementation in Linux is not trivial. First of all it have a fast path implemented in assembler, which is only a two instructions long. But that come with the cost of a very complicated implementation in case of contention. This give a good overall performance. But it may happen, that the caller of down continue while the up call is still accessing the semaphore. This is not a problem because you can still not make more down calls than up calls. However if the semaphore is removed from memory, you will have trouble with any up or down call not yet finished accessing the semaphore.

This is why completions were introduced. Completions are slightly simpler than semaphores, but the performance is worse. So completions should only be used where necesarry. In fact every access to the completion is protected by a spinlock. This means that even if there is not contention on the completion, there may be contention on the spinlock. Two concurrent up calls on a semaphore will both take the fast path, as long as they don't need to wakeup another process. However with completions, there is only a slow path.

or even just simply be an alias of the new function?

In the up_and_exit vs complete_and_exit case, that wouldn't have been possible, since they take different kinds of arguments. The up call takes a semaphore as argument, the complete call takes a completion as argument.

I could only assume the new function needed data not suplied in calls to the old function.

Kind of... you pass it a different data structure.

I don't know if a completion can do everything a semaphore can do. Maybe you would have gotten working code by using completions in every place where a semaphore was previously used. If that had worked, the fix could have been made without breaking compatibility. But it would come with a major performance penalty. It is not acceptable to introduce a huge overhead on thousands of semaphore users simply because a few rare cases have additional requirements. And you can't really seperate those needing completions from the rest without modifying the source code and recompiling it.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[Christopheles]

The entire idea of functions, in most programming, is to hide complexity and allow reuse. Your analogy fails, because in a program, the wires probably would fit, along with the spark plugs. For instance, you have a function sort() which sorts an array. You decide to reimplement this function with a faster sorting algorithm. It still works exactly the same to the rest of the program, only faster.

Although you are partially correct, and, with bad abstraction, the rest of the program would have to know about the way the function works and this change would have to be accounted for. However, it is more likely that the function simply required different parameters and, thus, was not the same function to the rest of the program.

Re:Economic balance of freedom software cost.

[Mycroft_VIII]

That makes sense. Thanks.
I thought it had to be some incompatability in the data they needed when called, didn't know about the trade-offs between the two mechanisms.

Mycroft

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[Jessta]

Freedom is not about sacrifice.
If you have to sacrifice then you're not free.
In the same way that you don't want to be locked in to non-free software, you also don't want to be locked in to free software.

Now I will read the article.

Well argued?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's barely argued at all. His line seems to be:

A lot of people don't value freedom of software that much, therefore anyone who does should stop.

He doesn't even try to actually make a connection between the apparent premise and the apparent conclusion.

Direct quotes:

"Perhaps it is time to let go of some of the high-moral ideals and remember why we started using computers in the first place."

But he doesn't say WHY anyone with these high-moral ideals should let go of them.

"none of us should ever be asked to make unfavorable sacrifices when it comes to turning our computer time into work or money"

Again, why not? Because it makes him uncomfortable to be asked to make "unfavorable sacrifices"?

Re:Well argued?

[elgatozorbas]

It's barely argued at all. His line seems to be:
A lot of people don't value freedom of software that much, therefore anyone who does should stop.

No, the way I interpret the article, his line is: "we should stop pretending free software can be a full replacement for commercial software".

While I do not agree completely, he has a point. Maybe free software offers you whatever forms of freedom (these have been discussed enough), but they are frequently less user-friendly. Some are a true replacement, but not all, imho. This need be no surprise because commercial software needs to appeal to the user to defeat the competition. Free software needs not, people write it because they want to.

Z

Re:Well argued?

[isdnip]

Ding ding ding! Mod the parent up. That's quite the point.

I, for one, think that Free software is just swell, as a concept, but I also need software that does the job, and FOSS doesn't always cut it. And I do attribute that to the commercial vendor's incentive to do the job, in order to get more customers and thus make more money. FOSS is more often changed because some software writer wants to "scratch an itch", making the software more appropriate for his own use -- but what's good for a programmer isn't always good for The Rest Of Us! That's probably why most FOSS is modeled after Unix, the "programmer's operating system", which has remarkably few civilian users. Stallman's "freedoms" are primarily relevant to programmers, not users. A typical user doesn't want the freedom to modify sources -- C code is just as foreign as Croatian.

So Mozilla turns out to be the best family of browsers, and is FOSS (although I think under corporate sponsorship), and that's good, but there's no FOSS equivalent of Eudora or or even a virus-resistant FOSS answer to LookOut! yet. Certainly not Thunderbird, though that's pretty good, or Evolution, which I suppose fits some corporate desktops pretty well. They've done the first 90% of the job, but that last 10% probably will take 90% of the work, and it's not as much fun for programmers as doing the first 60% again using another k3wl toolk1t.

And don't get me started on what pass for GUI rippers under Linux. Asking a user for the SCSI ID of an IDE drive is just nuts! (And yes, I do know about the SCSI Emulation layer, but users shouldn't have to.) Even then most don't work. (I couldn't find a single one in Mandrake 10.1 that actually worked with any usable degree of reliability, though the underlying command-line tools do work.)

Free Software where freedom is important

[grumbel]

Depends, if I write free software, especially games, I tend to only use free software in the toolchain to make it easier for other people to contribute. Nothing sucks more to basically being locked out of a free software project just because you don't happen to have the newest version of some proprietary software that is a important component in the toolchain. So when it comes to free software I tend to go with only free software, since that ensures that everybody can help if he likes and it also shows bugs or missing features of existing free software.

On the other side if I just want to get work done I don't care to much about free software only, after all I want to get it done, not produce something that might still be maintained in the coming years. I still use free software most of the time there, but thats not because its better, in many areas its even quite inveriour, but just because its either the only software available for Linux in that area or because the proprietary software would be a little bit to expensive to be feasible.

Re:Free Software where freedom is important

[advocate_one]

Nothing sucks more to basically being locked out of a free software project just because you don't happen to have the newest version of some proprietary software that is a important component in the toolchain.

this is what annoys the heck of me when people write GPL licensed java programs that depend on Sun's java runtime to run. And why RMS is so right to point out about the Java trap.

Unsurprisingly Enough

[OverlordQ]

the first thing they pick on is the Gimp UI. It's more of a personal taste IMO, since I dont find anything wrong with it and is easy to navigate.

Re:Unsurprisingly Enough

[Trillan]

I don't mean to pick on you; this seemed an ideal place to post this mini-rant.

Just like "it works for me" is the biggest excuse for defects in software, "personal taste" is the biggest excuse in interfaces.

Interface design may not be a completely solved problem yet, but we certainly know a lot of things not to do by now.

Re:Unsurprisingly Enough

[Daengbo]

Yes, and since we're talking about Photoshop vs. Gimp, I think that MDI has been ruled one of those "things not to do." Everybody's used to it by now, though, so it's better for them. Maybe personal taste really is important...?

Re:Unsurprisingly Enough

[Taladar]

My Problem with Gimp is that it is one of the few programs that does not work with ratpoison (Windowmanager that basically maximizes all Windows and uses screen(as in the program screen)-like keys to jump between them) and similar window-managers. If all the small windows were in an MDI window this would not be a problem.

Not that important to me

[Decaff]

How important are the FSF's four freedoms to you?

Not that important to be honest. I certainly like the cost aspects of 'free software', but what really concerns me is choice. I try to avoid relying on a product which has a single supplier or is not standards-compliant, even if it does meet the FSF's standards.

maybe.... balance?

[ignorant_newbie]

There are some areas which are well supplied by free software. in many of them, the free software is markedly better than the commercial competition. These seem to be things like Operating Systems and Web Servers.

Other things seem to be best supplied by the commercial market - Doom3 & the nvidia drivers that let me play it on my linux box, for example. These things are all good, and there is a place for all of them. Jumping up and down about whether they meet RMS's definition of 'Free' or not is a waste of time, imho.

Re:maybe.... balance?

[ThousandStars]

I feel the same way. I run OS X because it's a great OS that comes pre-installed on a light, powerful laptop. On it, I use commerical software like Mail.app, MSO:Mac and FCE. I also use free software like Firefox, iTerm and Cyberduck.

I also use software that doesn't fit easily into either category -- Xcode is Mac-only, yet it uses GCC. OS X itself is based on the open source Darwin kernel.

In short, I use software that makes my life easier and me more efficient. Sometimes that means proprietary software, sometimes free software. If there were a Linux distro as attractive, easy-to-use, well supported in terms of third-party apps and powerful as OS X -- and it must be all three -- I'd use it in a second. Sadly, to my knowledge that OS doesn't exist.

Tertiary Education

[krumms]

"Being Free" is even harder to do if you're studying for a degree at my university. Visual Basic 6, .NET, simple Word documents that are incompatible with OpenOffice and are unavailable in any other format, PowerPoint presentations ... the list just goes on and on.

Even with things like .NET, where there's an opportunity for them to demonstrate that building applications using .NET allows for potentially cross-platform solutions, they instead teach Windows Forms on MSVC.NET.

I mean, what's the fucking deal? We're students. We're not all living in mummy and daddy's basement, having money freely thrown at us.

Re:Tertiary Education

[Crosis]

Your university dictates which language you _have_ to use?

I just finished a Software Engineering Degree (Honours), and with the exception of first year, we could use any suitable language for the project at hand. In first year C and Java were required, but both are freely (as in beer) available.

Re:Tertiary Education

[strider44]

My comp faculty in my uni (UNSW in Sydney) is the polar opposite. It uses debian linux and pretty much nothing proprietary. I suppose it's just the choice of the admin.

Re:Tertiary Education

[DrSkwid]

So why didn't you research your course before attending ?

Re:Tertiary Education

[krumms]

Wow, sounds wonderful. I should move to Sydney.

But yes, we're restricted to specific languages for each unit. I'm on a BIT, but I'm taking an electrical engineering unit next semester and even that requires VB programming.

Queensland University of Technology students beware!

Re:Tertiary Education

[VideoJ]

For programming in VB.net, try the open source ide #develop

Re:Tertiary Education

[hdparm]

Perhaps suggestion but trust me, it's never admin's choice.

Re:Tertiary Education

[CarrionBird]

What makes you think he has a choice of courses? 75% or so or a undergrad curriculm is set in stone.

Re:Tertiary Education

[Taladar]

Our University uses Java for everything in CS. Even Pseudo-Code for Scheduling or similar low-level Code that is totally non-OO non-Garbage-Collector level in all practical systems is written in Java because they don't want to teach other languages (as in course to learn this language) and think they have to use something everyone knows.

Re:Tertiary Education

[DrSkwid]

If he didn't choose his course why is he there ?

Perhaps I have missed something about US education. Here we get to choose what we study (grades permitting).

Re:Tertiary Education

[Michael Wardle]

The basement comment implies that cost is your concern, not freedom.

A quick Google search shows that QUT is a member of the MSDN Academic Alliance, meaning that as a student you can obtain most relevant Microsoft software at no charge.

Re:Tertiary Education

[Billly Gates]

" hence the need for open file formats, when your college demands MS Word .doc files & etc... then your college is a salesman for M$FT..."

Hate to say it bust most institutions including MIT itself from what I heard are MS acedemic schools.

MS comes in and offers free .NET and MS Office software for next to nothing under the condition that its all they teach unless for some very specific courses like operating systems internals 101, etc.

Since uncle sam wants tax cuts and funding from both the local and national levels is so low many universities have no choice but to allow ms to do this to keep tuition costs low.

MS has one of the best sales teams in the world. Can't say anything else about them but they know how to sell their products.

Re:Tertiary Education

[Billly Gates]

Show me in the princeton review where programing languages of choice are listed for each college?

Its not just a school but 80% of the colleges today are Microsoft certified academic centers. Basically the schools get massive discounts if they switch all their software to .net and leave only a few courses that are unix specific out.

MS has the power to do this because they can raise the cost of MS office and Windows on each desktop if the school refuses to go along with the program.

MS loves it because it adds to the argument about TCO of Linux. After all many cs students with master degrees today have never logged into a unix box. MS products are all they know and make for future customers.

Last, many deans realize the world runs on Microsoft and this is what they will be using anyway out of college.

ALso I may add many universities have continuing education programs which include the MCSE program and MS can make quite some sweet deals if they switch their crediting programs to MS specific platforms.

Re:Tertiary Education

[mrchaotica]

MS has one of the best sales teams in the world. Can't say anything else about them but they know how to sell their products.

Yes, in the same way that the Mafia has the best negotiators in the world, because they'll break your kneecaps if you don't agree to their terms. It doesn't mean they deserve praise for it, though!

Anyway, I cannot believe that MIT would be Microsoft-only, considering all the Free stuff they've done. Also, I'm fairly certain they teach some of their courses with Scheme (at least that's what they told me in my Scheme-based CS 1321x at Georgia Tech), which is not related to Microsoft in any way.

For that matter, being a MS Academic Alliance member does not mean you have to only use Microsoft products; just tell that to Georgia Tech, with its Solaris and Red Hat (dual-boot with Windows) labs, iMacs mixed with WinXP Dells in the library, and SGI machines randomly strewn about the campus (esp. in the high-performance computing cluster). The College of Computing seems to be more UNIX-centric than otherwise, and even my physics teacher had a PowerMac and a NeXT Cube!

Now, it's true that quite a few professors use PowerPoint presentations, but usually someone in the class volunteers to convert them to PDFs, and I make it a point to try to convince the teachers to switch to a non-proprietary solution.

Re:Tertiary Education

[DrSkwid]

Show me in the princeton review where programing languages of choice are listed for each college?

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/schedule.php?d isplay_semester=fall04

Each module tutor is listed, with their telephone number and email address

you can also try contacting the Undergraduate Coordinator

* Tina McCoy: 410 CS Building, 609-258-1746, tmmccoy@cs.princeton.edu

Of course you could also VISIT the place and ask real people.

It is your future, gamble with it if you like.

Re:Tertiary Education

[CarrionBird]

I don't know about where you are, but if we're talking undergraduate, 85% of your course load is reqired stuff. Unless you're on the seven year plan :)

Free != zero cost

[Noksagt]

A dozen posts & already many that confuse no-cost software with software that you can do anything with, including viewing & modifying the source & sharing it with others.

A love for zero-cost software isn't bad. I see a lot of people coming to the F/OSS movement because of it. They could run a warez copy of Photoshop, but then they discover the GIMP. After a while, they may discover the fantastic quality of software available & may try more of it. They might discover how wonderfully helpful and intelligent the community is--they are eager to help & are eager to have you contribute back.

I probably wouldn't have started to use F/OSS if it was priced unreasonably. But now I find the other parts of freedom to be much more important. It is frustrating to find commercial software that is stagnant. Bugs are always present in any software (some of which are security vulnerabilities, some of which are just annoyances that I have run into). But with F/OSS, I can usually see if a bug has already been reported, look for solutions, or report it & wait for insight from others. I'm not much of a programmer, but I can also sometimes discover a fix myself. The frustration of not being able to have this basic ability with some nonfree software is horrid.

I recently started to contribute a small amount of money each month to software which I use every day--which I depend on for entertainment and to get my work done. Paying for free software?! Well, at least it is tax deductible & it does make me feel good.

I would definitely say that the four freedoms are more important than zero-cost.

Re:Free != zero cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't everyone state the obvious ?
With non-free software (at least, those whose most slashdoters, and the article writer refers to, ie non-free == MS,Adobe..) you have VENDOR LOCKIN, and one of the bloodiest in the world ! hell, sometimes, they even want you to change your whole operating systems ! You often can't even access your OWN data !! And the article-troll call that avoiding that at all cost is "sacrificing convenience" ?! Which planet does this consumer lives in ?

What the article say is no more than a brainless consumer slashdot-like rant

Re:Free != zero cost

[pipingguy]

With F/OSS we might be seeing a return to where we were (but with incredibly increased knowledge) before computers started taking over the workplace.

In my opinion, the software/computer invasion into the mainstream business community of about 15 years ago (I.E., use it or lose your job even if the software replacement was then crappier than what a human could do) caused many older, experienced workers to just retire and not have to worry about it. At that time, computer geeks were mysterious, stinky people with beards that worked in climate-controlled rooms and were threatening your job security. Now, so many people use computers that that threat of the unknown has largely been eliminated.

It is truly amazing what technology can do but that doesn't mean that we have to all become automatons and slaves to the machine.

Re:Free != zero cost

[Billly Gates]

Not to sound trollish but I used the gimp and then discovered the power of Photoshop warezed.

The Gimp is unusable for any real web site design work. Its missing many features and the same algorithms make poor photoquality compared to Adobe's or paintshoppro.

You lose freedom as well if FOSS does not have a good package thats as good as the alternative.

Re:Free != zero cost

[mrchaotica]

You lose freedom as well if FOSS does not have a good package thats as good as the alternative.

You lose something, but it's not freedom. Maybe it's convenience, or maybe it's value, but there's no way it could be freedom because there's no lock-in -- you're still free to switch back to the proprietary software. That may not be -- and probably isn't -- true in the other direction.

----

As an aside, the Gimp is most emphatically *NOT* unusable for "real" web site design work. Want proof? Take a look at those section icons at the top of the page, and the Slashdot logo, and then tell me that those couldn't be easily made with the Gimp. Or take a look at Google and explain how their site would be harmed if Photoshop suddenly ceased to exist. Or are Slashdot and Google not "real web sites?!"

Now I'm not trying to troll either, but unless the web site you're creating is some sort of avant-garde art project, you do not need Photoshop for the design of the site. For that matter, you do not need the Gimp! Maybe ImageMagick would be useful, but that's about it. Why? Because the goal of a web site is not for people to ooh-and-aah over how fancy it is, but for people to get the information they want as quickly as possible. If you feel like you need a fancy design for your site to be successful, you're trying to compensate for inadequate content. Fix the content, use clean, semantic markup, and organize it well, and your site will be successful -- and fancy imagemaps or graphical links or, even worse, graphical text will only decrease the usability of it and drive viewers away.

If this is a revelation you can't deal with, then you should realize that you are actually a graphic designer, not a web designer, and change mediums. Frankly, the web will be a better place without you.

And don't even get me started on Flash...!

Cost is definitely a factor for me with new apps

[PornMaster]

Lately, I've had problems that I thought could be solved by software I bought, but it simply let me down. Free as in beer is pretty important not only because of the software which is useful, but because there's no penalty when it's not.

Re:Easy Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing prevents you from rewarding the better software by donating to FSF projects.

"Free as in speech, NOT as in beer."

There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

At least as considered by any business who'd want to ingegrate anything, even as miniscule as a c file with 3 functions that calculate CRC.

What's missing is just like "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public" only the opposite -
"The freedom to improve the program, and not release your improvements to the public" (or sell said improvements to the public for profit)"

This is the issue commonly called copylefting.
What it comes down to is "Free for anyone who's part of our [opensource] club" as set forth by the GPL (If you're a Checkpoint dev, a legal obligation to release all/parts-of the source code of the product makes whatever ran you into that obligation anything but free), or "Free to anyone. Period." as set forth by X11/modified-BSD licenses. The latter offer the fifth freedom.

The obligation [e.g. lack of freedom] to integrate GPL code with [often immense] business-owned closed code serves on one hand to spur [few, IMHO] businesses to go opensource, while keeping a dark "obligation" cloud over Open Source that scares the rest away. I personally ran into this dillema at my former workplace. The result was us using BSD-licensed and commercial solutions, while [to my great dismay] avoiding GPL-code like the plague.
The LGPL is a fair compromise, unfortunately few projects use it. Sometimes you need code from a GPL app, and you're willing to wrap it in a library yourself (and offer that library's code to the public) but since the original dev never considered this and just slapped the GPL on his work, and you can't use it (whereas had he done so with LGPL, you would be able to do so).

The conclusion (which promptly earned me two flamebait mods last time I said this unliked piece of truth here) is that everything GPL is quite unfree to those [nice, evil, fill your own description] people who pay us coders our salaries and feed our families.

I, personally, as a coder who wants to tap open source where I work, would definitely like it to be otherwise. For the GNU codebase to be as legal-obligation-free and accessible as the X11-ilcensed or mod-BSD-licensed codebase (and a big thank you to anyone altruistic enough to use those licenses on his donated code).

Wishful thinking I guess...

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Noksagt]

"The freedom to improve the program, and not release your improvements to the public"

The GPL allows this.

(or sell said improvements to the public for profit)"

But not this. What incentive do people who believe in the GPL for letting you get a jump-start on a closed commercial product. Strategically useful tools are often placed under an LGPL or BSD-type license if their wide-spread adoption will help the community. But for some things, GPL authors are rightfully greedy. If I developed a free end-user application, I would very much resent it if I couldn't take advantage of someone else's improvements. No one is writing GPLed software to make it easier for you to personally make a buck off it.

The obligation [e.g. lack of freedom] to integrate GPL code with [often immense] business-owned closed code serves on one hand to spur [few, IMHO] businesses to go opensource

If businesses have immense closed code, they have the resources to generate more of it themselves. How would GPLed code help both them and the F/OSS community?

What you see as lack of freedom I see as freedom: users are GUARANTEED the improvements made by others!

but since the original dev never considered this and just slapped the GPL on his work, and you can't use it (whereas had he done so with LGPL, you would be able to do so).

Contact the developer. He may relicense it to you. Since you are selling it, you might want to/have to compensate him financially for a license.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

0. Calm down. Your contribution shouldn't cost you your health.
1. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.
2. I [as a coder who is a paid representative of my employer] would greatly like to use your contribution, free, as you intended.
3. As far as my employer is concerned, your contribution, as useful as it is, is not worth GPL-stamping [e.g. opensourcing] 2 million lines of source, millions of dollars he invested into of engineer time, into a product with a competing edge, which is keeping his business afloat. Asking this of my employer, be it fair or not in your view, is unrealistic. He will not commit financial suicide for you. Don't take that as an insult, you wouldn't commit suicide for me either, even if I donated something to you, and I'm perfectly okay with that.
4. The LGPL allows me to take your code, wrap it in a library, and opensource the code of that library alone, not everything [i.e. my employer's entire product] that links to it. My employer uses, My employer gives something [albeit not his head on a silver platter] back to the community. This is what I referred to as fair and compromise.
>> "What do "fair" and "compromise" mean on your planet?"
Does your planet have this thing called "Economy", "Businesses" and "Programmers who have children to feed and thus need an employer to pay them a salary"? Mine does.
5. Being able to use your contribution with no strings attached is what makes your contribution free to him, as opposed to costing him something (even if you view that as free because what he pays never reaches your pocket). The term free [as in beer] is not a result of what you get. It's a result of what it costs him.

Which brings me back to my original post - GPL is free to any members of the OS club. X11/BSD is free to everyone, closed-source software businesses (with which one or two slashdotters may have crossed paths during their careers) as well. And it's you, the contributer, who decides who you want to share with.

Think of a TV ad saying "X if FREE, if only you join our club (which promptly costs money to anyone who's, say, asian)".
Free, eh?

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Noksagt]

(or sell said improvements to the public for profit)"

To be more accurate: the GPL DOES allow this...it just forces you to make that software you sell Free (as in Freedom). But this wasn't the kind of thing you were arguing about the right for.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

Taking a competitive/unique product from a closed-source business model to an open source one != free.

Yes, the organizations you mentioned do this. Some, like RH, built around it from day one, others, like all the UNIX vendors you mentioned, did it out of a lack of choice, where continuing to compete with the OS world simply started costing them too much, so they went to "If you can't beat them, join them". All the ones you mentioned are the ones who found alternate sources of income. Don't forget the ones that know they don't (but for whose competing products the OS community still has no equivalent, thus their existing and only income is not in any immediate danger. GPL is only available to them through suicide.

RH sells service. IBM sell HW and service, as do SUN, SGI, HP etc. NOKIA sells phones.
Not all companies, and not all software, can be marketed as a service like a UNIX system can. Not all sell hardware like Nokia. Without the ability to market the software itself, what do you expect a software company to sell?

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

Here's an example for you.

A [quite real] company called Qualystem makes a network-boot suite that allows you to boot Windows XP clients off a UNIX/Linux-based server.

There is no opensource alternative for their product. This is said to emphasize there is neither something wrong with their business model, nor are they on the verge of drowning under free&better OS alternatives like traditional UNIX operating systems or products with opensource counterparts are.
Their business relies SOLELY on selling software. Not service. Not hardware. Just software.

Such a company cannot use so much as a line of GPL code without legally binding themselves to commit suicide, hence for them GPL != free. For them, GPL is the most expensive thing in the world.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[DrSkwid]

So you want to take my GPL software, incorporate it into your closed source project and sell it back to me ?

And because you can't to this you are complaing that the GPL is your enemy ?

well thank fuck for the GPL !!!!!

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[marcosdumay]

Well, if I give my code for free for you, and you improve it, I don't want to have to pay for your improvement (did you pay for the code?). Also, I dont want you taking my application and releasing a closed one with a single feature added and shrink my user base.
That's why I like GPL. And you are not forced to redistribute your code, you can keep it in secret if it's too important.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[BJH]

Did you ever consider that the company should just stop being lazy and write that 0.01% of their product themself?

Every time I see this argument ("But the company put a lot of their own work into the product too, honest!"), I think "Then why are they trying to be such cheapass bastards and cheat somebody else out of their work?"

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[DrSkwid]

okay, I would like 0.01% of the revenue then please ?

Sorry your argument still just doesn't cut it.

If it's 0.01% of the code and it's so trivial why didn't they write it.

If it's so un-trivial then I would like recompense. The recompense I have offered the is GPL release of your code should you distribute it.

They are my terms, like or lump!

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[ThousandStars]

As I understand it, if you're only using a program in your organization, the GPL allows you not to share the source code you write. It's only when you distribute the program outside your organization that you have to share the code.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Antique Geekmeister]

I know several such available open source systems. I've been involved in running them. Don't believe everything you read from a vendor.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[zotz]

seems to me, people who want the 5th freedom you mention care about their freedom to the detriment of my freedom.

good luck getting me to buy that line.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Daengbo]

That would be
(xor sell said improvements to the public for profit)

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

Not at all, my flamebaiting friend.
A. The business in question pays quite a few coders. It is nothing even remotely close to the parasite you're implying.
It is attempting to achieve the best product offering by tapping into external already-invented wheels there's no need to reinvent, whether through purchased SDKs or open source where licensing allows, and internal coding for the rest (which promptly constitutes about 90% of the product anyway). This is much smarter than writing everything yourself, and had you inherited this business tomorrow, you would be making exactly the same decisions. The particular product in question does not allow for selling service, and this software is the source of this business's revenue. I doubt whether you'd shut down your own successful (albeit due to not being opensource) business. Don't expect others to.

B. "You take the bread out of their mouths..."
That's a totally idiotic claim to make. Said BSD coders willingly contributed their code for this exact kind of use by having the license they chose allow for this.

C. "...and then whine and moan that more people ought to be donating all their hard work to the purpose of your profitability"
I don't believe I ever said anybody 'aught' to be donating anything. I believe in people getting paid, and I greatly respect people who give (because they want to, not because someone thinks they 'aught' to), whether it's code to GNU or money to a charity. When I donate money, the thing that really annoys me is people who think I 'aught' to.
I merely pointed out that what is marketed as Free by the GPL is quite unfree to a specific group of people (which you seem religiously keen on demonizing) whereas an otherwise compatible license such as the X11/BSD one *is* indeed free to them. I also pointed out these people are not bad people, and their profit is crucial to programmers (including said contributers) getting paid hard cash at the end of the month. By clearly being ignorant to this connection, I'd probbably be safe to assume you don't get paid to code. That, in turn, gives you very little moral right to pass judgement the way you do.

D. "I've got news for you: Your company is dead and doesn't know it yet."
You're probbably right. But hery, you and I will someday both be dead as well. This does NOT, however, imply you should run to the kitchen, stick that double-barrel in your mouth and pump your skull full of lead now, should it? Neither sholuld a closed-source company that is currently making a profit rid itself of its ability to make money just because there of a possible impending doom somewhere along its future. For many companies, the one in question among them, there is yet plenty of time to adjust to new business models.

About the scumbag bit, I'd say you're the biggest unemployed hypocrite I've met on slashdot yet.
Had you been employed (and looking after your employers interests), you'd be singing a very different song.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MrWim]

So you're missing the freedom to take away others freedom?

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

No you don't, and you'd make me very happy if I'm wrong about this and you actually do. Pray tell.

Show me ONE piece of open-source that offers a WinNT storage driver (the kind you put in when pressing F6 while installing Win2K/XP), which maps the system drive on the MS box to a UNIX SAMBA share, TFTP server, NFS server, or any other network-shared resource. In fact, the only competition they've got is BXP, also a commercial product, only they use a generic MS-only fileserver, whereas Qualystem LAN-PC3 work on any UNIX as their server.

The only thing you might be aware of is doing so using DOS SMB drivers for Win9x, much like old Novell systems. As you might or might not be aware, NT does not run over DOS.

You're right not to trust vendors, but my information comes from my own [5-month-old] research, not from vendor marketing.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

No.
First, your point is valid, there is not and cannot be an absolute freedom. The BSD license is also limiting to an extent. I cannot claim I wrote the code for instance. I cannot prevent the author from continuing to give it out for free, even if I relicense the same code and sell it.

For myself, I'm not implying anything other that I'm personally greatly appreciative of having an opensource package called "unzip" with a BSD license, which saved me the need to waste 2 months trying to figure out and implement ZIP compression.

I am implying that for my [now-ex] employer, or the example of Qualystem (which I chose for the exmaple simply because I know their software doesn't have an opensource equivalent) GPL is not free as in beer. For them this is the difference between having something people are willing to pay for and not having it, thus the implications of using GPL cost horrendous amounts of money.

I am using the X11/BSD license as a reference point, as they provide similar opensource contributions, only without the unrealistic pricetag designed to wage war on closed-source companies.

This can, I guess, be somehow regarded as a 'Free as in speech' issue (Is my employer free to use the code for his purpose or not?) as well, but the real issue here is money, so I guess the easy way to look at it is the beer context.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[opqdonut]

Such a company cannot use so much as a line of GPL code without legally binding themselves to commit suicide, hence for them GPL != free. For them, GPL is the most expensive thing in the world.

The GPL is free as in freedom not free as in beer. True, the company can't use GPL in their current bussiness model and nobody is forcing them to use it! Software companies managed to do their own coding even before free software became so widely known and used.

However, from your description I'd say that the company could perfectly well use a support bussiness model. Their primary clients are probably bussinesses (and not individuals) which usually want a support contract with their software. Software is (usually) sold only once, but support contracts continue as long as the software is used. The software also sounds like it sometimes needs per client customization: opening the source will enable the clients themselves to do these modifications, which improves the software and saves Qualystem the expense of making it theirselves (they could also charge for customizations the clients can't do themselves).

This is just another example, though. I know nothing of the actual company itself.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[IO ERROR]

Did you ever consider that most of us who just "slap the GPL on" our code don't want businesses swiping our code and integrating it into proprietary products? If the idea of your code winding up in the next version of Windows, with no compensation or credit to you, doesn't bother you, then fine, the BSD license is for you. However, if a company wants to use my code in a proprietary product, they're going to have to come to me for a commercial license. And bring their checkbook.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[GreyWolf3000]

Advocates of FOSS software believe that the entire business model of the proprietary software shop hinges upon selling software that restricts people's freedoms.

In the future, as the FOSS movement grows and gains momentum, I believe that hardware and support shops will wipe software shops clean by simply bundling FOSS software as part of the support contract.

I'm not suggesting you quit your job (what idiot would listen to me?)--this won't happen for a while. What I do want to impart you with is how much FOSS advocates hate businesses like yours, because they cannot make a dime without peddling software that inhibits the freedoms of users.

It's no small wonder why it's hard for you to use GPL'ed software in your product--it is businesses like yours the GPL is designed to fight!

Say I'm IBM and I sign on 10 support contracts in 2005. They all want Linux on the desktop, but they need some sort of alternative to some proprietary, Windows only software, let's call it TurboFoo. IBM does a quick freshmeat search and finds a GPL'ed alternative called FreeFoo which runs on Linux. Better yet, IBM is planning on deploying Gnome 2.8, and FreeFoo is built on top of Gnome. The only problem with FreeFoo is that it's currently in Beta, and, from correspondence with future clients, IBM realizes that FreeFoo needs some bug fixing and an enlarged featureset.

The work required to get FreeFoo up to snuff would take 6 programmers 2 months. If IBM paid each one 10,000 dollars a month (after benefits), then hiring the in-house development team would cost IBM 240,000 dollars. Of course, IBM would probably keep most of them on full time to keep up the support of FreeFoo as many more clients will use it, but going on with this hypothetical, if IBM is getting, on average, 90,000 dollars a month in support from each of the 10 clients, then both IBM and the clients who would have to spend hundreds of thousands on software apiece will see an ROI in just the first month!

This is why I think FOSS is the way of the future.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Sri Lumpa]

Saying that the BSD/X11/... licenses are more free than the GPL is true but so would it to say that a country in which you can enslave people by the same reasoning. After all, in the US today it is illegal to enslave people whereas just two century ago Americans were Free to do so. So the US 200 years ago were a freer country (in that respect) than the US today, don't you agree?

I know that People and source code are nowhere near the same thing but the question is what kind of society do we want to live in? One in which everybody is free to do anything (including enslaving, killing, stealing...) or one in which there are some limits placed on the Freedom of everyone to ensure everyone's remaining Freedoms?

I think that most people would prefer the latter (and the reaction to 2001/09/11 seems to confirm it for the US).

This of course lead to the question of how much Freedom should we give up to protect the remaining ones.

You think that giving up the Freedom to enslave other people's source code is giving up too much whereas the Copyleft camp thinks that's the right balance.

I tend to fall in the copyleft camp as if the benefit that your employer gets from GPL'd programs is not significant enough to justify GPL'in his application when he distribute the two combine then it must be small enough (compared to his application) not to be a problem for him to develop it himself (with inspiration from the GPL's program too as the GPL doesn't control ideas (patents do), just their expression) and if the contribution is significant enough in the hypothetical combined software then who is he to say that he should get that huge benefit but that we shouldn't get any benefit from it but the dubious right to pay him more money to use what was free to start with?

You are right that Copyleft is a club, but so is Proprietary software (or at least a multitude of little clubs). copyleft is just a way to avoid getting ripped of by the other club owners.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Taladar]

The way I see it you have a point in calling GPL non-free for companies who want to link it to code they don't want to open.

However the way I see it for the rest of the world BSD is code that gets only improved by individuals in their free time and a few companies with something like a conscience and GPL code gets improved by everyone changing something in it which seem to be more people at the current situation.

This means GPL is better for the code quality and feature-set while BSD allows more people to use the code but leads to slower/less development.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[ChristTrekker]

I don't know if this is a completely accurate synopsis of the GPL vs BSD licenses, but it's useful shorthand for me:

• GPL gives freedom to code.
• BSD gives freedom to people.

I don't know about you, but I think freedom for people is more important. Some people abuse freedom, but I'm not convinced it's my place to take freedom away on those grounds.

That said, I do think that there are useful places for GPL.

Now watch me get modded down into oblivion...

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[minkwe]

OK. Freedom does not mean "lack of restraint to do my own thing". Freedom comes with responsibilities. Freedom does not mean rights (which the article author does not seem to figure). One man's freedom ends where another's freedom begins.

The term "Free Software" describes the software not the person using it. Are you trying to say that so long as I'm not free to take away the freedom of my customers, I'm not free at all?

If the company does what you want them to do, the software stops being free. Which means the users' freedoms will be violated. It is about the software remember.

So this company is free to use GPL'd code. They are also free to choose not to use GPL'd code. But they are not free to take away the freedoms of those who will ultimately use the sofware. If their business involves taking away peoples freedoms, then "Free software" is not for them. Get it?

By your reasoning, a pedophile can complain that their freedom to do what they like to do with children should not be limitted.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, no. GPL is free only to other members of the GPL club. It's not free to any other OS club. FreeBSD members, despite being "Free Software" by the FSF's rules, cannot use it in their own works.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Ambassador Kosh]

There is a simple way to to deal with this. If the project is so small that it makes up such a tiny ammount of code then contact the author or small group of authors and offer money in exchange for a different license. There are many examples of stuff under multiple licnses. Look at qt, mysql etc.

Even if some library from another vendor would make up .01% of the code in the product that does not give you the right to take it. You can pay them for it but you can't take it. Just because something makes up a small part of the project does not give you the right to take it and just because something is gpl it does not make it any different then a proprietary library. They both have conditions and if you don't like those conditions you negotiate for better ones. If you can't get better ones then you rewrite it or find someone else that will license it to you in a way you find appropriate.

I get sick and tired of this crap about the gpl. So many argue that they should be able to just take it and use it for whatever they want and because they can't that is force. However they NEVER say the same thing about a proprietary product. You don't go to oracle and take some of their libs to use in your product without following their license terms even if it makes up .01% of your product. So if it is not right in the oracle case then it is not right in the gpl case.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[spitzak]

Okay, name the GPL code you really really wanted to use but you couldn't. Don't say "linux". NAME THE PRECISE MODULE YOU INVESTIGATED AND WERE DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU COULD NOT USE. And it had better be real GPL and not something you "accidentally" did not realize was BSD or LGPL.

If you don't do this then I will conclude that you are talking out of your ass. Tons and tons of posts from people like you who just want to say "the GPL is bad" without giving an actual example.

And don't say "readline". Everybody says that, but I have NEVER seen a commercial application use "readline" or anything like it. In case you don't know, readline is for running applications in a terminal and taking commands from stdin.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[mrroach]

> The obligation [e.g. lack of freedom] to integrate
> GPL code with [often immense] business-owned
> closed code serves on one hand to spur [few, IMHO]
> businesses to go opensource, while keeping a dark
> "obligation" cloud over Open Source that scares
> the rest away.

It depends, was this software for internal use? If you are not distributing the software, you do not even have to accept the GPL license. As a user, you are free to link GPL-licensed code against anything you like.

-Mark

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[HiThere]

The GPL terms are the GPL terms. It is, in some senses, free. It is not gratis, but libre. It doesn't matter that you might want things differently, but may I suggest that you start from BSD code instead of GPL code. The BSD people are sympathetic to your viewpoint.

Unfortunately "Liberty Software" doesn't work as an English word formation, but you have misunderstood what the word "Free" means in the term "Free Software". Think of it as an abbreviation of "Freedom Software" if that makes things easier for you.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[jmorris42]

> Such a company cannot use so much as a line of GPL code without legally
> binding themselves to commit suicide, hence for them GPL != free.

Shocking that such ignorance still exists about the use of GPL code. Back when NT had a POSIX subsystem Microsoft distributed the entire GNU toolchain for it on the SDK CD-ROM rather than reinvent the wheel for a product that didn't actually care about. So they included the source, including the small alterations they made to get it to run on NT and were totally in compliance with the GPL. Note that they did not have to release the entire Windows NT source tree, only the GNU software they were redistributing.

So long as you do not comingle GPL code with your own you are free to make use of it in your business and can even make some serious coin at it. But this is no different than any other software. For example if you had a copy of the Windows source tree and comingled that code with your product you would be breaking the law equally as if you stole GNU code. The difference is Microsoft wouldn't be interested in the sort of peaceful settlement the normally FSF negotiates.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[HiThere]

Sounds like GPL software isn't for you -- as a component. But I'll keep using it.

There's a big difference, however, between using code and including it in your products. You may still find GPL software useful. You just can't include it. (OTOH, if you don't find it useful, that's ok too.)

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

So you want to use someone else work for free, but prohibit others from using your work for free.

Isn't that a bit one-sided?

The GPL says to have to offer your work on the same terms that the work on which you based your work was offered to you.

Sounds fair.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

even if you view that as free because what he pays never reaches your pocket

So true. In many cases, proprietary licenses or in-house development may be far cheaper economically than a share-alike license such as the GPL.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

cabextract for a product that needed cab extraction capability.

Was written as a CLI utility, and I'd have gladly wrapped in a library and had my employer contribute the code in that library.

We'd also have a libcab on Freshmeat today had it been LGPL'd.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

No, it was very much to be used in a commercial product distributed for profit.
It was also a negligible part of the entire product, and opensourcing the product due to using whatever small GPL modules was unrealistic.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[smithmc]

The GPL allows this... "(or sell said improvements to the public for profit)"... But not this.

Sure it does. You can sell GPL software. But you have to make the source for that software available to anyone who buys it from you. The same is true if you take existing GPL software and modify it. This is only fair. Why should you be entitled to take some free software, and then modify it and make a profit off the backs off the developers who made it possible for you to do so? If you don't agree, then don't use GPL software as the basis for your own work, then you can license your work any way you want.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

Your definition of free is thus so vague as to where it starts and where it ends that it's meaningless.

I could [somewhat sarcastically] argue Microsoft is free because you have the freedom to purchase their products.

In reality freedom (liber, as in speech) is a scalar, not a boolean. It's not so much free/unfree as it is 'how free?'.
GPL offers significantly more freedom than a purchased MS prooduct, while for those who need even more freedom (namely software dev companies) LGPL-licensed-code offers that extra they need in order to be able to use it, and BSD/X11 offers even more, though the bit they need lies in the GPLLGPL delta.

As for where one man's freedom ends and another begins, I'm a bit vague. You're implying the contributer gets more freedom by pegging GPL on his contirbution than by pegging LGPL. I beg to differ. He gets no extra freedom by forcing whoever uses his contribution to publish everything compiled/linked with it. By minimuzing this to 'everything compiled with it' he'd be getting a significantly larger userbase (coming from the corporate side), and raking in more contributions from that side by giving them a realistic price they'd gladly pay (read: contribute back), as opposed to putting an infinite pricetag and scaring most of them away.

GPL is about the freedom to use contributions to wage an ideological war on those who pay programmers. Had the entire GPL codebase been LGPL'd, it would have let the closed-source world both use and contribute back in a non-suicidal way, and IMHO would have served itself better. This war only feeds the ideologists.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[MikShapi]

>>So long as you do not comingle GPL code with your own you are free to make use of it in your business and can even make some serious coin at it.

It's you who is ignorant my friend. What you're talking about is called LGPL, not GPL. GPL applies to linked code as well, which is what makes it unuseable.

I suggest you take the time to read up.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[FunkyChild]

This is why I think FOSS is the way of the future.

Well, that's if your future only includes enormous companies the size of IBM selling support services to customers for $90k a month. That business model doesn't leave nearly as much room for a small or even mid sized operations.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[GreyWolf3000]

Quite the contrary. The smaller the business, however, the less extra capital I have lying around to invest in writing/improving software. There are still plenty of businesses in the small-mid sized support sector that will either roll out vanilla Windows XP installs or roll out Linux.

They're going to be less able to handle some of the more demanding needs of certain clients, but I think the solution is to pick out a sector, say small real estate firms, and work on tailoring their deployments for that group.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[DrSkwid]

blah blah blah

Now tell me your GPL is more free than the BSD license.

who says it is, certainly not me ?

He's complaining that he doesn't like the fee for my code. That fee is that he gives me access to the source code of his derived work, should I want to buy the binary from him.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[spitzak]

Um, reading the home page, I see this in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH:

It is based on the portable LGPL libmspack library. cabextract supports all special features and all compression formats of Microsoft cabinet files.

But you are probably right that some useful code is in this GPL program. However I know exactly why they made it GPL, to discourage use of a proprietary Microsoft format. The fact that you were unable to make your software means the writers of this achieved exactly what they wanted to, and I am not going to cry for you, the world is much better off without your non-GPL code for reading Microsoft's stuff. Try learning how to read/write a portable format, which you will notice is all under LGPL or freer licenses.

Re:There's a missing fifth fundamental freedom

[ChristTrekker]

Exactly my point. With GPL, the code is "free" whatever that means...people are actually restricted in what they can do with it in order to keep the code "free".

Cheap.

[BrookHarty]

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price.

Liberty a word you dont hear often enough, reminds me of a qoute.

No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. - Judge Gideon J. Tucker

Try applying those 4 rules of free software to your life, and realize how many freedoms you dont have.
-
You cant spank a 12 year old, but you can sentance him to death.

One could say ...

[Evil Pete]

... that if some lowlife owns my box and turns it into a spam source, then the value of my PC is being maximised (it certainly isn't being underutilised).

Please define the criteria for 'maximised' then we can talk about it.

Personally, I don't mind that my linux partitions can't do everything (like run ActiveX ... something I err really need) or that I deliberately turn off Flash. Is a server sitting in the corner being 'maximised' if it isn't playing MP3s and showing DVD movies?

Legislate free software into and out of existence?

[DingerX]

Sure, we can all debate the relative merits of GIMP and Photoshop's interfaces, the joys of flash and brew, but the article points why the current environment is unfavorable to free software. It's not so much that commercial software is superior; rather, the freedoms are, in the current environment, irrelevant. Free software only becomes viable when all users are forced to pay for commercial software; that is, when those freedoms (or at least the first three) are enforced across the board. Sticking with the photoshop example, I'm sure there are tons of semi-legitimate and pirated copies of photoshop sitting on people's computers doing relatively simple tasks that could be done just as easily as with GIMP. Let's say Adobe finds a way to shut down all those non-revenue-generating copies. What happens? Maybe Adobe will see a little more revenue. More likely, the the user base of GIMP will increase one hundred fold. Suddenly those freedoms are more than hollow idealism in a pragmatic world, but actually mean something. More users mean more development. Then your Open Source Worker's Paradise is fast becoming a reality. ...and that's when Microsoft forms a coalition with software publishers to build in a costly DRM system that requires every software product to be encrypted to an individual machine in order to work. What do you want to pay today?

about that dreamweaver comment from article

[hitmark]

a frind of mine would say that if you need more then a ascii text editor and a graphics app to make a webpage then your in deep trouble. but then he makes the pages useing php and a database for the backend and dynamicly changeing html and css for the frontend. no flash, no other stuff that needs a plugin, and those sites are damn nice ;)

Re:about that dreamweaver comment from article

[TyrionEagle]

At my company we work the same way, but we use Photoshop and UltraEdit.

GIMP doesn't come close to Photoshop for images, plus our designer has been using it since V1, so he'd need a huge period of re-training to be able to use anything else.

As to Text editors, if anybody can point me to a FOSS editor that comes close to UltraEdit, please do. We've evaluated loads and the closest we've come for our needs is JEdit, but that doesn't do everything. Please don't reply unless your proposed editor has column mode that works like in UE, including automatic numbering and multi-line text entry.

Re:about that dreamweaver comment from article

[BJH]

Please don't reply unless your proposed editor has column mode that works like in UE, including automatic numbering and multi-line text entry.

Sounds like you've already decided what you want to use, and you're just trying to get other people to tell you you've made the right choice.

It's like saying, "I'd use another word processor instead of Word, as long as it had exactly the same icon layout, and that button on the text properties dialogue is 13 pixels from the top, like it is in Word."

Re:about that dreamweaver comment from article

[TyrionEagle]

Not really, we've decoded on the features that we want to use, basically because they are extremely time saving for our work.

If a FOSS editor had the same features, we'd switch. Our text editor is one of the two things keeping us on Windows desktops for the programmers.

Free as in...

[burtonator]

What about the 5th Freedom?

Free as in $29.95 ....

Seriously though.. I've made a lot of money selling (my) Free Software for $29.95...

I just had the source in CVS. If you were smart enough to checkout via anoncvs and to the build yourself that was fine.

If you needed help and wanted a really nice installer it cost you $29.95...

This let me work on my little project full time which then turned into a company.

We're 7 people now :)

Re:Free as in...

[Ferretski]

But are you fine with someone logging in, downloading the source, setting up their own anon cvs, and selling your software for $20.00 in their own nice installer?

The problem is that by selling your software you're setting up an expectation that you'll be able to make money from the fruits of your labour, and may feel hard done by if other people capitalise on your hard work like that.

On the other hand if you gave the software away, there is no incentive for people to get the software from anywhere else, and this situation is unlikely to occur.

Re:Free as in...

[anpe]

Do you mind giving your soft name? I'm curious about what kind of product could be sold in such a way.

Re:Free as in...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

If you were smart enough to checkout via anoncvs and to the build yourself that was fine.

I don't think that meets the standards for free software. You have to actually tell your users that they can get the source, and how to get it. It's not enough that it's possible if they happen to know that you have the code in cvs, and that it's accessible from the internet, and that you allow anonymous access.

Re:Free as in...

[GoofyBoy]

Specifically, how does this fail in terms of being Free?

Re:Free as in...

[QuantumG]

You have to supply a written offer to supply the exact source code for *that release* of the program. If you don't, how do I know that your binary only release doesn't include some "special" functionality that my compiled version can not modify?

Re:Free as in...

[NardofDoom]

You're not selling the software then. You're selling the fact that it's in a neat little package that you'll support. Kinda like Red Hat or SUSE.

Re:Free as in...

[Taladar]

Provided the license does not contain anything that makes checking out the code via anoncvs illegal it is free software, not the best kind, but definitely free software.

Re:Free as in...

[GoofyBoy]

The person in question is doing that.

Its just not "obvious" on how to access that code.

Re:Free as in...

[mcrbids]

As a software vendor myself, I'm curious - what do you sell? What's your company? Estimated install base?

Re:Free as in...

[Sloppy]

You have to actually tell your users that they can get the source

Yeah, but by then, they have already paid you. And the answer to "where do I get the source?" is: "It's in this directory right here on your hard disk."

Re:Free as in...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

29.95 is likely too cheap to sell software at. Raise the price to at least 39.95 or even 49,95 or 99.95 (depending on what it is) and you'll likely get MORE customers, since they'll think it is better.

The demand curve slopes in a paradoxical direction for software in certain price ranges.

Re:I am so sick of this crap

[polyp2000]

Im going to bite this troll...

Simply by saying that you probably dont realise quite how much influence free software is changing the world its not some small bunch of hippies with some ideal to legalise pot. If free software and those that extoll the virtues of it did not exist your world would probably be very different. Have you ever used google ? have you ever looked at a website running on linux/bsd/apache ? ever downloaded a bittorrent file? or ripped a dvd?

The chances are that you have - and all of these things were made possible to you by people excercising their right to create, use and modify free software.

Free software people dont "want" to change the world, they "are" changing the world - and the chances are my friend that you have benefitted from it in many many ways. And ask yourself this question ... what about all those developing countries who are choosing Linux/FOSS are they and their people not going to benefit directly or indirectly from the fact that their goverments have less ties with redmond in america?

Ridiculous

[phr1]

There is no fundamental right to prevent the public from sharing something that you've published. There's a body of law called copyright for doing that, but it's not a fundamental right, it's just an artificial government intervention that people decided to authorize in order to create an incentive for authors to publish. Some people with an overactive sense of entitlement think that copyright is a fundamental right, but that's simply not recognized by history by the law, and any theories grounded on assuming such a right exists are simply hogwash. Without the intervention, perhaps less stuff would get written, and even less stuff would get published, but life would generally go on just fine. For more info, see the book Free Culture (text downloadable from link) by FSF board member Prof. Lawrence Lessig.

The people at your former workplace did exactly the right thing by avoiding GPL code. I'm sure you would say people not willing to honor the terms of your company's licenses (i.e. no sharing, pay for each copy, etc). should not use your company's code. So I don't see why you have trouble with the notion that people not wanting to honor the GPL's terms shouldn't use GPL code.

I myself write closed source code sometimes, but I expect to get paid for doing it. When I write code as a volunteer, it's GPL. I don't see why I should want to do development for your closed source product so you can get money for shipping my code, unless I'm getting some of that money myself. If you want to use the closed source policies to charge people to use code, write the code yourself or pay someone to write it. In wanting to use GPL code in closed source products, it sounds to me like you're just a freeloader looking for a handout.

Re:Ridiculous

[phr1]

Well, I'm similarly not free to hit people over the head on the street and take their wallets, but that's not what we usually mean by freedom.

Re:Ridiculous

[zotz]

Wrong - just people who are ignorant or want to play ignorant of the difference between libre and gratis.

America - the land of the free - but wait, you have to pay taxes so it can't be the land of the free. On top of that the food and the housing are not free either - definately not the land of the free.

You see why I mention the ignorance or fiegned ignorance of free(libre) versus free(gratis) - I don't know how any regular slashdot user could actually be ignorant of this matter but I am willing to admit the possibility.

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[stony3k]

I think most of us have forgotten that it took great sacrifices by our ancestors to get the freedoms (in society) that we currently enjoy.
I would argue that without sacrifices we cannot achieve freedom. It seems to me that the sacrifices the FSF are asking us to make are significantly less than those made by our ancestors.
That said, I do agree with the basic premise of the article that we often need to use proprietary software to achieve our needs. The solution is better free software - not giving up the fight.

Exactly

[wirelessbuzzers]

The goal of the GPL is to make all software free.

The goal of the BSD license is to make all software better.

Re:Exactly

[Trillan]

Wow. Great summary.

Re:Exactly

[advocate_one]

The goal of the BSD license is to make all software better.

But it doesn't... say you've written a program and BSD licensed it... someone else takes your code, fixes some bugs you weren't aware of, makes improvements to it and sells the result under a closed source license... how the f do you get those bugfixes and improvements back into your own program now... they're under absolutely NO obligation to put their improvements back into the common pot. Those who persist in advocating the BSD license are fools... why else do you think Microsoft loves BSD and hates the GPL so much...

By the way, the goal of the GPL isn't to make ALL software free, it's to ensure that code released under it's terms remains available for improvement and that all improvements to it are put back into the common pot.

Re:Exactly

[petrus4]

>how the f do you get those bugfixes and
>improvements back into your own program now...
>they're under absolutely NO obligation to put their
>improvements back into the common pot.

This however is the point that the GNU Marxist Brigade seem to keep missing. The definition of freedom is being able to choose *whether* you put improvements back into "the common pot" or *not*.

Also...in terms of Microsloth loving the BSD license, so the hell what? If they appropriated BSD code it'd be the best thing they could do as far as fixing a lot of Windows' problems is concerned. Bill can go and download a copy of one of the BSDs and do whatever the heck he wants with it, same as anybody else. Again, the other point you're missing here is that the parent code tree is still there. Bill can fork it, you can fork it, I can fork it...then we can sell said forks and profit. You can cry about duplication of effort as much as you want, in terms of us writing the same code over and over again...there's no compulsion for that to happen, because people can still *choose* to release improvements, as many do. So that still should not give anyone the right to *force* people to submit improvements. Freedom should be about freedom to choose...Not freedom to only do as RMS dictates.

That is another thing that really annoys me about RMS...His argument with regards to the BSD license uses scarcity thinking and is completely broken, but yet of course unthinking sheeple such as yourself swallow it whole.

Re:Exactly

[advocate_one]

I far rather be a GNU "marxist" than a BSD fool

Re:Exactly

[HiThere]

Try the GNU proprietarian brigade. Our software is our property. We are willing to share it on OUR terms. If you don't like them, use someone else for a starter.

I think that's simple enough. The GPL is about property...the protection of the property of individuals, while still letting them share it. (The BSD is also about this...but disagrees about the details of what terms they are willing to share on. They are much more liberal and open, where we tend to be more conservative and protective towards our code.)

In an ideal world, perhaps, the GPL and the BSD would be essentially equivalent. But perhaps not. It's quite plausible that specialized niches can only be developed via closed source licenses. OTOH, it's at least equally plausible that it can only be developed via a bespoke programming approach, which says nothing about the license that's used. And in any such world there would always be differences between the GPL and the BSD.

OTOH, I will never consider the existence of large organizations like MS to be a social good. If we must have a government, then let us only have such behemoths as a part of the government. And even so I question the desireability of the organizational unit being so large. There does need to be a coordinating agency, but I question as to the need for a large coercive coordinating agency. The carrot rather than the stick will usually suffice (granted, one may need to cut back a bit on the hay, in order to make the carrot more enticing). (OTOH, I'm not proposing the withholding of the carrot, as in the cartoons.)

But excessive centralization is, AFAICT, without exception the source of corruption and evil. I don't mean by this that unplanned decentralization is good. I take my model from the early internet, before ICANN. Structured decentralized control.

Re:Exactly

[wirelessbuzzers]

But it doesn't... say you've written a program and BSD licensed it... someone else takes your code, fixes some bugs you weren't aware of, makes improvements to it and sells the result under a closed source license... how the f do you get those bugfixes and improvements back into your own program now... they're under absolutely NO obligation to put their improvements back into the common pot. Those who persist in advocating the BSD license are fools... why else do you think Microsoft loves BSD and hates the GPL so much...

Most companies are interested in remaining competitive, in having their product dominate or at least compete in the market. Note that it is the success of their product they are interested in, not their technology; they would rather their technology remain in their product alone, instead of flourishing in the hands of their competition. To secure this technological edge, they need to release their work in a closed-source or otherwise semi-free or non-free form. Otherwise they will only make money on support and not on licensing of technology, which for many companies would be a ruinous drop in revenue.

Furthermore, for internal products, most companies would rather have the option of re-using the libraries or modules in proprietary outside products should they prove useful. For this reason, they would rather not encumber any of their IP with GPL restrictions. Thus Microsoft hates the GPL, or at least refuses to use GPLed libraries, for fear of encumbering useful code, thereby wasting programmer time on software which cannot be profitably released.

The upshot is that even an excellent piece of GPLed software will be passed up in favor of an inferior internal rewrite or BSD-licensed piece. Look what happened to Mac OS X: Apple could not have incorporated a Linux kernel or API the way they incorporated the FreeBSD API, because it is not free enough to be linked with Mach or with their proprietary improvements.

Even within Open Source projects, the encumbering nature of the GPL is a problem: as Mozilla is available under a BSD license as well as GPL, Konqueror can take patches from it but not vice-versa.

I certainly like the GPL, and contribute to GPL projects, but I recognize that in many cases, a greater gain for the universe of software (free and non-free) can be had by releasing software under a BSD license or even into the public domain. The best of both worlds is available, too: one can release code into the public domain or under a BSD license, and also link it into a GPL project under the GPL.

Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I agree whole heartedly that GIMP in no way can compete with Photoshop's features, nor is there any HTML program that can compete with Dreamweaver (maybe HTML-Kit but even that is Windows-only, even though it's free).

Those aside, I disagree because in most of my day to day activity, free, even open-source programs are not just cheaper (free) but better than the proprietary. Here's a few:

Operating System: BSD and Linux, much better and secure than Windows. More features (bash, gcc), less "features" (Windows Update, Internet Explorer). Hell, even Darwin, an open-source component of a proprietary OS (Mac) is a better kernel than NT.

Word Processing - AbiWord, in my opinion, much better than MS Word. AbiWord in fact looks/acts more like the classic (98, 2000) versions of MS Word than the current MS Words act like.

Music - XMMS (WinAMP on Windows), is there even a comparison to Windows Media Player here?

Video - MPlayer, it even runs without X Window. Can Windows Media Player run video in MS-DOS?

Web Browser - Mozilla FireFox. Internet Exploder doesn't even compare.

Email - Mozilla Thuderbird, Ximian Evolution. Can Outlook, pro or Express, compare to those two??

File Browsing - Nautilus, Konqueror. They crash 100% less of the time that Windows Explorer crashes. And no annoyingly built-in Internet Explorer that's available even if I denied access to iexplore.exe (which I do on spyware-infested clients' computers).

Spreadsheet, Presentation, Other Office - Gnumeric and OpenOffice are both superior to MS Office XP/2003 versions. And like AbiWord, they act more like classic MS Office than current MS Office does. And let's not mention the horrid Mac OS X versions of MS Office.

Instant Messenger - Well, GAIM may be missing some features of proprietary AOL AIM, but one of those features missing is the spyware.

Graphics - Well, mentioned before GIMP's not better than Photoshop... but it does kick Paint Shop Pro's ass. A better all around quick image program than MS Paint too. The price is right too.

Simple Text - Man, even GEdit is superior to MS Notepad.

Programming - Do I even need to compare the long list of free, open-source and standardized Unix/Linux tools to the not-quite-as-affordable MS Visual Studio??

When it comes to Macromedia, I agree with the Dreamweaver argument, and somewhat with Flash (as much as I personally hate FLash, it's here to stay and sometimes it is done elegantly), but I in no way think Fireworks is something to be missed. Everything done in Fireworks can be done with Javascript and HTML coding if you only knew the code. As for FreeHand, well there's Illustrator for Windows/Mac and for Linux I know there's a bunch of free vector graphics programs out there.

Basically, if Linux could just get her own versions of Photoshop and Dreamweaver it'd be all set (and not WINE'd either, real ports so PPC and SPARC Linux users can use it to!! :0)

Re:Sure...

[BenjyD]

I agree with you basic idea, but I think you're a bit over the top with your praise for the Free alternatives.

Nautilus, for example, crashes about as often (maybe more often) as Windows explorer does. Go search bugzilla.gnome.org for "Nautilus crash" for the evidence. Using famd with it so that it matches explorer's functionality and you get all sorts of problems with runaway processes.

Evolution is quite nice, but the Palm sync is buggy as hell. Gedit (more accurately, gtktextview) had some pretty obvious bugs that should be caught by automated tests before release.

I use F/OSS all day, every day for work, but it's not really at the level where I could suggest replacing (for example) my parent's WinXP with a Linux distro and not expect to have to handle a bunch of phone calls about bugs.

(#include "IMHO,YMMV, only tested free-as-in-beer distros,no offence meant")

Re:Sure...

[Rattencremesuppe]

Music - XMMS (WinAMP on Windows), is there even a comparison to Windows Media Player here?

But free music production software is not as mature as the commercial counterparts running on OS X and Windows.

Email - Mozilla Thuderbird, Ximian Evolution. Can Outlook, pro or Express, compare to those two??

does thunderbird eventually have a calendar? I use thunderbird for mail but for PIM I still have to use outlook. is Evolution available for windows, and can it sync with PDAs?

File Browsing - Nautilus, Konqueror. They crash 100% less of the time that Windows Explorer crashes.

funny how windows explorer never crashed on my machines...

Re:Sure...

[Bulln-Bulln]

You are not comparing free software against proprietary software. You compare FOSS against MS apps (with the exception of AIM).

Music - XMMS (WinAMP on Windows), is there even a comparison to Windows Media Player here?

WinAMP ist not FOSS. It's a free (beer) closed source app.
Both are just a joke comparing to iTunes.

Video - MPlayer, it even runs without X Window. Can Windows Media Player run video in MS-DOS?

What kind of argument is this? Who cares about DOS? WMP is OK when you install the missing codecs. (I prefer VLC though)

Web Browser - Mozilla FireFox. Internet Exploder doesn't even compare.

And Opera? Firefox is also my favourite browser, but Opera has many interesting features that you can't find anywhere else. Opera is commercial or free (beer) software, but not FOSS.

File Browsing - Nautilus, Konqueror. They crash 100% less of the time that Windows Explorer crashes.

What are you doing with Explorer? I didn't see it crash the last couple of... er... years.

And no annoyingly built-in Internet Explorer that's available even if I denied access to iexplore.exe (which I do on spyware-infested clients' computers).

How about blocking Explorer.exe and deleting iexplore.exe? (That's what I do when I have do mess with Windows.)

And let's not mention the horrid Mac OS X versions of MS Office.

Yeah, MS Office:mac is sooo bad when compared against GNUmeric and OpenOffice. OK, GNUmeric and OpenOffice only run in an X-Window, don't support drag&drop, looks ugly-as-hell, etc. while MS Office supports all that stuff. Wow, GNUmeric and OpenOffice are soooo superior.....
(BTW: Yes, I know about NeoOffice/J - it's my main Office suite. But NeoOffice is != OpenOffice)
Abiword compares to Wordpad, not Word (or OpenOffice Writer).

Instant Messenger - Well, GAIM may be missing some features of proprietary AOL AIM, but one of those features missing is the spyware.

Trillian? How about that?

Programming - Do I even need to compare the long list of free, open-source and standardized Unix/Linux tools to the not-quite-as-affordable MS Visual Studio??

A lot of developers say that VisualStudio is the best programming environment. Others say it's Xcode. Both aren't FOSS.

PS: No, I'n not bashing FOSS. Most apps I use are FOSS like Firefox, Thunderbird, or Fire Messenger, but theres more closed source software that's better than it's FOSS counterparts than just Photoshop and Dreamweaver. Opera is cool. Trillian is cool. MS Office:mac, Explorer (not IE), or Windows Media Player not so bad either.

Re:Sure...

[Bulln-Bulln]

does thunderbird eventually have a calendar?

Yes, eventually.There's also Sunbird.

is Evolution available for windows

Not yet, but IIRC Novell is porting it to Windows (Ximian is no more).

Re:Sure...

[polyp2000]

I use F/OSS all day, every day for work,

Me too!

but it's not really at the level where I could suggest replacing (for example) my parent's WinXP with a Linux distro and not expect to have to handle a bunch of phone calls about bugs.

My mum is running Vidalinux - (before that knoppix) on a PC I built and installed her for christmas. I set her up with a user account - and I have a root account for when software needs installing. It just works (tm), she cant break it and there are no pop-ups, viruses, nightmares for me to worry about. So far - other than the initial setting up she adores it and I get so much less headaches than i did when she used windows.

In addition, my dad uses Xandros Open Circulation which is simpler and more "windows like" for a less savvy user.

My parents are both retired and in my experience they couldnt care less about what OS is running just that it does what they want it to do- Linux does! - I care about tech support though and Id much rather be administering a linux box than a windows one - its just more pleasant, and of course once linux is up and running for the most part it stays that way and that means I do less tech support with Linux than I would with windows.

Maybe you should trial your parents with knoppix or something similar see how they get on - you might be surprised. And when you're confident about them getting along with it - take the plunge. I did eventually after umm,ing and ahh,ing about it and in the end it paid off!

Remember your parents will use linux very functionally. You and I are more than likely trying out all sorts of strange beta programs that do weird and wonderful things. Your folks in all likelihood are Surfing , Word processing and maybe other general such activities that Linux handles just as well. Big plus of course is - I've never seen so many free-cell, puzzle and tetris type games on any other platform so that's gotta be a bonus.

Of course if they are hard core fraggers and gamers then maybe you should stick with windows - or get them a console!.

Nick ...

Re:Sure...

[BenjyD]

I think I've been jaded by my experiences with Ubuntu, which I had thought would be the kind of distro for people like my parents, but was in fact far too buggy to use. Problems like Nautilus crashing if you actually try to move large numbers of files around or Impress not handling bullet points correctly are not going to be acceptable. Maybe Hoary will be better, but given their policy on bug fix releases, I doubt it.

I've switched them to Firefox on WinXP, but I couldn't replace outlook express as the free alternatives lacked the filter options they use in OE.

The problem is that in order to switch, the alternative has to be *much* better and I've yet to find a free-as-in-beer distro that is that much better for normal users. They have WinXP SP2 and Firefox, so I get no calls about virus problems any more.

Their needs are basically as you descibe it: web and email, word processing, mp3 ripping. Vidalinux looks pretty good, although it appears to be at least partly pay-software. As they both work freelance from home, lost productivity to bugs or time spent fiddling is expensive, and their current computers work fine (I haven't had a tech support call from them in a year). I get the feeling that, hypothetically, if I switched them to Linux overnight I'd be dealing with complaints like "Why is Office so slow now?", "Why can't I view this Word document properly?", "Why does it take so long to boot?" and "Why did my music player die when I changed the system font?" all day.

I'm using Fedora Core 3 myself (now the updates have fixed the worst of the bugs) and find it a hundred times better the windows *for me*: I'm a Free software developer, however.

Re:Sure...

[ambrosine10]

Both are just a joke comparing to iTunes.

iTunes is a joke, especially on Windows. Slow, bloated, and does nothing useful. Winamp is alright. You want foobar2000, which is BSD-licensed.

Re:Sure...

[Taladar]

OK, GNUmeric and OpenOffice only run in an X-Window, don't support drag&drop, looks ugly-as-hell, etc. while MS Office supports all that stuff.

I think we all know how well modern versions of Windows and Office support ugly-as-hell-looking...

Re:Sure...

[Bulln-Bulln]

You want foobar2000
No, I don't want that. If you read my post carefully, you may have noticed that I'm a Mac user (see what I wrote about the office suite I use and the instant messenger I use - both NeoOffice/J and Fire are OSX only.)
iTunes rips my CDs as AAC audio, plays my music and manages my playlists. It does those things very well.

Re:Sure...

[Bulln-Bulln]

I think we all know how well modern versions of Windows and Office support ugly-as-hell-looking...
I said nothing about the looks of Windows or MS Office for Windows (apparently you mean the Windows version of Office). MS Office for Mac looks good and supports drag&drop and copy&paste between applications. GNUmeric and OpenOffice can't do these things on Mac, because they are X11 apps.
(While NeoOffice/J does not look great, it does at least support stuff like drag&drop.)

Who modded that nonsense up?

[phr1]

Of course there's a free alternative. Other people are free to write similar software, or at least they used to be, and maybe they've even written it already (remember that "free" refers to freedom, not price, or in this case even existence of the software). Of course now the software lobby is trying to take that freedom away, through software patents.

Free software pays the bills

[SgtChaireBourne]

Non-free software or no software. What would you rather have?

Free software wins for me, hands down. I still use some closed source and some non-free, but couldn't have gotten anything done at work the last 10 years without the free software.

Pleople get paid plenty to write Free Software. I know some that have made their millions from it and are still going. I know others that, though not dollar-millionaires, still make a mighty handsome salary writing free software.

Only astroturfers and people really, really in the dark about ICT still think that people don't make money from Free Software. There's just too many big and small companies doing it for that line to work anywhere except in Redmond anymore.

Re:Well, let's see

[polyp2000]

Generally, I think they'll find that most people hold a similar view. OSS advocates often get so caught up in the ideas of modifiability and redistributability that they forget that for most people, it's a total non-issue.

So just because you dont understand or have the ability to modify code its a non-issue? How about the fact that it is modifiable and can be changed by someone who does understand and modify free software can do so? Your should care that software is freely modifiable because you will be the one benefitting when someone else more knowledgable comes along and makes the product better. What happens when the noddy proprietary software vendor goes belly up - bang goes your investment - but if their product was free open source, and the software was of any great merit you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be plenty of foss developers getting their hands dirty.

Just because you are unable to do theses things yourself it doesnt mean that you shouldnt care about it being important - you benefit from it all the time without even realising it.

No great insights here

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm going to be honest with you. I'm an advocate, user, and even author of open source software. I can't, however, call myself a granola-eating-die-hard-free-software-purist. There are several reasons why this is true.

At home I use open source software (almost) exclusively. My systems run on Linux or BSD. I use open source UNIX-like environments because I like the open source philosophy and because the software that I want to use works best on these platforms. In other words, the software that is really valuable to me as user turns out to be open source software. As a programmer, I also value the source code freedom. I can look at the source and learn how the programs work. I can make them work differently if I want to.

However, I say "almost exclusively" because the one exception is the operating system in my cell phone. I certainly could have bought a cell phone that ran on Linux but it turned out that for the features I wanted, the Linux based phones ended up being more expensive (due to extra hardware I didn't need or just price differences between brands). In this case, I wasn't prepared to pay more money for a phone just to have it running on Linux.

Another blemish on my "software purity" is my work life. I work for a software company writing proprietary software. I do this because I need money to live and that was the job I ended up with. ;-) We not only write proprietary but also buy licenses to proprietary libraries for use in our software. We don't buy proprietary libraries for the fun of it. We buy them because they will either make our work easier, make our applications better, or both AND they do it better than any open source alternatives we've evaluated. This brings me to my point.

The masses at large aren't going to use crap software, not if it's open source, not if it's closed source (queue Windows jokes). The hard facts are that users are going to use software that gets what they need to do done. They're going to use software that does what they want and does it sufficiently well.

If it turns out that nothing but proprietary software does exactly what you want, does it well, and the license cost is fair, then hell, you should consider using it. Your typical end-user doesn't value the source code to an application because they don't know what to do with it. When making decisions about the software you need, you'd be stupid not to consider open source software, but from a business (or even a home user) point of view you'd be equally stupid to use open source software for the sake of using open source software if the proprietary software does what you want better.

So, to sum up, I'm afraid Practicality wins over Philosophy in the software world.

Re:No great insights here

[Taladar]

If it turns out that nothing but proprietary software does exactly what you want, does it well, and the license cost is fair, then hell, you should consider using it.

I agree with you completely (I use e.g. Opera because Firefox lacks Features I have grown used to; and no, please no Opera vs. Firefox Flamewar). However I must add that without the "threat" of Open Source Software Vendors would probably take much higher license costs especially where they have a de facto monopoly (e.g. niche markets). So even if there is no Open Source Software out there to fit your needs the possibility to write Open Source (more efficiently than you alone paying for Closed Source) if the Vendor pushes you too hard is a Good Thing (TM).

Re:I am so sick of this crap

[ThoreauHD]

I think the previous poster has a point, but I don't think he understood the intent of your response.

I think you are saying that interacting with people are more important than the social pattern of software development for something somewhere across the galaxy. I think you both are correct.

We may need to help people face to face, much like Mother Theresa or other Catholic Saints. And I would like to do that personally more than I am now.

But, that topic is not the same of software efficiency via socialization rules on a geek news forum. It's not in the same ballpark as making somebody comfortable when they die and it's not supposed to be.

You are bringing some other angst to this debate from the outside world. And I understand how much the world sucks now, and how many people have yet to die- but that will come soon enough. Keep it separated. Stay on topic. I feel the same way too.. really.

Re:Easy Question

[TheRaven64]

Several projects include feature bounties - you say how much a particular feature is worth to you, and the first developer to implement it is able to claim the bounty. This means that the developers are `incentivized' to develop the features you actually want, rather than features you may never use.

Remember what started it all

[satch89450]

People tend to forget what launched Mr. Stallman on this road toward software freedom: he wanted to use a laser printer he had on hand with his word processing program. The software didn't have drivers, and as I recall the printer didn't have documentation, either.

Big trees from little acorns grow.

Re:Remember what started it all

[isometrick]

Big trees from little acorns grow. Powerful you have become, the dark side I sense in you.

Re:Remember what started it all

[grumbel]

### People tend to forget what launched Mr. Stallman on this road toward software freedom: he wanted to use a laser printer he had on hand with his word processing program. The software didn't have drivers, and as I recall the printer didn't have documentation, either.

The only question is if this is pro or against the usage of free software if I just want to get my work done. I mean if I have the choice between an NVidia card with perfectly stable and feature complete drivers and an ATI with both rather low quality proprietary and open source drivers, I don't have to think to long to pick the NVidia one, since for the ATI one there is little hope that it will catch up in a reasonable timeframe.

Re:Remember what started it all

[ScrewMaster]

What you're saying is that expedience usually wins out over idealism, and that's true.

Free = zero cost

[Sebastian Jansson]

Still, being free(as in beer free) is an important part of the freedom.
The reason I like open source software more than just free software is that I'm guaranteed that it won't just die and stop being developed nor will it go payware.
But if the OSS software demanded me to pay a fee to use(while still let me see and modify the code) it wouldn't be free, and I would not be interested.

Re:Free = zero cost

[Noksagt]

One of the freedoms is the freedom to share. This is what inherently makes a lot of F/OSS free-as-in-beer. But if there was so little demand for a F/OSS that few people bothered to share it, & you are one of the few who desperately need it, would it not be worth paying for?

Proprietry only better if you _pay_ for it

[mabinogi]

The thing that bugs me the most about a lot of the people that complain about a Free Software alternatve to a commerical program not being an effective replacement, is that often those people have not actually _paid_ for the commerical software that they say is so much better.

Those that have forked over $1000+ for specialised proprietry software (Photoshop, Cubase etc) are the ones that have the right to say the features of the Free Software replacements are not up to scratch.
Those who are using warezed versions and have no intention of ever purchasing the software, but say that the Gimp is no Photoshop aren't helping the cause, and show that they have no real interest in advancing the state of Free Software - they just want to get everything for nothing.

Re:Proprietry only better if you _pay_ for it

[DrSkwid]

what about the people who pay for free software, can they bitch about the warezed versions of non-free ?

Re:Proprietry only better if you _pay_ for it

[Taladar]

They are helping neither Free nor Propietary Software.

Re:Proprietry only better if you _pay_ for it

[spectecjr]

Those that have forked over $1000+ for specialised proprietry software (Photoshop, Cubase etc) are the ones that have the right to say the features of the Free Software replacements are not up to scratch.

I guess that includes me then.

Bah

[arvindn]

The conclusion the article is making seems to be more or less identical to the point of open source, as opposed to Free software: people use OSS not because its Free but because it works. Go read one of those ESR essays from 1998. I don't really see what's new here.

One Problem I See in TFA So Far...

[eno2001]

...is the assumption that proprietary software license restrictions are not being enforced. While this may be true for the moment, it won't and shouldn't remain so. Lots of money is being lost by the wankers who insist that they should be allowed to install the same copy of MS Office or Windows on multiple machines without a volume license key or some other legitimate form of licensing. While I don't care at all about the money that proprietary software companies lose due to piracy, I do think it's important for there to be sever consequences for people who violate the licenses. Without consequences, the abuse will continue. If the abuse continues and idiots out there think it's OK to pirate software, then they will not become aware of or care about the issue of free software. In their minds free software is warez. That needs to change and then you will see a growing interest in free software.

Term "free software" hijacked

[bigberk]

I take issue with the term "free software" being hijacked by what are, quite honestly, free/open source zealots. I'm posting free software on my site and keep getting inquiries about how I dare call it free, since it's not released under the GNU GPL, etc. Kind of insulting I think, because free software does not necessarily mean FOSS, and some people seem to be spitting on what I'm offering them.

I've been interested in free software for a long time -- that is, software I can acquire today and use for the forseeable future without owing anyone money or other compensation, including requiring registration (even if no fee). To me that's the essential quality of free software. If the source code is there, and if modifications are permitted, that's fine of course and is icing on the cake. The BSD license is beautiful.

But I think the time has come for GNU GPL zealots to realize that if they expect the world to call their brand of "free" the only type of "free", this is just being unrealistic and a bit obnoxious. If you are looking for free software, there is tons of it out there. Most of it you can't modify, sorry. Don't like it? Write your own GNU GPL'd free software. And if you are looking for only GNU GPL'd software, then go look for that exclusively, and stop bothering developers who go out of their way to make no-fee software of other (non-GPL) licenses.

Of course I understand the philosophy behind free/open source software (FOSS) and it's very pretty and everything, but it is just one brand of "free".

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[grumbel]

### I take issue with the term "free software" being hijacked by what are, quite honestly, free/open source zealots

Well, GNU is there since 1984, the term itself is probally in use for a bit longer. If you write freeware and call it 'free software' no wonder that people end up being confusing, just call it like everybody else 'freeware' and you won't have any problem. I don't think it are the GNU people who doing hijacking here.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[Cro Magnon]

I think it's unfortunate that RMS used the word "free". Everyone hears that word and thinks "free beer!". I prefer "open source" for that reason. "FreeBeer" software has a problem in common with proprietary software; if the developer loses interest, you're SOL. True open source software, whether GPL or BSD is different, and IMO better, than mere freebeer ware.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[TheoMurpse]

I just wanted to post, after reading what grumbel said, that I agree with you, bigberk. It is unfortunate that those people forget that "free" has the meaning of "no cost." If your software costs nothing, then by jeehosafat, you have a right to CALL it free. Anyone who disagrees is confusing 'free' and 'Free'. If that makes any sense.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[spitzak]

I agree that this was RMS being an ass, but it is over now, just like "hacker". Though it sure seemed like "open source" was a better term, or "free source", or something.

You have to call your stuff "freeware" or "free (as in beer)" or "it's free" any of the other terms that have been used to disambiguate this. Be warned that this will make everybody think your stuff is loaded with viruses.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[Taladar]

What do you gain by releasing no Source but giving your Software away for free anyway?

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[Taladar]

I see a bigger problem in people hijacking the term for things like "free with spyware", "free with ads", "free for members (and membership costs something)",... than this small problem.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[bigberk]

What do you gain by releasing no Source but giving your Software away for free anyway?

I get to hold on to my trade secrets for Really Cool Ways To Do Stuff that other people haven't thought of, which (despite what open source advocates might say) is definitely a right I have, and a capital asset for any business endeavours I might have. I also gain the ability to profit from modifications I make for other organizations because hey, if there's money to be made by modifying my work of art, then that money might as well exclusively come to me.

From developing both open source software and closed source but free (as in beer) software, I can tell you that the closed source stuff has been much, much more lucrative for me. Because it's lucrative I can keep writing free software, which benefits everyone. Sure, I still write open source software as a hobby but I recognize that it is a hobby, is nice to do for the community, but is not a way to make money. If I only wrote free open source software, today I would not be able to afford creating free software -- how is that better for everyone?.

Unfortunately, money matters. Take for instance the Apache Foundation, which are funded by business, or OpenBSD, FreeBSD (also funded) and what they provide for the larger community is tremendous. This is an excellent arrangement! But for small/private developers, open source software is a labour of love, and often not something that we can keep up.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[jmorris42]

> I've been interested in free software for a long time -- that is,
> software I can acquire today and use for the forseeable future without
> owing anyone money or other compensation, including requiring
> registration (even if no fee). To me that's the essential quality of
> free software.

That is free, not Free. And as a rule it is the absolute worse class of software on planet earth today.

Almost all 'free' software is either infested with spyware or worse, and tends to either disappear with no warning or start charging once a user base is built up.

Shareware is only a smidge better, as at least there is some incentive to continue development and you already know going in that the author wants money, but it tends to share the worst aspects of Free Software and closed in that it is usually a one man band (with no ability to harness the userbase) with no promise of continued development.

Full on Commercial product is usually bug infested due to the closed development but often offers enticing features. But again, it tends to have no future so it is dangerous to develop a dependency on one. (Quick, how many closed products have YOU been bitten by over the last ten years by their sudden demise?)

Free Software, when a viable option exists suffers from none of the above problems. That is why I prefer it.

> If the source code is there, and if modifications are permitted,
> that's fine of course and is icing on the cake. The BSD license is
> beautiful.

No, is the source isn't available it is crap, doomed to someday leave it's users high and dry. Good for disposable software like games, but not for anything longer term.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[FunkyChild]

Read the recent Stallman interview, he clarified this. In fact, every time he has to explain that he means free and in libre. The problem is the ambiguity in the english language, where free can mean both gratis and libre.

I'd say the problem is that Stallman stupidly chose to use the term "free", knowing just how ambiguous it was. He could have just as easily called it "liberated software" or "unrestricted software" or whatever synonym he could think up and alleviated all of the confusion and pedantry.

Re:Term "free software" hijacked

[mrchaotica]

But "open source" doesn't fully describe GPL'd software. "Open source" can still be non-Free-as-in-speech; GPL'd stuff can't. Therefore, we use "Free" to describe it instead.

I think it'd be good if people adopted the convention I use: when I'm talking about Free-as-in-speech I capitalize the F, and when I'm talking about free-as-in-beer I leave it lowercase. I think it helps at least a little, because people reading it wonder "why's he capitalizing 'Free?' Maybe I should learn the reason..."

F/OSS shareware?

[sorbits]

If you work for a reasonable enlightened company [yes, there are a few], they can see that most of the software generated internally has no value as a sales proposition

What if you want to succeed as an independent software vendor? I recently released a text editor for OS X. I wrote it out of love, but I still require people to pay for it, because the amount of work involved in such a project is not just something I can do on sundays.

I really do like the free (as in speech) ideal, but I have a hard time seeing how I can release all the source I have written and still ensure that people will pay me for my (continued) work.

So how does F/OSS apply to startups? it's fine if you can be backed up by a big company, but most likely that company can pay your salery because they have other closed source products.

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[peragrin]

Foss to startups right?

How many linux distro's charge for their services?

Let me guess you have sold maybe a few hundred copies? Have you calculated out the time it took you to code it, multiply by your hourly rate. Have you actually made a profit yet? Did you have to buy software, or hardware to work on the project? Did you have to rent space on a website, or register a domain? Did you figure in part of your home electric bills?

The real question is have you figured out how many copies you have to sell before you even make a profit adding up all this?

You can't run a software company off of one small piece of softare, in a market where the F/OSS and home users are very selective in what they use, or the companies use one product for comforitive standards.

Now the better question is how do you expect to make money in that market? Now I am not making fun of your software. It looked good. Nor am I making fun of you. But your comments for small developers doesn't work. You need to either build customised software for companies on contract terms, or build lot's of software packages. If you get lucky and build a package everybody wants, your next hope is to sell out to a big company for cash.

What kind of market is that. You build software and either dream of never making a profit, or being bought out by somebody?

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[sorbits]

You can't run a software company off of one small piece of softare

But I need to start somewhere.

Now the better question is how do you expect to make money in that market? [...] You need to either build customised software for companies on contract terms, or build lot's of software packages.

My desire is to write my own software on my own terms. As of such I'm not in it for the money. If I can make a living doing this, I think most would agree that I should follow my dream! And to answer your question; I did sell more than a few hunded and reached the break-even point.

RMS and many of the other commenting on this topic has another dream, a dream where all software is F/OSS and people should refuse to use or work on non-free software.

My comment was ment to say that the only reason you can get a job at a company writing F/OSS today is that this company has many alternative revenue sources. I'm a startup so I do not have these alternatives.

So are you suggesting that I should drop my passion for writing my own software (full time) and instead build software for single clients just to honer the "don't work on non-free software" directive?

If you do, I think this is downright stupid - it means that all new software will come from either companies who can afford to develop it as free software, or from people who spend their sparetime on it (and has a job to cover their expenses).

While this will give us plenty of software, the majority of software users who do not mind paying for the tools they use, and do not need (or even have the ability) to modify the source of the tools they use, will lose an alternative.

So while I certainly do share RMS's ideal about all software being free, I think it's unrealistic until we find a way to have free (as in speech) software still be commercial.

And that was sort of my question in my comment, how do we do that? and saying that I just shouldn't write consumer software and instead write for single clients that will allow me to make it F/OSS is not a solution - my "dream" is not just to program for a living, I'm driven by a need to improve the tools I use which I think needs improvements.

And let me end by saying, before I took 5 months off to write TextMate I was offered a job writing an XForms extension/plugin for Mozilla (which would of course be F/OSS). Instead I did TextMate as shareware - RMS would think I made a mistake, but with the fear of sounding arrogant, many have benefitted from my choice. Take a look at the reviews/comments I link to on my page, there really was a need for the product, and so far all the F/OSS solutions had failed.

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[sorbits]

The best way is to make it obviously clear that the future of the project depends on users' money

From all what I've heard and read, appealing to people like that just doesn't work :(

Another way would be to offer a "pay per feature" system, where users could pay you to get a feature included in your editor for a price.

Try to calculate what a feature actually costs in programmer hours. And who should pay for the features already in the product? or the time spent on support?

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[peragrin]

First doing anything with passion is a good thing. Textmate was something you wanted to do. If you didn't want to really write that plugin then you wouldn't of enjoyed it.

The probelm is that many 'small' software shops couldn't exist without being a part time job for one person. They simply can't survive on their own.

Your only hope is that nobody desires a free version of your simple little program. The moment somebody does what happens to you. It doesn't have to be F/OSS it could be Apple, or Sun, or MSFT or whomever. Big companies are just as likely to screw over as F/OSS is. Netscape, Beos, Konfabulator.

So your product must be a niche enough that only a few use it, yet enough must use it for you to live off of it.

Some business model. Where is F/OSS any worse? At least your product always has your name on it with F/OSS. I guess it depends on what you want. Not everybody wants money.

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[sorbits]

The probelm is that many 'small' software shops couldn't exist without being a part time job for one person.

No, this is neither the problem or the issue. There are many shareware shops who can survive with 1-4 products and a small staff. And the issue being discussed is whether everything should be F/OSS. RMS says it should, I interpreted the comment I replied to as it should, and the article this thread springs from said it should.

Your only hope is that nobody desires a free version of your simple little program. The moment somebody does what happens to you.

I think the chance of someone seeing my program and saying, boy, I'll just spend 1,000+ hours of my spare time to do a replica, is small.

Big companies are just as likely to screw over as F/OSS is.

Which is completely besides the point of software having to be free. It sounds like you try to argue that: "small software companies can't make it today, so they shouldn't even try". And by that, there is no need to even consider a profitable F/OSS model, because there is no profit in software (for small companies).

I guess it depends on what you want. Not everybody wants money.

But everyone wants to pay their expenses, and that's all I want. My choice is either get a job for some company and spend my sparetime writing free software, or write non-free software full time and sell it for enough to cover my expenses.

I certainly have a much more forfilling job if it is writing my own software full time, and I honestly believe the users of my product benefits and appreciates this.

And that's why I think the proponents of making all software F/OSS and refusing to use/work on non-free software is overlooking something very important.

Many governments fund artists, because these often have a hard time making a living doing their art. Software does not receive government funding, but is by many compared to art, seeing how other peoples software can be very inspirational, helps raise the collective bar, introduces new ideas etc. If you remove (or severely limit) the oppotunity for startups to earn money on their software, I think there needs to be a plan to ensure that we do not lose the innovation that non-free software after all does bring to the marked -- look at how inspirational OS X has been, do you think something like that would exists if we decided that F/OSS was the only software we would run (as RMS wants it)?

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[peragrin]

>>look at how inspirational OS X has been, do you think something like that would exists

If F/OSS didn't exist neither would OS X. The sub system is all BSD based. In fact the entire closed source program (copland) was shut down. Some body took BSD and added on a unique (closed) graphic display system. How many hours of programming could you have saved if all you did was design an interface to a BSD based editor?

I have one last thing for you to think about. What happens to your software if you were to die suddenly? (think about the car accident in france with the major OSS developers) Your software will stop. Stop growing, Stop being of use. Not right away but over a few years. At least with F/OSS somebody can pick it up and continue. I say this knowing that your successors could sell your software as it is today, but that doesn't mean it will continue. I know this from experience, a friend and the guy who built our office POS software died in a plane crash, We are now left without help if something breaks, and no way to migrate.

I say this not to be morbid but for your to consider a point. How much closed software is gone? How many good programs have been reinvented over and over? How many good programming tools have been built, and how many have been lost forever? Closed source may make you cash, but it doesn't last.

Is there a balance? What does the future hold. I don't know. I do know the world changes. The old way of working sometimes hold true, and sometimes they don't.

Re:F/OSS shareware?

[sorbits]

If F/OSS didn't exist neither would OS X.

And I'm not saying F/OSS shouldn't. I'm saying that non-free software should, because it gives us something that F/OSS can't always handle.

I have one last thing for you to think about. What happens to your software if you were to die suddenly?

People close to me have access to the source. But would my software exist if I couldn't have sold it as non-free? That's the question I've been asking.

Pointing out flaws in closed software is unnecessary, as I expressed in my first comment, I do like and believe in the ideals behind F/OSS -- it's just not practical for people like me (startups who write consumer software). The only thing I'm getting from your replies is that you think non-free software is unpractical as well, but for other reasons. But you won't get far with that argument, cause it works for me (so far)! :)

But if/when I have earned "enough" I certainly will experiment with making it free (as in speech), since the risk of losing paying customers is then hopefully less of an actual problem.

Answer: Politicans and goats.

[eddy]

Question: What are you willing to sacrifice for those freedoms?

Re:I am so sick of this crap

[zoeblade]

Have you ever looked at a website running on linux/bsd/apache?

Such as Microsoft's own Hotmail, for instance. Sure, they make rival products to FreeBSD and Apache, but they use the free (as in freedom) OS and web server instead, or at least they used to.

Re:Well, let's see

[bigberk]

Your should care that software is freely modifiable because you will be the one benefitting when someone else more knowledgable comes along and makes the product better. What happens when the noddy proprietary software vendor goes belly up - bang goes your investment

There is a lot of optimism and hopefulness about how releasing something under such a license benefits the end user (by getting a future improved product)... but in many cases code is left abandoned, and nobody really cares to do anything with it in the future. So a business (or individual) investing in software would do well to look at the usefulness first, the cost second (no fee == free) and go with the software if it meets their needs like this. Insisting modifiable source does not gain much extra in most cases, and excluding for example closed source free software is a foolish decision to make when that software today, and at least for the next while, would have met your needs and cost you nothing.

Re:Well, let's see

[Marcus Green]

Although software that is released under a Free(dom) licence may be left abandoned, if the organisation behind commercially licencensed software goes out of business it is almost guaranteed to be abandoned.

Re:Free software is for Utopian Hippies without a

[Marcus Green]

Your content shows ignorance, your abusive language emphasises your ignorance.

Article is one long troll

[Henrik S. Hansen]

That article is not well argued at all. It is one long troll with the same old argument that convenience is more important than freedom.

RMS has dealt with this argument time and time again, explaining why he thinks that freedom is the highest goals of all. And I agree with him.

The world needs more thoughtful idealists like RMS, and even more people who listen to what they say.

Re:Article is one long troll

[grumbel]

### RMS has dealt with this argument time and time again, explaining why he thinks that freedom is the highest goals of all.

So what, does that mean that he is right and people are forbidden to disagree?

Re:Article is one long troll

[merdark]

RMS has dealt with this argument time and time again, explaining why he thinks that freedom is the highest goals of all. And I agree with him.

And I don't.

Just because the article gives an apposing viewpoint doesn't make it a 'troll'. Not everyone agrees with you.

Re:Article is one long troll

[Henrik S. Hansen]

Just because the article gives an apposing viewpoint doesn't make it a 'troll'.

True. But the article is still a troll, because it totally ignores the ethical arguments that RMS and the FSF use. It's very common to do this, popularized by the Open Source Initiative with ESR as the leading figure. But trollish nonetheless.

Re:Article is one long troll

[merdark]

The FSF and RMS don't talk about people with apposing viewpoints when they preach, so that makes them trolls as well?

Really, if the article author doesn't think the ethical arguments are worth mentioning, so what? A troll is someone who write crap with the sole intention of inciting people to argue. I don't see this article as being written with that in mind.

There is no *requirements* anywhere that you must detail the principles of your opponents views.

It's not just about software

[esbjerg]

One thing most people tend to forget is that when you choose propriarity software you let the provider decide upon things as hardware and other software you can use.

With Linux/BSD it is possible to buy allmost any type of computer and run the OS. On the other hand Mac OS X only runs on MacPPC and MS Windows for the most part on x86.

Take a small thing like flash. Yes it's possible to use flash on linux x86 dsitributions but what if you decide to use a Power or Sparc based computer? Then you are out of luck.

A lot of people ask me: Why would I want to use a non-x86 based computer? Perhaps because it makes your programs run faster. Perhaps it provides superior functionality that helps the OS writers prevent security problems (NX). There are lots of other examples.

The fact is that your choice between non-free software and free software inflicts upon the list of choices you get on other things (ie. hardware) and not just for you but for other people as well.

This will be a sharp contrast, but...

[agraupe]

I like Free software. My main system in Linux, and I run Windows for games. However, I am not going to give myself an ulcer thinking about DRM and Trusted Computing and what it might mean. I can always keep the computers I have, which will run Linux, and if I must use Windows, I will be sad, but I will probably do it anyway. At some point in every industry, either the government or the industry itself has restricted it in some way. People get pissed about it at the time, but forget it and live with the status quo (think about driver licensing, and so forth). At this point, with the large spread of virally-infected boxen, trusted computing is looking like a promising solution for companies involved. Sure, it would be better to switch to linux, but most people would prefer their Windows to be virus-free and crippled than have to learn a new system. They won't care about pissing some software geeks off, as they have the gaming geeks already firmly on MS's side. So, if and when it happens, it happens. I, for one, will be sad for a moment, and then get over it.

Re:This will be a sharp contrast, but...

[Taladar]

Good luck in getting the Gaming Geeks to fix your Server when the Software Geeks refuse to do so because DRM/TC makes everything more difficult for Admins (like customized automated small programs a.k.a scripts).

Re:Free software is for Utopian Hippies without a

[tchernobog]

If you can't express such a message without being so impolite, then probably you aren't worth the reading.

Never,unless generates income or society demands

[jago25_98]

Sometimes you just have to pay for something to get on. If it were up to me I wouldn't bother buying clothes but if I did that no one would talk to me. Cars are a better example.

For me pay for software is practically, ecomically and idealogically not an option.

If I add up the value of software I desire it's more than my wage!
That is, if I bought Windows XP instead of using my university license, if I used CubaseSX instead of Kristal, and ditto to all the program on my both windows and linux computers too.

If I had to pay for things like Apache, Samba, ssh I'd just have to try and live without them. Humans are too expensive to pay to program on my wage.
I do believe if Cubase and similar programs were not available as warez then we'd have worse music around.
I feel a lot of people feel like this. We are materialistic but spending money on the invisible doesn't seem quite right.
Imagine how I would be now if I had, in the end, paid ~£300 for Real3D on the Amiga! Spending money like that on the invisible is just not futureproof.

The most popular way to sell to a market is to build up Interlectual Property, build up a name and sell quality because then you're selling the invisible and not something real. Think Nike, Ferrari, Dolca and Gabbana, and ... BSD. A preconception is built up.
People recognise this and see it as the expensive route. Sometimes we give in to love and by that fast car but we know we've been bad and recognise `selling the invisible` for next time. But selling software is selling the invisible also and this is why it's so hard to do. The answer is simple: DON'T SELL SOFTWARE!

So it's often an easy decision for me.

I only use pay for software if there is no alternative and even then I prefer to abstain as I have done many times in the past. I have paid but only when I've had no choice and I need it to get things done and I grumble badly each time.

I will break the pattern if it's work related and can help me make the money back.

Other things I've given up because I feel they're a waste of money:

- programs such as Smart for linux (may change if I can make a job out of it), 3D software, music software
- films in many forms
- a lot of music but not all
- nice cars
- nearly all computer gaming except for half life based games which I got given

These are made harder by societys pressure to waste money on tradenames like Peugeot hatchbacks.

What I haven't given up yet:

- some designer clothes. My heart is too attached, it's only a bit more.

what about web services?

[ashot]

How does the philosphy apply to services?

Specifically if I want to create for example a photo sharing website, which involves a lot of custom code, can I still charge for the service (which includes hosting on the server that uses the software)

Re:what about web services?

[flossie]

if I want to create for example a photo sharing website, which involves a lot of custom code, can I still charge for the service (which includes hosting on the server that uses the software)

As the service provider, the FSF philospohy maintains that you should have the four freedoms for the software that you are using. The use of free software doesn't place any obligations on you unless you also distribute the software.

However, your question implies that you haven't really grasped the concept of the freedoms yet:

can I still charge for ...?

Of course. You can charge to distribute free software. You can charge to use it. You can charge to create it. "Free" is about freedom, not price.

Re:what about web services?

[Taladar]

Sure you can charge for Services (provided you can get the people to pay for the concept of your site). Here you don't charge for the Software but for your time, the electricity,...

Damnit....

[zarthrag]

"I hate the Bizzaros...except for turtleface, he's cute."

"...I HATE the Stallmanites....especially Richard, he's a fucking Nazi."

I know I'll get modded "-10 million, flamebait" because most of you hang out RIGHT HERE. You don't have a "right" to my sourcecode, period. You have a right to use free software, but you don't have a right to make me starve! I'm sick of people asking for the source of my apps just because they listen to that man like he's God or something. When I find that it's no longer paying the rent, I'll open it up. But as long as I sell a piece of software that outperforms your GPL'd equivalant, I eat - the end.

Re:Damnit....

[anno1602]

You have every right to do with your sourcecode as you please. GPL it, put it under the BSD license, or sell it to Microsoft. To paraphrase ESR (I think): I may not agree with your choice of license, but I will defend your freedom to choose it.

Re:Damnit....

[ambrosine10]

Yeah, some people say that. But RMS says that it's IMMORAL and WRONG to release proprietary code, which makes him the raving communist zealot that he is.

Re:Damnit....

[Taladar]

You may do anything you want with your license. The only thing I would say the public has some kind of right IMHO is the opening of the source code after you don't intend to do anything else with it. This would solve many of the problems with Closed Source Software. The Problem is that many people talk about it but almost nobody does this.

The article leaves one thing clearly out

[Britz]

It talks about the fact that nobody cares if you share proprietary software among friends, but destroys your life if you were to distribute it beyond that.
Already the large software makers a working on tools that could restrict your rights much further. It comes down to 1984. With "secure computing" (whatever the current name may be) that exists today and very smart software that can actually detect content it would be possible to control what someone is able to email to their friends today.
Of course, laws (see the Patriot Act and the DMCA for this one) still partly forbid this at the moment. Also there are free alternatives. But as soon as pretty much everyone depends on free software anyone could just throw the switch and we are in 1984, just worse.

I use Suns JVM and the Flash Plugin myself, don't get me wrong. I just think when writing such a large article that this should be included.

The reason why the copyright is not enforced better is simply that they make more money this way. Who would buy M$ software if EVERYONE had to pay for it?

Re:The article leaves one thing clearly out

[Taladar]

But as soon as pretty much everyone depends on free software anyone could just throw the switch and we are in 1984, just worse.

I guess you mean either proprietary or DRM/TC software here. "Free Software" just does not make any sense in that context.

Re:Linux nerds will never understand...

[Liberals_Are_Gay]

Another example is how Slashdot is run on robust code but has a horrible fucking website design.

Probably NewsMonster PRO

[mr_tap]

NewsMonster PRO costs $29.95.

The NewsMonster project on Freshmeat lists burtonator as the lead developer.

Gee, I love Google :)

Time has its own cost

[ThousandStars]

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice the convenience of flash animations, or of photoshop, for a free (as in beer) solution. I'm cheap. The fact that the free (as in beer and in freedom) software often is excellent quality, FreeBSD being my favorite, doesn't hurt either.

The question is, how much do you value your time? If you value your time at $30 per hour, and have to spend an extra hour or two per week tweaking your system or writing code because the software you want isn't there, are you actually being efficient -- or just cheap?

There are other factors, of course, like political considerations and the enjoyment one derives from writing code. Some non-free OSes, like Windows, may have their own time costs. But the difficulty/inability to buy pre-built boxes with a free OS may make the nominal "free" software cost considerably more at the end of the day.

That's what people are referring to when talking about TCO. Please note that I'm not trying to argue a particular system has a higher or lower TCO, or that there aren't many fine reasons for using FOSS software, but only raising the issue because sometimes one can be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Re:Time has its own cost

[Taladar]

Tweaking Linux needs time but so does e.g. the re-setting of each and every option in Windows after a reinstallation because of the lack of a simple concept like config files.

Re:Time has its own cost

[theapodan]

I would say that in some cases, the process of attaining a usable system might be a benefit. Learning how to manipulate a *nix system might provide additional benefits. For example, say when I ssh into my school's mail server to read my mail. The skills I've learned on FreeBSD at home are applicable to the AIX systems at school.

So that time comittment to learn a different system is not necessarily wasted.

Not to mention mucking around in rc scripts can be a fun challenge.

Should be FIVE freedoms...

[michaeldot]

The fifth:

The Freedom To Have Fun.

Ever since (at a single digit age) I typed

]LIST

and got to see the source code of the Little Brick Out program on the Apple ][ - tinkering around with the colors, sizes, blip noises, etc - I've known how much fun it is to see source code, play around with it, and learn by just having fun...

I live in a society.

[coopseruantalon]

of people who use non-free software for their media content. So if I am to be in the loop I need: Java, Flash, to be able to play all the different types of streaming media and others. I need to be able to read the documents that my schoolbuddies make else i wont be able to communicate with them. Whenever possible i use non-free. I think that converting the world to free software is a gradual and slow process. Most people don't care about all those freedoms. They don't want to modify anything. We have to win over theese people by price or quality, not by "ethics". On a sidenote i think there is a dilemma concerning games and other "content". There are some good reasons why it would not be suitable have Free games: There's a storyline, there should be some consistency, they don't want people to "cheat". A games is like a book. It is a vision. You can make a documentary as a collaboration and with all those freedoms, but an author with a great story would like to keep it his story, even if distributed for free. That's what I think anyway.

Re:I live in a society.

[Taladar]

I agree that you can not make a (big) game as free software. You can however build a game engine as free software and let individuals or very small groups make content that runs in these engines. The only thing necessary for this thing to work is for the game industry to 'hit the roof' and stop hyping graphics and other totally irrelevant 'features' as the most important part of a game.

Re:I live in a society.

[coopseruantalon]

Well I couldn't agree more. The basis of the games could be as free as you would like and then you could seperatly decide wether or not to make the content free. You could allow for people to contribute the artwork for example. So that new textures doesn't have to be made for every new game.

It's all about what *I* want

[Nazadus]

I hope I'm reading this right.
I'm reading this as "Would you rather software that's free (GPL F/OSS) or software that does a better job?"
Personally, whichever gets the job done the cheapest and most painless for me.
I use Gento and Windows XP Professional.
Gentoo runs my web server, IRC server, teamspeak server, mail, imap, etc.
Windows runs the software I'm typing this in (Firefox), Steam (and all it's little pieces like Counter-Strike), and all those goodies. To be honest, I really probably would be using Linux hardcore if it wasn't for the difficulty in the wireless area.

Software is just like real world property.
You want to get a nice piece of toilet paper (you won't want sand paper, do you?) but you aren't going to spend $100 / roll are you?
A great example is OpenOffice vs Microsoft Office 2003.
I *love* MSO03 (it's p-u-rty and Outlook has nice spam filtering) and it can do pivot tables too. I don't see how OO can do that. So, do I need pivot tables in my personal life? What about buisness life?
Luckily for me, it's neither. But I'm sure there is someone that might.
If I could afford to purchase Office 2003 for my computer at home, I would. Unforuntly, that's buying the $100/roll of toilet paper that I can't afford -- and don't have to thanks to OpenOffice. Eventually this will do one of two things.
Bring the prive of MSO03 down to a more reasonable price (or to what I percieve to be reasonable) or kill it. I hope it doesn't kill it -- because I believe OO needs it's own competition too.
Everyone has there preference to where the line is. This is why humanity has survived sooo long and why the debate for Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac vs. *BSD has gone on for so long.

So, my answer to the question:
Whichever one that doesn't make me spend too long trying it figure a thing I believe to be trivial out.

Obviously I'm willing to go through enough hassle to get my server running Linux but not my desktop.
My server is one hobby. My desktop is my tool to do other things that help this hobby. That's how I like to spend my time and where my freedoms value me.

Re:Easy Question

[ianalis]

If you (and others) do not use free software, then that will be the end of the story. How can it improve if no one's going to use it? If no one's going to help it improve (aside from the developer, of course)? A (closed-source) company can hire a team to create a new software and improve it but that is simply not possible for the one-man free software developer. Certainly, not on his own.

mod parent up, eh?

[Goosey]

I agree 110%. Use the best software, whatever it is. Very often this just happens to be open source software however! Firefox, OpenOffice.org, FileZilla, XVid, etc.. The list goes on.

I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period

[reallocate]

Along with everyone who is not a developer, I'm not likely to have any interest in three of those freedoms: Studying the source, redistributing copies, or changing the program for the benefit of the community.

So long as I can use the damn thing, those other 3 freedoms don't interest me.

I'm interested in using computers. I am not interested in writing code. (It's a parallel to watching TV: We all watch TV, but very few of us are interested in learning how to build a television.) Studying the source is of not interest to me, as is changing it.

As a corollary, I believe the only "community" that exists here is a small number of developers who support free software for ideological and political purposes. Otherwise, free software users are no more a community that are Windows users. (An analogy might the small number of vegetarians who actively lobby to for their dietary beliefs versus all the other folks who simply choose ti eat that way.)

I'm interested in more and better software. If some of that can come from free software developers, fine. If some of that can come from proprietary developers, fine. Frankly, though, little new and innovative software has been coming from either source for several years.

Re:I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period

[reallocate]

I don't steal software.

Nor do I own maya, ms office 2003, photoshop, macromedia studio, or adobe suite. If I wanted one of those, I'd buy them.

When I use Windows, I use something I bought.

Even by your specious argument, I have every right to express my opinion.

Re:I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period

[Taladar]

What you don't seem to get is that with free software we stop the constant 'reinventing the wheel' process in commercial software where thousands of companies program one and the same thing instead of using one simple library, written once, debugged once (e.g. zlib, openssl,...). This benefits you as a user because it is easier and faster to make new software from the ever growing pool of existant code than it is to write all from scratch.

Re:I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period

[reallocate]

I agree that free software follows an effective development model, but I don't accept that it has any advantages over closed source in relation to the creation of better and innovative software.

I don't see commerical developers reinventing the wheel. Rather, they have an incentive to develop and market products that are, in fact, new and innovative. Meanwhile, innovation may well be constrained by the free software culture's tendency to reuse and repackage existing tools, and to adhere to the "don't fix it if it isn't broke" adage.

Use of shared libraries is certainly not unique to free software. Access to source is not necessary to use a shared library; all this is required is publication of the libraries interface.

Static libraries, of course, have been common for decades in all platforms and environments.

Re:I Don't Care; I Want Better Software, Period

[reallocate]

Of course, I'm the customer. Without customers, developers (on the slim chance that you actually are one) would not exist.

If you all know what we customers want, why aren't you providing it, rather than all the rubbish that's foisted off on us?

Political debates among developers and wanna-be developers are irrelevant to the real world.

This is barking up the wrong tree

[blackhedd]

It's a well-considered and interesting article, but misses the point.
Are the four freedoms enough to make people use alternatives to proprietary software? In themselves, no.
The freedoms are one of the key quality dimensions that determine user choice, but not the only ones. Completeness, stability, suitability for the purpose, and ease of use matter as much or more. Oh yeah, a minimal money-cost to acquire the right to use a given piece of software is also one of these dimensions.
The choice of which software to use is a strictly "economic" one, in which all of these dimensions will be added together by the decision-maker, and an optimal choice will be made.
So what does it mean to be a "true believer" in F/OSS (as I am)? It means you believe that over time, the quality, stability, and suitability of fully-free software will rise to match and surpass the commercial alternatives.

Making money = the real freedom

[sparkydevil]

The main problem with free software can be boiled down to the adage "It's easy to make a product, but hard to make a business". For a business you need both the ability to create a product and the ability to sell it. It is on the sales side that free software will always fail. You simply cannot get sales or marketing people excited about selling free software.

Some people might say that you don't need those people on board, that everyone will automatically be drawn to the benefits of free software. The problem is that the benefits of the product can be cannot be expressed to a professional level because salespeople/marketers have nothing to gain. Paid-for software will almost always succeed against free software.

what freedom is

[mikey573]

Freedom is the ability to do something without the fear of punishment.

For example, my ability to practise Judiasm in the US without fear of persecution typifies "freedom of religion" in the idealistic sense. But a more devout Jew is not necessilary free in a total sense. Employers might not allow days off for Jewish Holidays, or even more important Friday night/Saturdays for the sabbath. Someone may be ridiculed by a co-worker for wearing a kippah. Of course a more devout Jew (which I'm not) could work for a different employer, and only deal with people who accept the way he dresses. (Doesn't this sound familiar... RMS would say you shouldn't work for an employer who makes your write proprietary software.)

The point here is freedom is not something that one person has, but rather is a state of mind between two or more people. If you are accidentially stuck alone on an island, freedom has no meaning. You may not have the *ability* to leave the island, but freedom itself has no context since you are not dealing with other people.

Now taking the island concept further: if you live on an isolated (from the rest of the world) island with friends and family, you could copy / modify / distribute software all you want if its mutually agreed that that's okay. Many people have considered their personal and other friend's/family's computers to be such an island. With the internet though, you are in full contact at all times with people / government / etc. who are set on punishing for such acts.

So keep in mind, you can fight for freedom all you want from a legalistic / systematic / technical / software-based way, but ultimately, freedom is a mutal agreement between people. Whenever someone is out there who is willing to punish you in some extent for what you are doing, you have a noticable reduction in your freedom. Of course, if value your freedom, you then must fight for it.

The obsession to endow software with the concept of freedom is thus misleading. People have freedom, software does not. So GPL-licensed software is *freedom-enabling* software (to a certain extent). Its using copyright law to prevent other people from punishing you.

So as we look towards a revised GPL 3.0, we should really keep in mind separate ideas of "freedom" and "ability". We need the ability to have source code availible in order to modify/understand software many years down the line (even after threat of copyright expires). Just as we need the freedom to create software without the threat of punishment by frivolous software patents.

When looking at the GPL, thus imagine it in two ways:
1) If I isolated, what abilities does the GPL ensure I still have? (access to source code, ability to modify, ability to copy, etc.)
2) As I deal with other people, what punishments am I trying to prevent? (copyright hoops to jump thru, ridiculous licensing restrictions, patent lawsuits)

Re:what freedom is

[petrus4]

>For example, my ability to practise Judiasm in
>the US without fear of persecution typifies
>"freedom of religion" in the idealistic sense.

At the risk of being strongly politically incorrect, your ability to practice Judaism in particular in the US probably doesn't really say that much about freedom of religion at all. There is a particularly potent Jewish political presence in the US, which enjoys very strong support from the current government there...not to mention Judaism being the theological ancestor of Christianity, which is the de facto religion of the current US government...and also one of the main reasons why the Jewish lobby in America enjoys such strong support.

A more honest yardstick of genuine religious freedom in the US might be to ask whether a Buddhist for example, or even an atheist (someone whose belief system does not stem from Middle Eastern monotheism in particular, and thus does not have government sanction) whether or not *they* feel safe observing their beliefs in the US.

Re:what freedom is

[Brandybuck]

Your yardstick says the same thing his yardstick does: yes.

Re:what freedom is

[Brandybuck]

Freedom is the ability to do something without the fear of punishment.

Close, but not quite. Freedom is the absence of restriction. The difference is crucial. Your definition focuses on the consequences of an action, while the dictionary definition focuses on the ability to perform an action.

To add a necessary clarifying point (with regards to that subset of freedom known as liberty), freedom ends where another's freedom begins. In other words, you cannot use freedom to restrict freedom. At the point where you ability begins to restrict another's ability, it ceases to be liberty and is called "privilege".

Copyright infers upon an author many privileges. The only software that is truly free as in having a complete lack of privilege is public domain software. Licensed software is judged by how much privilege it retains (or additionally aquires through contractual agreements) or gives up. Unrestricted licenses like BSD or MIT have the fewest retained privileges, and conseqently the most liberty. Copyleft licenses like the GPL and LGPL enforce a few more privileges and have a bit less liberty. Both, however, are nearly equivalent with regards to most proprietary commercial software.

Re:what freedom is

[node 3]

Unrestricted licenses like BSD or MIT have the fewest retained privileges, and conseqently the most liberty.

As the parent poster pointed out, freedom (in the philosophical sense) does not apply to software, it applies to using the software.

The problem with the BSD/MIT licenses is that they allow freedom (of the user) to be limited (allows restrictive privileges to be taken).

Absolute freedom is impossible whenever other people are involved, so freedoms must be protected by systematic agreement (like the US Constitution, which isn't perfect). The GPL is like a constitution which prohibits slavery (limits your freedom to give away your freedom, and limits other's freedom to take away your freedom, and vice versa), and the BSD/MIT licenses are more primitive in that they allow those "freedoms".

When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system.

Re:what freedom is

[Brandybuck]

The problem with the BSD/MIT licenses is that they allow freedom (of the user) to be limited (allows restrictive privileges to be taken).

When I release software under the BSD license, I restrict no one. No one. Not one person who gets the software from me is restricted by the license. In fact, there is NO BSD licensed software anywhere in the world that is restricted. If you find software that is restricted, then it is not under the BSD license. Period.

Perhaps you're mistaking the restrictive actions of one of my users, or my users' users, for that of my own. They might possibly be restricting you, but I most certainly am not. The fact that I am not acting as a policeman over the actions of my users is a Good Thing(tm). I refuse to set myself up as a petty tyrant.

Imagine I had an apple tree and I gave away the apples from it. Imagine RMS has one as well. Imagine RMS requiring everyone who gets an apple to promise not to sell it. Furthermore, imagine RMS requiring everyone to obtain similar promises from their recipients should they ever plant the seeds to grow new apples. For ever and ever until the end of time or apple trees, whichever came first. Imagine him accusing me of subjugating and dominating apple eaters because I don't similar obtain perpetually restrictive contracts.

Re:what freedom is

[node 3]

Perhaps you're mistaking the restrictive actions of one of my users, or my users' users, for that of my own.

I've made no such mistake.

What I said:

"When taken in isolation (as many computer enthusiasts tend to do), the BSD license appears more free, but it's not something that exists in isolation, it's a system under which people and information are organized, and the GPL, as a system, is far more conducive to freedom than the BSD license is, as a system."

What that means is that *YOUR* individual action (the releasing of your code under the BSD license) is more free than RMS's individual action of releasing emacs under the GPL.

HOWEVER (you knew the was coming because you re-read what I wrote above), the system your license creates is one in which freedoms are *allowed* to be taken away (or proscribed, or curtailed, or whatever verb you prefer which still amounts to the same thing).

Imagine RMS requiring everyone who gets an apple to promise not to sell it.

RMS does no such thing. Your example does not address the question. RMS (the GPL, actually) only requires that if you modify the genetics of this imaginary apple tree and *distribute* (and you can sell it if you want) the modified tree, you must make available the new genetic code under the same terms by which you acquired the original code.

This *SYSTEM* protects freedom. The system the BSD license creates, allows, and engenders, DOES NOT. That's the difference and it's exactly that which you fail to understand.

Bringing it back to the US Constitution, the Constitution, in a flawed but earnest way, tries to say, "You have absolute freedom, except that you cannot freely infringe on other's freedom, and the state has some privileges over some of your freedoms in order that it might operate and enforce the Constitution". The GPL fills the same basic role. It says you are absolutely free to use the software as you see fit except that you can't subvert that freedom for others.

Re:what freedom is

[Brandybuck]

RMS does no such thing.

Of course he doesn't. It was an example. RMS doesn't give away apples. Sheesh...

Bringing it back to the US Constitution

Why? Software licenses have nothing to do with the Constitution. They're in completely different realms. One is a private relationship between two individuals (author and user) and the other is a self-restriction of a government. The "freedoms" of the Free Software are not equivalent to the freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

Re:what freedom is

[node 3]

Of course he doesn't. It was an example. RMS doesn't give away apples. Sheesh...

Don't be daft. The "no such thing" that he doesn't do is say you cannot sell software (your metaphor was that the apple trees and the apples were software).

Why? Software licenses have nothing to do with the Constitution. They're in completely different realms.

Because they overlap in at least two very important ways.

1. They both create systems. Even if overlap #2 did not exist, this would be reason enough to bring it into the discussion to illustrate the idea of evaluating the GPL and the BSD licenses by what the resulting systems they create are like.

2. They deal with freedoms.

One is a private relationship between two individuals (author and user) and the other is a self-restriction of a government.

For one thing, the GPL *does* deal with government. It says that the government can take away your right to distribute software if you violate the GPL (although this has not been tested, the entire discussion here assumes that both the GPL and the BSD licenses are valid). In a computeresque way of looking at it, the GPL links against the US Constitution, and makes calls to the various laws (subroutines) that exist under it (even though some of those laws might have buffer overrun vulnerabilities :-)).

Second, "rights" have to do with the interaction between people. With the US Constitution, the rights in question are those the non-government people have that cannot be taken away by the government people. With the GPL (and licenses in general) it's rights the licensees have that the copyright holders can not abridge. The issue is the relationship between the players, not who the specific players are in each case.

Third, *of course* there are differences between the GPL and the US Constitution. If there were no differences, then they would be the same thing. But they clearly aren't, and I fully understand this (duh, did you honestly think I didn't?). Just because you can highlight some of the differences between the GPL and the US Constitution does not mean that there are no similarities.

Now, you might wish to argue that the GPL and the US Constitution don't both create systems under which the relationships between people are defined, or that they don't both deal with the rights of people under their respective systems, but I don't see how you logically can. You're welcome to try though.

such as device drivers?

[oliverthered]

How is the GPL hampering ATI from fixing their crappy driver?

The 'trade secret' argument for most drivers holds about as much salt as a tin foil hat, ATI or NVidia may have a couple of fancy routines that are general but most optimisations would be tied to the hardware.

It is also trivial for anyone (Say Cheep3d Inc) who's got a couple of months to spare to reverse engineer the interesting bits of the driver.

ATI can't say that it's closed because they need to maintain quality, because their drivers crap anyhow.

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[Azureash]

I am all for improving free software, and I understand that often open source products suffer from licensing and support issues that are beyond the control of their developers.

However, I think the zealots will all realize something once they grow up, have kids, get a full-time job, start their own company, and/or go for a new degree:

YOUR TIME IS NOT FREE!

Yes, some people have hours to spend recompiling kernels, troubleshooting hardware, and hunting down obscure libraries, and their time may be cheap. But for real professional adults with real lives and outside responsibilities time is expensive.

I believe that open source can exist next to specialized proprietary applications (ala Wine/CrossOver Office.) I believe that open source developers can and must continue to improve their applications (and I am grateful to them for their work.) But I think the zealots are seriously paddingly in the wrong direction, and are the last people we should be listening to for a voice of reason.

And yeah, I know zealots, because I used to be one, and then I grew up and got a life. And yes, I know how difficult it is to maintain a strictly open source environment for common home use. I switched my parents computer over to Linux 3 years ago, and I spend a great deal of time (remotely and locally via a 2-hour drive) dealing with ongoing hardware and software issues for two middle age people who merely want to surf the Web, print photos, and burn their photo albums onto CDs.

Smart people would like that as well...

[SharpFang]

...at least in Poland.
Our IRS bastards decided to "calculate the value of Free Software as equal to commercial versions" so if you install free Open Office on free Linux, they want you to pay as much tax for increasing the value of equipment as if you purchased WinXP Pro and MS Office.
With one exception. They are helpless if you actually -paid- for the software. You show them a bill from your newspapers stand where you purchased latest issue of "Linux Plus" gazette for equivalent of 2 euro and got 2 CDs with it, with, say, latest Mandrake release and OpenOffice. You register the 2 euro as your expenses, increase the value of the computer set by 2 euro, pay corresponding tax and give IRS a finger.

Thinking in the long term

[dpilot]

It's probably most important that a balance between free and proprietary remain.

Without free, corporations get this silly idea that they want to own the whole pie. They can't get their heads around the fact that by making the pie "free" it gets soooooo much bigger, that their piece of that bigger pie is itself bigger than the whole pie they could have owned. Think of the days of CompuServe, GEnie, The Source, Prodigy, and AOL. Then think of the Internet. The fact that the ONLY ones of the originals who survived were the ones that embraced Internet connection is telling.

Giving up the free element Balkanizes the market.

At the same time, sometimes proprietary can fund and drive things that are difficult to get worked on for free. Think non-glamorous things, of which at the moment I'm at a loss to give an example.

This only true so long as...

[3seas]

.... the creation of software is typically out of the reach of most users.

Imagine the programming required to create a holodeck program (not the rendering but the coding), whgere a child can instruct the computer to generate the program based on teh childs input specifications.

Join us now and free the media...

[Doc Ruby]

Four FSF Freedoms:

• 
  
• 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.
  

These freedoms apply not only to "programs", which geeks usually consider to be combinations of logic and data executed on a computer. They also apply exactly to media objects ("content"), which tend to be heavier (or exclusively) data, rather than executable logic. So you've got the freedom to Play, Analyze (view the raw data), Share, and Remix/reedit the content.

Considering content freedoms also sheds a light on a "program" freedom probably implicit in "freedom 2", but usually very different in content: unlimited distribution. There is a difference between buying a CD, then lending it to a friend for a weekend, and their relending it to their friends, and so on. Perhaps lending it to my friend ought to enable them to lend it to one more degree of friend, but once past a "Friend of a Friend", the sharing isn't really among friends, but rather just traversing the FoaF links to fill a community with one copy. Which isn't really sustainable for the artist or producer of the CD. While the 1 or 2 degree FoaF sharing seems to be entirely consistent with the traditional ways in which people shared music for thousands of generations: singing and playing a song by another artist. Only the best actual artists could pass a song along a chain more than a few degrees. Music is probably no different from other art forms, like sharing a TV show, or an animation. Our experience exercising these freedoms in the Open Source / Free Software community keeps us at the cutting edge of interpreting these nuances of freedom, and how they're applied to new behaviors, even outside the "software" realm.

Re: MPlayer

[TeknoHog]

Video - MPlayer, it even runs without X Window. Can Windows Media Player run video in MS-DOS?

What kind of argument is this? Who cares about DOS? WMP is OK when you install the missing codecs.

I can think of a few reasons why this is makes MPlayer better:

• I think a GUI is useless for a movie player. Movies are "meant" to be watched fullscreen, and the keyboard is just fine for controlling them; it is just like the controls on a DVD player. I installed MPlayer on a friend's Windows machine and she doesn't find the lack of GUI a problem at all. Movie files are associated with mplayer.exe so there's no need to run it from the command line.
• As movies are watched fullscreen, who needs a windowing system? The lack of a WS could mean the difference between playing and not playing on a low-end (embedded?) system.
• As of the codecs, their quality was just the reason for the above installation. But furthermore it means more freedom to watch even the kind of material that Microsoft doesn't want you to watch (I'm thinking of digital restrictions management).

This presuposition isn't entirely founded!

[6800]

"In other words, we're talking about how we use software, not the freedom of the press or the right to bear arms, and convincing people that software rights and basic constitutional rights are on the same level is an exercise in futility."

The existance of the four freedoms, if protected, could well someday server such things as the right to bear arms, for example, in our increasingly complex world of high tech! Generate your own sci-fi thought experiment to support this :-).

What other digitallia can you think of that make this point? Copy proctection hardware seems like a first restrictive step to me.

Who made who

[obender]

When I started with computers many years ago I was hoping that in the future the machine will do many of my tasks and let me have extra free time.
Today I see a lot of interest in programs that consume time rather than give us time. I don't believe that spending ten hours a day in front of a pc screen is an achivement.
Free software has in many cases been sucessful in the server side, software that does not necessarily need a human to be plugged into the computer to make it productive.
I dream of a day when computers will no longer have interfaces at all but just go along with their work.

Now excuse me I have to go back and study this half melted chip we found together with a robotic arm in a steel factory. I think it has enough information in it to allow us to make an autonomous computer ...

Man what a stupid article

[wrook]

Do I value the 4 freedoms more than free price. Damn yes! I've got a GNU/Linux box at home and a Windows box at work. In *no* way do I prefer my Windows box. Some of the apps are nice on it, but *every* time I have a problem with any of them I find myself screwed. If I phone the developer for "support" (which my company pays for) all I get is, "We're aware of the problem and may fix it in the next release". That's it! No other options! And notice, "may fix it". They don't even tell me if it's going to be fixed. And when a new release comes out, I've got to buy the damned upgrade *before I know if it's fixed my problem!* Not only that, I can't just get a patch for my old release with just my problem fixed.

Do I value the 4 freedoms? Hell yeah. How much money would I pay to have those freedoms? Lots, I tell you. Those 4 freedoms are worth more than the cost of a support contract.

Of course, I'm a programmer, so I'm biased. Some people aren't programmers and may not realize the benefits of freedom the way I do. But let's take the example of a friend of mine. She wanted to do some word processing for a report that she had to write. As I worked at Corel at the time, I happened to have a copy of Word Perfect which I gave to her (it's useless to me...). Well, it turns out it was useless to her too. First of all, it was too complicated and confusing for her (She's not a computer person and she didn't need all the features). Secondly the thing was full of bugs on the features that she did need. Constantly, I got calls of "Miiiikee!!!! Fiiiix it!!!!!". I tried to tell her I couldn't, but she didn't understand.

Eventually I got sick of it and replaced it with Abiword. But not stock Abiword. I ripped everything out if it and gave her a stripped down version. Then any time she asked for a new feature, I added it back.

Do I value the 4 freedoms? Hell yeah. Everyday, I program on a Windows box because the market for my latest companies product is Windows. However, I've been tasked with writing portable code (to port to *ix and Mac). To me this means POSIX. But many of the damn POSIX calls in Windows are broken. What the hell do I do? I'm not allowed to fix them. I have to completely rewrite them, or put endless #ifdefs in my code.

But here's the irony of this whole thing. I understand the value of the 4 freedoms. As a consumer, I would never be stupid enough to purchase mission critical software without those freedoms. But....

I can't quite figure out a non-consulting business model that would allow me to give my customers these freedoms. My boss understands the benefit of freedom as well, but doesn't want to be a consultant. So for now, *I* deny my customers these freedoms which I value so highly.

And here is where I disagree with RMS. He feels that it is immoral to continue the above situation. He recommends quitting and becoming a waiter, writing free software on the side. While it is *very* tempting to do this, I'm not going to. Free software will not move into all sectors of commercial development without finding a variety of business models. Michael Tiemann found one excellent and successful business model with Cygnus. Research needs to be done to find others.

Working every day in this moronic proprietary world shows me the problems and gives me incentive to do something about them. Some day I hope everyone can realize the benefits of Free software. Until that day, I'm sure we'll get lots of delusional people who actually think that proprietary is somehow superior (what a bizarre thought). I'm not going to waste my effect trying to tell them they are wrong.

Re:Man what a stupid article

[mrchaotica]

But here's the irony of this whole thing. I understand the value of the 4 freedoms. As a consumer, I would never be stupid enough to purchase mission critical software without those freedoms. But....

I can't quite figure out a non-consulting business model that would allow me to give my customers these freedoms. My boss understands the benefit of freedom as well, but doesn't want to be a consultant. So for now, *I* deny my customers these freedoms which I value so highly.

And here is where I disagree with RMS. He feels that it is immoral to continue the above situation. He recommends quitting and becoming a waiter, writing free software on the side.

What you and your boss are doing is called either "hypocrisy" (if you agree with RMS) or "pragmatism" (if you don't). Now, all you need to do is define criteria to determine which of those it is. To me, "hypocrisy" implies selfishness -- you want other people to do something but don't want to do it yourself because it's too uncomfortable. "Pragmatism" implies necessity -- you want other people to do something but can't do it yourself because it's too hard.

So, the question is, is quitting your job and becoming a waiter too hard, or just uncomfortable? There's several reasons why it could be too hard: you've got kids and a mortgage, and would go bankrupt on a waiter's salary; you've got some physical impairment that means you wouldn't be able to wait on tables, but are capable of sitting in a chair and typing; or perhaps even you have so little free time that if you took a non-programming job you'd lose your skills and not be able to write Free software at all. On the other hand, if you're able-bodied, financially secure, and have the skills and time, what excuse do you have not to do so then?

Re:Man what a stupid article

[wrook]

In reality, I'd just make a very bad waiter :-). Actually, I *have* quit my job in the past when I felt that I was asked to deliver sub-standard products to my customers. In my mind sub-standard support is part and parcel to that.

It's a very good question. I've got a couple of rationales for my actions. I'm not sure how good they are, but I'm still working this out in my own head.

First, in this case my customers are *choosing* to purchase a proprietary solution. Free solutions exist for the product I work on. Currently, we have few enough customers that in all practicality it's a moot point. I could hand over the source code to them and they would just stare blankly. This will change someday, though...

Second, I *really* would like to steer the company towards Free software development. This is the first company I've worked for where it seemed possible. Like I said, I just have to come up with a viable business plan and my boss is on-board in a second.

I believe that the Free sofware movement requires more innovation on the business model front. Ultimately, I would like to contribute to that. However, I can't do that from the perspective of being a waiter.

So, I'm kind of in a holding pattern waiting for opportunity to strike. It may be that I'll realize that my approach was wrong. I hope not.

It only takes 5 minutes to scan keygen.us

[RLiegh]

as opposed to hours, days or weeks trying (often in vain) to get GNU/Linux apps to do what they're supposed to do.

I'll take the 5 minutes, thanks.

Well Argued?

[pez]

...I'm not so sure.

If these freedoms are not important to the user, there is no disadvantage to using proprietary software and no clear advantage to using free software. In other words, we're talking about how we use software, not the freedom of the press or the right to bear arms, and convincing people that software rights and basic constitutional rights are on the same level is an exercise in futility.

That's like saying that if buying a gun is not important to a particular citizen, then there is no disadvantage to not having a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that right.

Just because fewer than 100% of society doesn't exercise a given right, that in and of itself doesn't make it any less important.

Broken logic.

[Targen]

There's a fundamental flaw in the reasoning in this article, and it has nothing to do with the definition of free software, or the importance of freedom, or any such deep things already discussed.

"What do we do when we have a substandard free software product that we could use, but would be more productive with a proprietary competitor?"
The author argues, throughout the entire article, about productivity; we're talking about a commericial, professional enviroinment, where money is made through using software.

On the GIMP, "It can of course be made to work in place of Photoshop, depending on your needs and budget. But if you have paying work to do, how much of a hassle are you willing to go through to use free software?"
The author argues free software doesn't offer good enough alternatives to proprietary software, still in a commercial, professional enviroinment.

Continuing,
"The majority of proprietary software licenses restrict the user's ability to use, share, modify, and study the software, but there is virtually no enforcement of these terms in the non-business portion of the software world."
The author argues it's acceptable and risk-free to "share" proprietary software as long as you're not going to use it comercially. While I question the validity of this, let's let it pass for the sake of argument.

Free software is criticized as sub-par for commercial use where a job or a contract is on the line, and it's argued that the benefit of free (speech) software being free (beer) is negligible, since nobody's going to sue you for "sharing" proprietary software for personal use. The article sets the bar for free software in business use, which is clearly much more demanding, and excuses the ridiculous cost of proprietary software commonly used in business since it's okay to steal it, but, erm, if you were to use this proprietary software in the same way the author says free software lags behind, you'd get at least a million dollar lawsuit, and at most a visit from the FBI.

"Well argued" my ass.

the BSA?

[The_Wilschon]

If I put it up for free download or offer copies for sale, then I know I can expect the BSA and/or the FBI to do their best to destroy my life.

The Boy Scouts of America? Geez, they've really changed since I was in the program!

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

He wants free code, which yours isn't, because it has a viral license which would FORCE him to release any code he added to yours.

This is a common fallacy.

Incorporating GPL code into a closed-source product does not force the vendor of the closed-source product to open his code.

It does expose the vendor to a copyright infringement lawsuit, but there are several ways that the infringement can be resolved:

• The court could determine that the GPL'd code is not protectable, because it's too trivial. The code probably isn't this trivial, though, else why wouldn't the vendor have just implemented it himself?
• The court could determine that the plaintiff doesn't have standing to sue, for any of various reasons, or can't sue because he/she has 'unclean hands', for any of various reasons. As long as the GPL authors are careful to ensure they write everything themselves and document the source of all contributions, this won't happen.
• The vendor could choose to resolve the infringement by obtaining another license to the code, probably by paying money to the author.
• The vendor could choose to stop infringing, by removing the GPL'd code and replacing it with code the vendor has the legal right to distribute. This only resolves future infringement and may leave the vendor open to damages for the past infringement. However, since the GPL'd code was distributed gratis, the amount of the damages would seem to be zero. An apology would be a good idea.
• Finally, the vendor could choose to stop infringing by releasing the rest of the code under a GPL-compatible license, i.e. open the source.

The vendor is not FORCED to open the source.

What is the point?

[jotaeleemeese]

Most people nowadays lack any ideals and are bent in convenience.

Thay are willing ton hand they asses to fundamentalist nuts, agreeing that those people have free reing to undermine their most basic freedoms.

Witsh such social landscape is easy to predict that people will prefer convenience over principles.

They do it every day, it will not be different with software, specially here where people should suppossedely know better.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[ratsnapple tea]

Yeah, and if you've got appendicitis, you're not FORCED into the operating room; you could just let the damn thing kill you instead. And if your yacht sinks at sea, you're not FORCED to tread water. You could just drown, or perhaps a giant turtle will rise from the waters and carry you to shore. And those groceries you buy? You're not FORCED to pay the cashier for them. You could just ram your shopping cart through the plate glass windows and make a run for it.

What the hell's the matter with you, anyway?

The heart of the problem

[petrus4]

"Your software rights or the best tools: often a sad choice"

This isn't always by any means true in the case of Linux, but it too often is. Although I've got LFS 5 on my system currently, I haven't used it now for a month or two...and I initially really didn't want to come back to XP, either. Why have I?

1. The fact that I've resumed gaming is the main reason. I want to be able to play The Sims 2, Unreal Tournament/2004, Unreal 2, and run UnrealEd. I don't want to hear about how UT runs under Linux, either...the OpenGL support for it is abominable visually.

2. I use a graphics program called RealDRAW which won't run with Wine, despite several attempts to get it working. I also don't in this case want to hear about The Gimp, as this program is so much more powerful than it that it is embarassing. I don't want to convert to The Gimp...I want to be able to continue to use the program I currently do...if I can do that under Linux, I'll use Linux...if I can't, I won't.

3. Firefox has (for me, anyway) eliminated the security problems that I used to have with XP, which means that I now have no real incentive to put up with the other problems I was having with Linux. No doubt this will add more fuel to the fire of the arguments of people saying that open source shouldn't be ported to Windows, because it means people won't end up using Linux. What such idiots don't realise however is that in the vast majority of cases, this won't change anything...it would simply mean that NO open source would get used.

You can tell me Linux doesn't need someone with my attitude anyway, but that is avoiding the problem...because there are a lot of other people in existence with my situation. That is one of the things however which RMS, in his deeply autistic, arrogant single-mindedness, refuses to look at. He'd prefer to label me as an expedient moral degenerate for not choosing "freedom" rather than accepting the fact that in some ways, Linux quite simply still isn't completely up to scratch.

A month or two ago I was planning on migrating to Linux completely...when I found myself thinking. Why should I have to subscribe to TransGaming on top of the price I've already paid for the games I have? Why also should I have to shell out yet more money for CodeWeavers Office? (especially when I don't even know if it will work with RealDRAW anywayz, considering it was written for Office)

I'm also really tired to be honest of reading these interviews/articles where we're all supposed to gather round and worship at the altar of RMS. The man is not worthy of anything like the level of reverence that he receives. He is, as I said above, and as I have said here on numerous other occasions, a deeply autistic, arrogant, narrow minded, megalomaniacal bore. He is also, as ESR has on numerous occasions said, completely oblivious and apathetic with regards to human nature and technical/pragmatic reality...a fact which is self-evident given the comparitive levels of relevance of the OSI and FSF. In short, he is an emotive figurehead whose importance is almost entirely subjective. He is the author of the GPL, yes...but that isn't the only open source license in existence, in case you aren't aware. Stallman would have people believe that FOSS would not exist without him...which is something that I completely reject...it is quite simply false. His opinion (and other people's) of his level of importance is grossly overinflated.

And for those who are about to accuse me of it, no, I don't worship Raymond myself either...but I do agree with certain elements of what he has said with regards to RMS...because I think it's true.

Free vs Paying for it

[tallbill]

Anyone who makes their living doing graphics will obviously feel much more secure in paying for a copy of a graphics package that they can use to do their art.

And what is wrong with that?

However, if you are running a server, or doing software development and you have been sucked into the quicksand of interfaces that maliciously change at the whim of some A-hole company, then you decide to do it differently.

Here is what I do:
evaluate the need.
Assess the available tools
Make a decision based upon my resources.

I can't keep throwing money down into the rathole of propriotory tools for SW development. I know what they are worth.

A program such as Corel or Photoshop, on the other hand, is worth the money.

Why? Because there is so much more that I can do with it than I can with The Gimp.

I love The Gimp. However, I know what it is good for and what it is not good for.

Same thing about music recording. I would rather use a harddrive recorder from, say, Tascam or Roland than deal with Planet CCRMA. Why? Because wehen I am in music mode I don't want to have to be in softwae configuration mode. It is a totally different state of mind. I am doing one thing one time and a different thing another time.

I am sure that that Planet CCRMA and The Gimp will progress. And I hope that they do. They are both awesome. However, when I am being creative I don't want to also have to be technical.

So, pay for things that you think will help, tools that are worth the money.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

However once a copyright infringement lawsuit is brought the courts can immediately issue an order blocking all sales of your product until the issue is resolved which, in the US, could take years given the state of the legal system here.

It's unlikely that that court would issue a preliminary injunction, because obtaining an injunction requires the plaintiff to show irreparable harm. I'm not aware of a single case where a US court has enjoined a company from distributing their software because of infringement of GPL code. Are you?

In any case, the closed-source vendor who has coopted GPL code has plenty of options that don't involve going to court. Frankly, the owners of the GPL software are likely to be much *more* afraid of going to court than the closed-source vendor, because legal battles cost money even when you win, and the vendor is more likely to have the resources to fight with. A negotiated settlement is in everybody's best interest so, in fact, that is what happens.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

All of your examples are of situations where you only have a single option. I pointed out that the closed-source vendor has at least five options, three of which don't require going to court and only one of which is to open their own source.

What the hell's the matter with you, anyway?

I read, think and understand, rather than reacting reflexively.

How about you?

Two machines

[tallbill]

I have given up dual boot.
I use my old machine to play video games and my new one to do everything else.

It isn't one or the other, it is both.

Even if you are into opensource, there are still a lot of fun 'toy' things to do with an MS box, like you said SIMs or some such.

I have simply given up thinking that I can do any real development on an MS box. Why? Because it costs too much.

But with all of those games that I bought before on my machine that I already paid for, I use the MS box. It can run at the same time. I just don't ever hook it to the internet, firefox or otherwise.

Only if I need to reload the OS, then I will because then I will download all patches, etc.

I don't even connect to it with my other machines. No way, no how.

Not being...

[JeffTL]

...a particularly effective programmer (I just know a spot of C++) or well-to-do enough to hire one on a whim, freedoms 1 and 3 are not useful to me at their full potential -- but if I ever wanted to improve my programming, an obvious first step would be to browse some free source code -- and I like the indirect benefits of those two freedoms, such as just about everything on Fink being as available on my Macs as it is on my Linux box, thanks to people out there who know what they are doing.

But to me, freedoms zero and two save a lot of headaches. I do not at all like being restricted in terms of how the software can be used, and if I am truly to love my neighbor as myself, I need to be able to legally share software. What really gets under my skin about a lot of free-beer software that isn't free software is limited redistribution; you can't distribute the Flash plugin with an operating system, even though Macromedia always has and barring going out of business likely always will allow anyone to download it.

That being said, as noted earlier I have compromised and mostly use Mac OS X. It's not free in either definition, and neither is Microsoft Office, but OS X has more free components in its base levels than does Windows, at least. Obviously a GNU-based Linux distro or some free version of BSD would be better in some ways, but on the other hand I like the ease of just being able to turn the bloody computer on and have a working Unix-like OS that can run the best office suite in the world (in terms of file compatibility and reliability).

Barring a piece of nonfree software like CrossOver Office (based on Wine much as OS X is based on *BSD) you can't run Office or QuickTime on a Linux system -- these are nigh essential in the modern world, so I might as well use OS X which has native versions of the above.

There is various other nonfree Windows and Mac software I use as well, but I try to use free software when it fills my needs -- but when it does not, ideology takes a back seat to praticality, and in comes proprietary software.

My license agreement

[KalvinB]

I've written dozens of tutorials on software rendering (and am writing more) and this is the license I use for the code:

---------------
This code is free as in freedom. Nobody had to die for it, true, but you are in no way restricted in what you do with the code. You can even reimplement the code and call it your own without worrying about violating some kind of imaginary rights you think I have. You can use this code without giving up your right to do as you please with your own code that you have written. You are not forced to deny the reality that everything you do is based on something and you do not have an automatic legal obligation to give credit to every source of ideas you come across in your lifetime.

You may freely use and distribute the code presented in these tutorials under any license EXCEPT the GPL or any other license which denies authors their right to do as they please with their own code. You will never have to disclose this source or any source based on this code. For example, if you use any of the code in these tutorials to make a product and you release the product under the GPL, that license is null and void and the code to your product will be PUBLIC DOMAIN until you come up with another license to release it under that does not violate the rights of another person who may come across your work and learn from it. This code may not be used in conjunction with any GPL (or similar license) code due to their restrictive nature that directly conflicts with this license agreement and what it is to be free.

Unless you make significant changes to the provided code such that it is unrecognizable as my own you must provide credit somewhere that is visible to the user. I imagine you've written at least one research paper and understand the difference between plagerism and expressing your own ideas based on what you learned from a source or few.

You may NOT redistribute the tutorials. They are Copyright Icarus Independent 2004. If you like what you see, please link to them. Do not copy them. You may only redistribute the source code presented as subject to the above terms.
------------

That's freedom.

Re:I am so sick of this crap

[Donny Smith]

> Have you ever used google ? have you ever looked at a website running on linux/bsd/apache ? ever downloaded a bittorrent file? or ripped a dvd?
> The chances are that you have - and all of these things were made possible to you by people excercising their right to create, use and modify free software.

Look at these examples and you will realize that none of it is exclusively enabled by "free software" - all those things have been possible on Windows with shareware/commercial and freeware apps.
In other words - no big deal, we would be able to do all those things even if free software didn't exist.
(And WTF is the Google example about? They run proprietary code which could run on proprietary UNIX or (with some effort) Windows.)

> And ask yourself this question ... what about all those developing countries who are choosing Linux/FOSS are they and their people not going to benefit directly or indirectly from the fact that their goverments have less ties with redmond in america?

Are they not going to benefit from any software anyway?
Another truth is that people find it easy to use Windows and fucking around with OS is boring so that many users even in your developing countries don't want to bother with it. Then they buy Novell and Red Hat Linux which is perhaps cheaper than Windows but they had never paid for their Windows licenses anyway. So instead of Redmond the money ends up in Provo or whereever. At least Microsoft may print the CDs locally; these Linux vendors doesn't even do that, hahaha...

I have lived in several developing countries and I haven't noticed any revolutionary effects of "free" software. What changes them, if anything, is the fact that people have more money so they can buy computers (usually bundled with Windows OS - why? - because majority of users don't give a damn about "free" software). Average Undeveloped Joe gets an illegal copy of Windows and if he wants to do a Web site he might install LAMP on it or get a pirated copy of VMWare to play with Linux while keeping the convenience of his Windows GUI.

Free software is not BAD, but it's no big deal - people around the world have been using pirated commercial software (for free) for many years.

Infralook

[jawahar]

Inspired me to start Infralook
Otherwise I was writing software for Goldman Sachs.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[ratsnapple tea]

Well, I thought you were trying to argue that "[i]ncorporating GPL code into a closed-source product does not force the vendor of the closed-source product to open his code."

Other than having a judge invalidate the license, the solutions you propose involve the vendor ceasing to distribute a product made from GPL-licensed code (by either removing GPL-licensed code, or negotiating a non-GPL license). But then the vendor is no longer "incorporating GPL code."

So I don't think you've shown that a vendor can add GPL code and still keep the product closed. Rather, haven't you shown the exact opposite--that if your product contains GPL code, you must either open source it or face a lawsuit?

Not really.

[QuantumG]

NewsMonster PRO contains functionality not included in the NewsMonster FREE.

Is that functionality in CVS? Do you follow the terms of your own license and provide source code for *that specific release* of your program? or when I go to your CVS will I discover that I am unable to compile the source and produce a binary which is functionally equivalent to your release?

Re:Easy Question

[Taladar]

Often 5.0 versions of commercial software are worse than 0.9.8 versions of free software. Just compare the features and stability to the optimum

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[ratsnapple tea]

The AC who posted "[The vendor] never violated GPL. He avoids it. Your last couple points are therefore irrelevant" is right on the money. Your argument is that incorporating GPL code doesn't force you to open the rest of your code, because you don't have to incorporate GPL code to begin with. That logic is pretty perverse.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

Rather, haven't you shown the exact opposite--that if your product contains GPL code, you must either open source it or face a lawsuit?

Or license it, or remove it. Yep, those are your options. If your goal is to sell a closed source product with code in it that you recieved only under a GPL license, you can't. Period. But that does not mean that your only option is to open your source.

Open Source is like Open Standards but more so

[Frater 219]

I try to avoid relying on a product which has a single supplier or is not standards-compliant, even if it does meet the FSF's standards.

Standards compliance is a great thing. Recently I've been working on a VoIP deployment using SIP phones, Asterisk, and SER. One of the things that has impressed us the most about SIP telephony -- as contrasted with earlier VoIP and digital office phone systems -- is that the major vendors' products all interoperate at a basic level (placing and receiving calls) out of the box. This is a big contrast with earlier systems where (e.g.) Nortel sold you a Succession VoIP system, and nobody else's phones would work on it.

Most of these SIP phones are not open-source. Cisco's and Grandstream's phones are the usual binary-only deal -- compliant with open standards, but not even source-available. However, some SIP phones are open-source, notably SNOM phones, which run embedded Linux, and for which you can download an SDK from their Web site and build your own firmware image. Not too terribly surprisingly, SNOM's phones are not the slickest in appearance (that would be Cisco) or the cheapest (Grandstream) but they are, as far as we can tell, the most configurable.

Much the same seems to be true of VoIP gateway systems. Many people with whom I've spoken are using Cisco instruments as their gateway between SIP and the PSTN (conventional phone system). We are using Asterisk. Although it is hardly the easiest software to configure -- it's kind of like the Sendmail of VoIP, minus the security hell -- the Asterisk/Zaptel/Linux system is far more flexible than closed equivalents.

So what does this have to do with the advantages of open source? In a field of open standards, such as SIP telephony, open source can really shine. Open standards mean that there is little space for vendor lock-in, so vendors cannot exclude open source in the usual fashion. Open source is largely immune to the problem of treating standards as "tick-list features", which some appliance developers seem to suffer from: implementing the standard in a slapdash way so that you can mention it in the four-color glossies. ("Do we have, um, this 'SIP' thing?" "Uh ... [type type] ... sure, we do now!")

So how does this contrast with some of open source's notable weaker points, like user interface and graphics software mentioned in the article? It seems to me that open standards and open source both have their strengths in infrastructure as opposed to interface: not the buttons that users push on their desktops, but the underlying systemry that really makes the system (and the network) run. The advantage of Asterisk over proprietary PSTN gateways is much more than the advantage (if any!) of SNOM over Cisco SIP phones. The same is true in other infrastructural roles: the advantage of Apache over Microsoft IIS is much more than the advantage (if any!) of KDE over, say, the Mac OS X interface.

For the user of closed-source end-user systems (be they phones or desktop computers) the presence of open source in the infrastructure means that it can be customized by experts (IT staff or consultants) to the needs of the organization. It also often means that the infrastructure is simply higher-quality, which benefits everyone. The folks who get VoIP phones on their desks at my workplace don't care whether the gateway is Asterisk or Cisco, but they do care if we can implement features they request. Likewise, our Web designers using Dreamweaver benefit more from the fact that we use Apache (since their work is safer than it would be with IIS) than they would by using an open-source end-user tool.

To make a tangent, consider Microsoft. Their tradit

Re:Open Source is like Open Standards but more so

[Decaff]

Customization and expertise in the infrastructure is a strength of open systems in general, which is concentrated and distilled in open source.

This is one of the few points I disagree with in an otherwise excellent post. I just don't believe that the strength of open systems is necessarily reflected in open source in any way.

I know of several open source projects that totally reject standards, and have gone their own way.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

Your argument is that incorporating GPL code doesn't force you to open the rest of your code, because you don't have to incorporate GPL code to begin with. That logic is pretty perverse.

The claim was "Putting GPL code in your software forces you to open your software".

So, suppose you are a software vendor, you placed GPL software in your app, started selling it and have now received a phone call from the FSF on behalf of the copyright holder. Eben Moglen has just informed you that you are guilty of copyright violation.

What are your options?

Opening your source is *far* from your only option. In fact, most of the time when it happens, the offender does not end up opening their code. For that mater, if you went to court, and lost, the judge would not order you to open your code, because it would be an excessively severe punishment.

The AC who posted "[The vendor] never violated GPL. He avoids it. Your last couple points are therefore irrelevant" is right on the money.

Yes, but that's a different argument. The vendor who never infringes on anyone's copyrights is behaving properly and no one has any problem with him. He may wish that he could use GPL'd code, but then he may also wish that he could use Microsoft's copyrighted code, cutting and pasting it out of what he got under a Shared Source license. In both cases, he has no permission to use that code, doesn't own that code and therefore has to find/buy/write code that he can use.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[DrSkwid]

If he wants *any old code* and not *my* code then so what?

He's complaining that *my* code doesn't suit *his* needs!

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[ratsnapple tea]

Yep, looks like we're on the same page. :)

Is it GPL?

[melted]

Cuz' if it is, I'll be downloading your stuff off the CVS shortly, putting up my own CVS and writing my own installer to sell for $29.95.

Education is Also a Factor

[kravlor]

My first serious brush with Free software was when I took an operating systems course back in college. While many of the principles we discussed were universal (schedulers, filesystems, etc.) we turned to the Linux kernel to look at examples of how you would actually implement a scheduler, filesystem, etc.

Another interest I had was in how P2P networks work. I had no experience in network programming, but a firm grasp of C/C++; downloading the source to a Gnutella client and poking around did wonders. When I later had to contribute to a network-based application in college, I found myself ahead thankful for being able to reference functioning, stable code.

While the article makes the (valid) point that many people do not have the ability to easily modify the software they use, this ability doesn't just magically appear from nowhere; it's something that has to be learned. For me, seeing examples of how certain things are implemented is one of the most effective way to learn.

Besides, there's always the allure of knowing that if you're not satisfied with a Free software product, you can pick it up, study the source, and fix it yourself if you're so inclined!

Bit of both

[UncleScrooge]

Listen it is simpel, I am a great big fan of Linux, but I bought a 4000$graphical work and gaming station last month, and yes I run Windows XP SP2 on it. It works fine. I need Windows for things like Photoshop, Illustrator and Freehand and most importantly MS Exchange for my job/hobby. On the other hand I have a good 64 bit computer which runs Gentoo, it is for browsing, type writing and other non-graphic things. I have a KVM switch so I can easily swap between the 2 systems. SO I have the best of both worlds, and really anyone who thinks Microsoft is REALLY a piece of good-for-nothing junk is very short sighted.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[Ambassador Kosh]

NOBODY is forcing you to use GPL code. You can choose to use it or not choose to use it. If you choose to use it then you have to abide by the license it is under. There is no force involved and never has been. At every step you make a choice with no durress involved. There is nothing viral about the GPL.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[Ambassador Kosh]

NOBODY forced you to use GPL code in the first place. You could have chosen something else at any time and been under no obligations. If you choose GPL code then you must abide by the license the GPL code is under. If you purchase a proprietary QT license you must comply with that license. If you download some shareware tool you must comply with that license. There is no difference between any of these. They each have costs, obligations etc.

Not Freedoms

[Brandybuck]

They're not freedoms. They're more like the "really really nice attributes to have for software". The four "freedoms" are very useful attributes, but no way in heck do they rank up there with freedom of speech, religion and due process. After all, wars have been justifiably fought over the latter, but only the most sociopathic stallmanite would ever advocate violence in the prescence of the former.

Network effects

[LibrePensador]

"While some sites offer non-Flash versions in an introductory page, the Suzuki site didn't display anything in my browser but blank white space. Yes, I could find and order the service manual from a parts Web site or simply call up a local dealership and ask, but I have a computer to help me find this sort of information. My computer's functionality and its ability to find information that I need has been hindered because I refused to install proprietary software. That's when I cast off the notion that I had to use only free software. Why should I reduce the functionality of my computer and inconvenience myself, when in actuality I sacrifice nothing by using necessary proprietary software?"

Jem, I know that you are a writer. As someone who creates, I am appalled to see that you of all people are willing to be part of the netwok effect that shuts off people from being to create on a fair playing field. You may say, you may still create, but if the only tool for web animation becomes a proprietary tool, you are thereby forcing people to learn, pay for and use that tool?

And even though activation schemes and digital restriction management isn't yet pervasive, it will soon be. Those that have silently contributed to the hegemony of these tools over the production of creative material will come to regret it.

Then there is the consumption side. Shockwave only works in windows. By endorsing those tools, you are butressing a monopoly and, given the network effect, making it more likely that others will have to do the same.

Truly appaling.

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[cammoblammo]

I think you're a little confused. The article's about Freedom of Software (or at least, selling it off.) Your post is about Open Source.

There's a difference.

Ain't easy for hardware either

[Theovon]

If you want to have free software, then you need to have hardware with open specs. As the leader of the Open Graphics Project, I can tell you that doing the work and finding the commitment of enough buyers isn't easy.

Only half of GNU's freedoms have much value to...

[istartedi]

Only half of GNU's freedoms have much value to... most people. Freedom's 1 and 3 are only available to a very small segment of society: computer programmers. Furthermore, even if you are a programmer chances are you don't want to study a particular piece of software. I could care less how a DNS server works. I just care how reliable it is and how much it costs. I don't even need to tinker with its inner workings to know its secure because I can use network monitoring tools to make sure it's not snooping on me... not that the upstream DNS server couldn't be reporting my activity anyway, and OSS on mine can't fix that.

Freedom 0 is a given, assuming that you've already acquired the software. Some legal weenie might be able to place restrictions on what I'm allowed to do with the software, but that's virtually unenforceable.

So, what it all boils down to for most people is freedom 2 which is really just another way of saying all software should be gratis despite the FS advocates claims to the contrary. Communism. Been there. Done that. Didn't work. Thank-you for trying, have a nice day.

Flash

[Sloppy]

This dude totally misunderstands his situation...

As a case in point, recently I needed to get tire specifications for my motorcycle from the Suzuki Web site. Since the site is all done in Flash, and since I did not have the Flash plug-in installed because it is proprietary, I could not get the information I needed. While some sites offer non-Flash versions in an introductory page, the Suzuki site didn't display anything in my browser but blank white space.
...
That's when I cast off the notion that I had to use only free software. Why should I reduce the functionality of my computer and inconvenience myself, when in actuality I sacrifice nothing by using necessary proprietary software?

Perhaps it is time to let go of some of the high-moral ideals and remember why we started using computers in the first place.

The writer totally misdiagnosed the problem!! It has nothing to do with Free Software, it has to do with standards. He could have been using a proprietary minority platform, and still had the same experience. The fact is, the web is a standard (both documented and defacto), and Flash just isn't in the same league. His question shouldn't have been: "Why am I limiting myself to not being able to read this?" Instead, it should have been, "Why did I buy a motorcycle, where the manufacturer doesn't even make tire specs available on a website?" Suzuki dropped the ball. (OTOH, I'm not sure that have tech specs for a product be on the web, is really all that important of a requirement. But I guess it was, to this guy.) But what I mean is, if Suzuki requires weirdo software to be able to look up specs, then it's just the same as though they don't supply the information at all.

The fact that the weirdo software isn't Free, isn't the issue. There could be plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't/couldn't run the weirdo software, other than your aversion to proprietary software:

• Maybe you don't mind proprietary software in general, but this particular software is only available through a license, and the license has disagreeable terms.
• Maybe you run an OS to which this software hasn't been ported yet. It could even be a proprietary, but unpopular OS (e.g. Amiga). Or it could be a popular OS but on an unpopular hardware platform (e.g. NT on Alpha, or something like that).
• Maybe it's just a matter of quality and performance. There are lots of web browsers (because the web is a standard) so no matter who you are and what platform you use, you can find a good web browser. But since Flash isn't a standard, there aren't many Flash players (I only know of one) and as a result of lack of competitive forces, the quality of that software is going to be below-par. Maybe you don't have idealistic objections to the software, but it just doesn't work. Perhaps it crashes, or you don't have enough RAM to run it, or whatever. And you don't have an alternative.
• Maybe you're boycotting, for other reasons, the one company that makes the only software that can read that data format. (e.g. you want them to stop their policy of only selling puppy shredders to white males.) And again, since the data is nonstandard, there is no alternative product to read it.

This situation is about the bullshit that users have to put up with due to lack of adherence to standards, not free-vs-proprietary. The inconvenience that Suzuki subjected you to, is not part of the cost of using Free Software. It's part of the cost of dealing with Suzuki , a company that apparently doesn't give a damn about how accessible their tire specs are.

Re:there is a major difference, you refuse to see

[HiThere]

No question. You're correct. The GPL puts more legal restrictions on the code than the BSD license does. And that's a reason that I'm willing to use it for code that I write.

People who write BSD code are truly dedicated to writing code in a way that I will never be. If it weren't for the GPL, I'd pick some other license that protected my rights to my own code, or created my own (dangerous, as IANAL).

Re:Linux nerds will never understand...

[Taladar]

The only thing horrible on Slashdot is the non-conformance to certain HTML Standards. The Layout is far superior to any graphical/Flash/... Design and works quite well IMHO.

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[Taladar]

The strange thing with your opinion is that I use unfree software almost exclusively in my holidays (read: Gaming) and use Linux when I have not enough time to worry about Windows problems. Linux just works for me and this is not zeal but simply observation. Sure, sometimes there are problems but they must only be fixed once, not many times over like many Windows apps force me to waste my time.

Oh, and by the way, I use Opera in Gentoo Linux to post this. Opera is the one program I have yet to find a Open Source alternative and since it does not look like I will find one I paid for my copy a few months ago to get rid of the Ads. (Just added so you know I am not a total Open Source/Free Software Zealot ;) )

Well argued? Nope.

[Brett Glass]

The blurb on Slashdot's front page claims that the article referenced here is "well argued." After reading it, however, I must disagree. Judging from the article, the author is -- very simply, a "Stallmanista" -- one who accepts Richard Stallman's views entirely uncritically. He never stops to question whether Stallman's "religious" views make any sense. For example, he sidesteps entirely the issue of whether Stallman's belief that there's something inherently wrong about selling one's work is justified. He therefore comes across -- unfortunately -- as an orthodox fundamentalist arguing the fine points of a radical religion without ever questioning whether its basic premises are wrongheaded. Which, IMHO, they are.

hidden costs

[bcrowell]

The inconvenience that Suzuki subjected you to, is not part of the cost of using Free Software. It's part of the cost of dealing with Suzuki , a company that apparently doesn't give a damn about how accessible their tire specs are.
Yep!

More generally, the article doesn't match up with my experience of the hidden costs of using proprietary software. Back before Linus became my personal savior, these costs included:

1. The cost of upgrading to the latest version of ${APP} every time they made a new version that was incompatible with the old version.
2. The cost of learning a new version of ${APP} every time.
3. The cost of buying new hardware so as to be fast enough to be able to run the new, bloated software.
4. The cost to my right wrist of having to click all afternoon on a mouse, because Windows and MacOS applications are typically not scriptable in any useful way.
5. The cost of spending time on the phone with tech support people who would try to pretend that there were no bugs (excuse me, "issues") on their app, and the problem was all somebody else's fault.
6. The cost of upgrading system and apps in hopes of getting a bug fix, only to find that the new version was more buggy than the old one.
7. I never experienced this personally (because I used macs, and switched to Linux before malware became so big on Windows), but for many people there is a huge cost in dealing with malware.

article abstract:

[nazsco]

So, because GIMP doens't print well now, i have to use a pirated copy of Microsoft Office?

Except that they don't.

[arafel]

So you can find it whatever you want, but since they don't do it, you're kind of starting from the wrong place. ;-)

(As someone else has said, APIs do change - but they change for reasons other than "let's break all the binary drivers".)

Economic value of freedoms

[einhverfr]

Upon reading the article, I decided that it was based on a faulty premise--- that the choice is between certain features and freedom, and that these are the only two factors that count.

I am a pragmatist, and I will generally use the best tool for the job. That being said, I have found that open source offers me unparalleled capabilities and value at low prices. This is because active open source projects turn these four freedoms into economic advantages. These include:

1) Community support is generally more active, knowledgable and helpful than it is for proprietary software. This means that if I need to pay for support in an emergency I can, but if it is not an emergency, I can get expert asisstance, possibly even from the software authors. This is important because of the freedom to modify, study, and redistribute the software.

2) The software often better fits the community needs because the division between software development and technical support does not generally exist in the open source world (try getting the guy who wrote a snippit of Windows source to fix a bug in it by calling PSS).

3) The lack of the division between product development and technical support also ensures that commonly used open source software will be extremely robust and quite bug-free, and that new bugs will be rapidly fixed.

4) Access to the source code also creates an environment where the value of the option of self-reliance becomes apparent. If I am running SQL-Ledger, for example, and I find a bug, I can report it and wait for the next version, if I have the ability, I can fix it myself, or I can hire a third party to fix it for me. This frees me from worrying about whether Microsoft will fix the latest security advisory, or whether this particular application crash will ever be resolved. A "Can-do" attitude goes a long way.

My mail server runs an Almost-Free/Barely Open Source program called Qmail. I use it because in many ways it is the best tool for what I need it for even though it is not quite Free Software (it is not quite proprietary either). I run PostgreSQL, Linux, OpenOffice, Gnome, Mozilla and others.

At the same time, pretty much all the rest of my software (except a few games) are all open source. It has been an adjustment for my wife, and it was an adjustment for my parents, but as time goes on and they start to see how powerful and capable the open source alternatives are, they don't ever want to go back.

Now regarding your post:

anyone who bitches about his gpl'd program being used by the military to suppress indigenous tribes with fails to appreciate that vital freedom.

Very well said. I have often commented about how I hope that open source brings Iranians, Arabs, and Israelis together to coorperate in improving OpenOffice, KDE, Gnome, etc. Sometimes, you hope that this community can continue to help people build working relationships across deep political, military, and social barriers and perhaps even fuel some understanding of those who would otherwise be enemies.

Re:speed vs. idealism

[ScrewMaster]

Sure ... but, then again, nobody would ever call RMS "expedient."

What really fucks me over about whiners

[theolein]

I really don't understand the fucking idiots here who go so apeshit about how the GPL robs them of their fucking freedom. It is so simple their children would understand it: If you don't like it, don't fucking use it!.

Stupid fucking bastards.

Was it stupidity... or was it brilliance?

[mrchaotica]

"Free" has some advantages over "liberated" or "unrestricted." For one thing, it's just a catchier name -- less cumbersome to say, and without the problems of some other choices (e.g. "liberated? ... from what?").

And then there's another advantage: the confusion and pedantry itself. Think about it for a second, and ask yourself which is actually better: a completely unambiguous term that people will hear, say "oh, OK then" and promptly forget about, or a term that, specifically due to its ambiguity, generates interview after interview where Stallman gets to evangelize it over and over again, and discussion upon discussion about it on Slashdot to the point where it's impossible to avoid hearing about it, understanding it, and possibly choosing to support it.

Rebuttal.

[jbn-o]

From the essay:

It also assumes that people care how the software works and are willing and able to modify it.

No, what RMS is getting at does not assume this, it means appreciating that what we've got now came from pursuing these freedoms and not giving up on them in spite of technical limitations. If we all moved in the direction of focusing on technical innovation instead of freedom, we would not be able to maintain software freedom. We would drop free software, perhaps pick up the philosophy of the open source movement (which champions technical efficiency not software freedom) and then, ultimately, drop that too whenever a proprietor offered some technical advantage that software failed to deliver. Business gets behind "open source" because the term invites users to have warm fuzzy feelings and think that they are being nice, even if they're not offering software freedom (as some open source licenses do not offer software freedom). The open source movement got its start from the groundwork laid down by the free software movement.

Most car drivers aren't auto mechanics, but they benefit greatly from having a wealth of competing mechanics to choose from when their car doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That same principle applies here. Nationally, the US benefitted from a country of car tinkerers who later entered the military and used their technical smarts acquired in their garages to fight a world war. You, as a user who does not program, do not benefit when the details are kept from you as proprietary software keeps its real operation from users, because those operational details are also denied those who are more technically capable than you which means you cannot benefit from their wisdom, their bug fixes, and the improvements they write.

Most people aren't programmers, but most can do something well. Perhaps you can draw, compose music, write documentation, help debug by providing detailed reports of bugs, or something else. Many programs need skills programmers don't have, skills you might posess. You don't have to be a programmer to help improve the program in dramatic ways (easily understood documentation for novices is particularly needed). You will end up leveraging the freedoms of free software to provide this contribution because you will end up discussing something with someone who knows the program by studying its source code and sharing improvements.

[...] there is virtually no enforcement of these terms in the non-business portion of the software world.

Not too long ago Slashdot readers read of drug bust-style raids on people who copy DVDs without license. In another thread on Slashdot's front page right now, software copyright holders (particularly proprietary software copyright holders) are complaining that the DMCA doesn't give them enough power to bust the people illicitly sharing copies of their software. ISPs aren't withholding names because they're defending our privacy. They don't want to do the work it would take to meet all of the requests that would go to them. It seems to me as if it is a matter of time before more people get busted similarly for illicit distribution of software.

If I give my (fictional) copy of Microsoft Office to my friend, the FBI will not show up at my door to arrest me -- or at least I can find no evidence to suggest that this has happened to anyone.

Brad Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation addressed this point in his talk to the University of Illinois last year: (skip to 1h42m22s)

"The reason I'm completely against the copying and sharing of proprietary software without license is not because I think it's unethical, but because I think it hides the real harm that proprietary software licenses cause; because if yo

Re:Being Free is Hard to Do

[Azureash]

I think you're the one that's confused. I read the entire article, but was really responding to other comments (hence the 'RE:' in the subject line.

Thanks for being a dick though, anyway.

Freedom 5: The freedom to limit others' freedoms

[booch]

Your 5th freedom is best termed as "the freedom to take freedom away from others" or "the freedom to reduce freedom". Whether this is "more free" or "less free" is a philosphical question. As you've noted, the answer to that question is the main difference between the GPL and the BSD camps. I suppose whether it is a useful freedom depends on the situation -- I don't think anyone today would argue that you should be free to enslave another person. Thus, I don't think you can call it a "fundamental freedom".

The freedom to improve the program, and not release your improvements to the public (or sell said improvements to the public for profit)

Actually, the GPL allows you to do either of these, but not both. That is, you can make changes to a GPL program and use it yourself (or internally within your company) without having to release your improvements to the public. And you can sell GPLed programs, as long as you make the source available, and don't prevent the recipients from redistriuting the program.

I think what you're really concerned about is whether you can sell the modified program and make money. The GPL does not take this ability/freedom away; it just makes it difficult, because recipients are free to give copies to their friends. If you think about it, you shouldn't expect to make money off the original existing program -- you had nothing to do with it. So that leaves you with the possibility of profitting of the improvements you make. This actually isn't that difficult to do -- just find someone who wants the improvements, and have them fund your work.

A related question is whether you should be allowed to license software under non-free licenses.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

If you're planning a large commerical product, these options are places you don't go.

If you're planning a closed source product, these options are places you don't go.

They're regarded as risks, of losing money in court, of getting a FUD clowd over your product, of uncertain future, of being reliant of the mercy of a court, of having to reimplement things with non-GPL code, of having a product delayed/hampered due to this.

No, they're regarded as your only possible escapes from having done a very stupid thing which you should not have done to begin with.

They're all still leave softwre companies out of the club who can use the GPL codebase, whereas BSD allows everyone to use the code without these risks.

Sure. So if you want to write closed source software and use other people's work to do it, use BSD code, or license some other code, or write your own. People who chose to release their code under the GPL don't want you to use their code in closed-source apps, and it's their choice because it's their code.

Re:he doesn't want your code, it's tainted by GPL

[swillden]

So you yourself are saying the GPL offers the same amount of freedom as microsoft licenses do.

Right, because Microsoft allows you to modify and redistribute their code.

Re:It's not just free, it's better

[SlashSpam]

What little game playing I do is handled just fine by the PS2. All of my development work is handled just fine by free editors, compilers, debuggers, and other tools (including embedded operating systems). The argument that I'm sacrificing some measure of usability or productivity in exchange for freedom is simply false in my case -- I'm getting the best of both worlds.

Just to mock you a little in a friendly way - I didn't know there were free (as in freedom) games for the PS2. :-P

/Spam .