I'd be pretty scared about owning any watermarked or otherwise personally-identifiable files. Even if I stay totally within the law and never give it to anybody, it means I have a file sitting on my computer which I must make sure nobody ever gets.
As in, if someone, possibly a hacker, were to steal a confidential Word document from my PC, that might be bad.
If someone were to steal a watermarked MP3 file from my PC (or, say, a whole album of such files), and it then finds its way out onto the Internet, I could potentially be fucked over. From what we see all the time here, I could lose my house if the RIAA really wanted me to.
It means once I have purchased these files, I have to be eternally vigilant. The security of those MP3 files is potentially one of the more important things on my PC. This really isn't something the average consumer is thinking about when they purchase music.
Combine that with an OS like Windows, on which it is the norm for rogue programs to run wild opening backdoors everywhere, and you have an unfortunate situation for consumers.
I read the whole article. From the look of it, they fixed nothing (?) which people have been complaining about the whole time. Instead added a number of brand new UI features.
Though they do say it seems "more stable and more polished", so I suppose that's something.
Some of the UI features are so basic, like being able to drag taskbar icons. Good lord, do Microsoft like to show up late to a party! Other features are quite nifty, like IE showing download progress in its taskbar. But hardly worth a new OS, and quite perpendicular to fixing all the real issues with Vista.
When an application crashes under Windows, the application failed. When an application crashes under Linux, Linux fails.
Ironically, the inverse is usually true.
When an application crashes under Windows, often it will bring down the entire OS.
When an application crashes under Linux, it will usually just die and the system keeps on running.
Anyway, the above perception may be due to the error message, "This application has performed an illegal operation, and will be shut down." The application is naughty! Windows is the good guy, and is going to clean it up!
Honestly, this is quite a nifty feature. In Linux, if a program segfaults, a command-line app will unscrupulously print "Segmentation Fault", while a GUI app will even less-scrupulously disappear with no explanation.:/
How do you get the Windows apps from the classroom into the home computers anyway? Most of them are licensed, so unless families are willing to fork out for home copies of Number Munchers, they'll be SOL. Hence, the school computers and home computers do not need to be compatible.
RE work documents, if the school PCs ran Linux and the home computers ran Windows, students could even work in OpenOffice, and install OO at home on the Windows machines too, in order to work from school and home on the same documents.
So while the odds of installing Linux in schools are insurmountable, this is not a reason.
Guido made a major fuck up there- by removing braces but not strictly defining whitespace
Stop. First, the whitespace rule in Python *is* strictly defined.
The formal, exact, unambiguous specification of how Python interprets whitespace is in the official language reference - Lexical analysis.
It's pretty wordy, but I've studied it and it's quite precise. The relevant section is here:
"Firstly, tabs are replaced (from left to right) by one to eight spaces such that the total number of characters up to and including the replacement is a multiple of eight"
This is exactly the same as the default behaviour of Unix `expand`.
[Guido has] created a language where it's possible to have two identical looking pieces of code do very different things.
It depends what you mean by "looking". To you, perhaps 1 tab looks the same as 4 spaces. To me, maybe it looks the same as 2 spaces. To Jeff, maybe it looks like a red dot in his specially-configured editor. To Python, it happens to look the same as 8 spaces.
DO NOT MIX TABS AND SPACES. Then, I guarantee you that any two pieces of code which look the same to you (whether they use tabs or spaces) will also look the same to Python. (You don't have to enforce this across a whole file, just on a per-block basis, but it's best if your whole project has an agreed indentation standard).
If he had said that it must be indented by exactly 1 tab or exactly 4 spaces or whatever other measure and everything else would throw a syntax error.
That's silly. Then you'd be at Guido's whim; you'd have to indent the way he chose. This way, you can choose any indentation you like. Tabs, 2 spaces, 4 spaces, 3 tabs if you like. As long as you are internally-consistent, Python will be happy.
My second point to you: If you are pasting code from somewhere into your code, and you do not fix up indentation so it matches the surrounding code, you are worse than Hitler. Or at least very lazy. I don't care if you are using Python or C or Brainfuck.
If you carelessly paste 1-tab-indented code into a surrounding block which is 4-tab-indented, and don't fix it up, then how do you think I will feel when I open it in my editor configured to expand tabs to 2 spaces instead. It will be totally unreadable -- and this is why we indent in the first place (in any language, that is).
Python forces you to tidy this up, and that can only be a good thing. If your code is confusing Python, it's probably confusing a bunch of other readers as well.
You can reformat that block, or you can change the spaces (tabs, number of spaces), and it will still work. In Python, it may look okay, and be readable, but it won't work.
I'm a Bazaar fan. That isn't to say I'm not a Git fan, I just prefer Bazaar (by a small margin, for a handful of reasons).
That website makes a really good case, but I think they should remove "Bzr" from the "Cheap Local Branching" section. I could s/git/bazaar that entire section and it would still be almost correct.
Bazaar has a totally different view of branches, but it gives you all the same flexibility as Git. The only thing is that Bzr branches are full copies of the entire repository - so they aren't "cheap" by default. To mitigate this, you simply create a "repository" one directory level above the branch, and then all the branches share data and are very cheap and fast.
As for what the OLPC was supposed to be for... I don't think anyone ever really decided.
Well, what's a computer for? It's just a general purpose device. It doesn't need to have a specific use in mind when you design it.
The OLPC was for children to do whatever they like with (within the limitations of the device). It was a general education tool, with a child-friendly user interface, social tools, office and education software, and programming, as well as references like Wikipedia.
How is this continual stream of "they could be EVERYWHERE" news not spreading the terror? Seriously... every once in awhile they fly a plane into a building or blow up a bus, which is horrible!! But having our media and our politicians say, "forall x. x can be used by the terrorists (watch out|let's get rid of it)" is doing way more damage to our lives.
Preaching to the converted, I know, but that's why we comment on Slashdot after all:)
This is true, but you're dependent on them anyway, because they made the hardware. You have a choice between using their proprietary blobs, or not using them at all. That's a choice between having good video support (albeit, being helpless to fix any problems) and bad video support. It's clear why Ubuntu went the way they did - it's a practical decision, not an exercise in proprietarisation.
Same deal with Adobe Flash. It's a choice between having a good Flash player (albeit being helpless to fix any problems) and a bad Flash player. (Though this issue is being fixed as we speak, it still stands that the Adobe Flash player is far more compatible with the actual Flash files out there than open Flash players).
As I said, he wasn't "against" it. He just complained about it rather than seeing the good side of things. From this interview:
Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are championing the cause of the FSF?
Not entirely. The EeePC comes with a variant of the GNU/Linux operating system, but it's a very bad one: it contains lots of non-free software. In fact, the machine demands that the user agree to an EULA before it will even start up. I received an EeePC as a gift, but I could not run it because my conscience will not let me agree to the EULA. Finally, I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used.
When was Stallman against Debian becoming a meta-distribution with others creating a desktop version (what Canonical does)?
He wasn't against Debian. They're fully RMS-compliant! He's always been against Ubuntu though, because it contains non-free software. (So much that the FSF created a spin-off of Ubuntu called gNewSense, just to remove the offending packages).
It really isn't. A lot of technical people understand 'open source' to mean source-code-visible, rather than associating it with any particular rights on the code (e.g. the right to modify it, or even compile it yourself).
I know it's still ambiguous. I'm saying it's less ambiguous. Because if I say "open source" when I mean free software, people may assume I mean source-code-visible, and not get some of the more subtle points (the "freedom" RMS is talking about).
If I say "free software" when I mean free software, people may (and non-technical people almost always do) assume I mean source-code-hidden $0 softwaree. That's a far worse assumption to make, IMO.
Most non-technical people have no idea what source code is.
You'd be surprised at how many non-technical people get the idea of open source. But if they don't at least they won't have any pre-conceived assumptions. They may ask what I mean by "open source" and then I can explain in some way.
But if I say "free software", how many people will turn around and say "do you mean free as in beer or free as in speech?"? None of them! They'll just assume it's free-as-in-beer.
And that's why I claim the term "open source" is "less ambiguous". (Not unambiguous).
That's true, and it's good to have such a strong viewpoint to work towards.
I just wish he'd react positively to steps in the right direction rather than negatively.
He could say, "It's excellent that the eeePC has preloaded software based on the GNU/Linux distribution, even though they aren't entirely free". Versus saying "I don't use the eeePC because it has some non-free software on it, and that cannot be endorsed". (NOT A QUOTE, just an example of his style).
I have seen him use the phrase "it's a step in the right direction". But usually he's quite negative unless something matches his ideals. Which is rare.
I see what you're saying, but I think that the GPL is doing more harm than good in this respect. I know several companies (the one I work for included), that will not use GPL code... ever, because it requires that their finished product be opened up.
Right. Well once again, I see your point, and am somewhat convinced (wow this must be the most agreeable discussion I've ever had or read on Slashdot).
I think it's ultimately up to the developer in the first place. If he chooses GPL, that means he values the recipients of his code sharing alike more than he values any potential patches he gets back from them.
I understand your point, and I fully understand the issues. I'm just using terminology differently than you. I'm deciding to continue using the term "end user" as a blanket term encompassing all recipients of the software.
Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms.
If you have a better term...? (Perhaps "recipient" is a better blanket term for "end users" + "distributors").
I can't believe this is still not understood by some./ers.
RMS is always so adamant that we call it "Free Software" and not "Open Source Software". Problem is, whether Free Software is a better name for it or not, it's got hideous problems. The main one being this (from TFA):
Search Google for 'free software' and the top result is a site dedicated to mostly proprietary software that's free to try, but often crippled by shareware licensing or demo restrictions.
You just can't use the term "free software" around normal people - they don't get it. They use the term "free software" themselves all the time, to mean Internet Explorer and Stupid Window Theme Pack For Windows 30 Day Trial and other garbage. Like it or not, the term is overloaded, and RMS's definition is not the default.
I prefer the term "open source". It's far less ambiguous (the ambiguity between "open source" and RMS-free is a much more subtle distinction than the ambiguity between "free software" and RMS-free). People either know what it means, or don't know what it means (and I can explain). Much better than people assuming it means something it doesn't.
But my main rebuttal is that the wording of freedom 3, "release your improvements... to the public, so that the whole community benefits" -- well arguably (and certainly if you take the statement in the context of the FSF mission), if you release your improvements to the public in a non-free way, the whole community does not benefit.
Well that's more or less my (unstated) point. What I said was that BSD makes the end user free, while GPL makes the code free.
The problem with the BSD model is that each end user is free to make the code non-free, and spoil it for everyone else downstream (which is the situation you describe).
The GPL model forces the code to be free forever. The users' freedoms take a back-seat - specifically those users who want to proprietarise the code, but also the users who want to port to BSD model lose out, as collateral. The GPL view is, oh well, at least the code is, and will always be, free.
That's not the problem at all. The problem is that he doesn't deliver what he promises. True software freedom would allow you to do anything you like with the software, and wouldn't be restricted to only people who carry on making it free.
Hang on... you're confusing "freedom in software" with "free software". By "true software freedom", I assume you mean "end users being able to do whatever they like with software". That isn't his mission.
His mission is "free software". You say that true free software "wouldn't be restricted to only people who carry on making it free". Well there you go -- you said it yourself -- free software is, by definition restricted to the set of software which people continue to make free. Otherwise, it stops being free software.
If you want to go into the exact wording of what Stallman has always promised, look at the Four 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 (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Nowhere in his mission statement does he say users should be totally unrestricted in what they can do with the software.
That's exactly right, and that's why the biggest things to happen in free software -- in promoting Stallman's cause -- in the past decade have been the very things he cries out against.
Dell putting Linux on PCs, preinstalled! Fantastic. It works out of the box, and your average user *just might* stumble upon it without having to go out of their way to learn about it. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because it has some non-free software).
Ubuntu happened! Fantastic. Linux for human beings. For the first time, we can give Ubuntu CDs to our grandmas and get some degree of success. It's a Linux distro that's tuned for normal users. It looks great. It can play DVDs and do 3D graphics. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because there are binary blobs).
I'm sure there are more examples. My point is that we aren't going to "win" by mouthing off every Linux-based OS or computer with non-free code in it, or, as you say, by refusing to open Word documents. That's just being stubborn. We're going to win by piece-by-piece showing the world what free or almost-free software can do.
if I give you the ability to do *anything* with my code and you turn around and tell your end users *you can't do all that much* who exactly is the one that is free here?
It's the code that is free, not the user.
I assume you're contrasting BSD or similarly permissive licenses with the GPL. BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be pretty scared about owning any watermarked or otherwise personally-identifiable files. Even if I stay totally within the law and never give it to anybody, it means I have a file sitting on my computer which I must make sure nobody ever gets.
As in, if someone, possibly a hacker, were to steal a confidential Word document from my PC, that might be bad.
If someone were to steal a watermarked MP3 file from my PC (or, say, a whole album of such files), and it then finds its way out onto the Internet, I could potentially be fucked over. From what we see all the time here, I could lose my house if the RIAA really wanted me to.
It means once I have purchased these files, I have to be eternally vigilant. The security of those MP3 files is potentially one of the more important things on my PC. This really isn't something the average consumer is thinking about when they purchase music.
Combine that with an OS like Windows, on which it is the norm for rogue programs to run wild opening backdoors everywhere, and you have an unfortunate situation for consumers.
It's a good thing to point out.
I read the whole article. From the look of it, they fixed nothing (?) which people have been complaining about the whole time. Instead added a number of brand new UI features.
Though they do say it seems "more stable and more polished", so I suppose that's something.
Some of the UI features are so basic, like being able to drag taskbar icons. Good lord, do Microsoft like to show up late to a party! Other features are quite nifty, like IE showing download progress in its taskbar. But hardly worth a new OS, and quite perpendicular to fixing all the real issues with Vista.
When an application crashes under Windows, the application failed. When an application crashes under Linux, Linux fails.
Ironically, the inverse is usually true.
When an application crashes under Windows, often it will bring down the entire OS.
When an application crashes under Linux, it will usually just die and the system keeps on running.
Anyway, the above perception may be due to the error message, "This application has performed an illegal operation, and will be shut down." The application is naughty! Windows is the good guy, and is going to clean it up!
Honestly, this is quite a nifty feature. In Linux, if a program segfaults, a command-line app will unscrupulously print "Segmentation Fault", while a GUI app will even less-scrupulously disappear with no explanation. :/
How do you get the Windows apps from the classroom into the home computers anyway? Most of them are licensed, so unless families are willing to fork out for home copies of Number Munchers, they'll be SOL. Hence, the school computers and home computers do not need to be compatible.
RE work documents, if the school PCs ran Linux and the home computers ran Windows, students could even work in OpenOffice, and install OO at home on the Windows machines too, in order to work from school and home on the same documents.
So while the odds of installing Linux in schools are insurmountable, this is not a reason.
Guido made a major fuck up there- by removing braces but not strictly defining whitespace
Stop. First, the whitespace rule in Python *is* strictly defined.
The formal, exact, unambiguous specification of how Python interprets whitespace is in the official language reference - Lexical analysis.
It's pretty wordy, but I've studied it and it's quite precise. The relevant section is here:
"Firstly, tabs are replaced (from left to right) by one to eight spaces such that the total number of characters up to and including the replacement is a multiple of eight"
This is exactly the same as the default behaviour of Unix `expand`.
[Guido has] created a language where it's possible to have two identical looking pieces of code do very different things.
It depends what you mean by "looking". To you, perhaps 1 tab looks the same as 4 spaces. To me, maybe it looks the same as 2 spaces. To Jeff, maybe it looks like a red dot in his specially-configured editor. To Python, it happens to look the same as 8 spaces.
DO NOT MIX TABS AND SPACES. Then, I guarantee you that any two pieces of code which look the same to you (whether they use tabs or spaces) will also look the same to Python. (You don't have to enforce this across a whole file, just on a per-block basis, but it's best if your whole project has an agreed indentation standard).
That's silly. Then you'd be at Guido's whim; you'd have to indent the way he chose. This way, you can choose any indentation you like. Tabs, 2 spaces, 4 spaces, 3 tabs if you like. As long as you are internally-consistent, Python will be happy.
My second point to you: If you are pasting code from somewhere into your code, and you do not fix up indentation so it matches the surrounding code, you are worse than Hitler. Or at least very lazy. I don't care if you are using Python or C or Brainfuck.
If you carelessly paste 1-tab-indented code into a surrounding block which is 4-tab-indented, and don't fix it up, then how do you think I will feel when I open it in my editor configured to expand tabs to 2 spaces instead. It will be totally unreadable -- and this is why we indent in the first place (in any language, that is).
Python forces you to tidy this up, and that can only be a good thing. If your code is confusing Python, it's probably confusing a bunch of other readers as well.
You can reformat that block, or you can change the spaces (tabs, number of spaces), and it will still work. In Python, it may look okay, and be readable, but it won't work.
Why would you want to mess up the indentation?
o.write("Hello world.\n")
print has an implicit '\n' at the end. Gotcha :)
I'm a Bazaar fan. That isn't to say I'm not a Git fan, I just prefer Bazaar (by a small margin, for a handful of reasons).
That website makes a really good case, but I think they should remove "Bzr" from the "Cheap Local Branching" section. I could s/git/bazaar that entire section and it would still be almost correct.
Bazaar has a totally different view of branches, but it gives you all the same flexibility as Git. The only thing is that Bzr branches are full copies of the entire repository - so they aren't "cheap" by default. To mitigate this, you simply create a "repository" one directory level above the branch, and then all the branches share data and are very cheap and fast.
You forgot to think of the ... CHILDREN!
Well, what's a computer for? It's just a general purpose device. It doesn't need to have a specific use in mind when you design it.
The OLPC was for children to do whatever they like with (within the limitations of the device). It was a general education tool, with a child-friendly user interface, social tools, office and education software, and programming, as well as references like Wikipedia.
Now it's just ... Windows and Office.
Terror: "One that instills intense fear".
How is this continual stream of "they could be EVERYWHERE" news not spreading the terror? Seriously ... every once in awhile they fly a plane into a building or blow up a bus, which is horrible!! But having our media and our politicians say, "forall x. x can be used by the terrorists (watch out|let's get rid of it)" is doing way more damage to our lives.
Preaching to the converted, I know, but that's why we comment on Slashdot after all :)
Well put.
I certainly didn't read the article. I just came here to read all the "jerk" puns.
This is true, but you're dependent on them anyway, because they made the hardware. You have a choice between using their proprietary blobs, or not using them at all. That's a choice between having good video support (albeit, being helpless to fix any problems) and bad video support. It's clear why Ubuntu went the way they did - it's a practical decision, not an exercise in proprietarisation.
Same deal with Adobe Flash. It's a choice between having a good Flash player (albeit being helpless to fix any problems) and a bad Flash player. (Though this issue is being fixed as we speak, it still stands that the Adobe Flash player is far more compatible with the actual Flash files out there than open Flash players).
As I said, he wasn't "against" it. He just complained about it rather than seeing the good side of things. From this interview:
He wasn't against Debian. They're fully RMS-compliant! He's always been against Ubuntu though, because it contains non-free software. (So much that the FSF created a spin-off of Ubuntu called gNewSense, just to remove the offending packages).
I know it's still ambiguous. I'm saying it's less ambiguous. Because if I say "open source" when I mean free software, people may assume I mean source-code-visible, and not get some of the more subtle points (the "freedom" RMS is talking about).
If I say "free software" when I mean free software, people may (and non-technical people almost always do) assume I mean source-code-hidden $0 softwaree. That's a far worse assumption to make, IMO.
You'd be surprised at how many non-technical people get the idea of open source. But if they don't at least they won't have any pre-conceived assumptions. They may ask what I mean by "open source" and then I can explain in some way.
But if I say "free software", how many people will turn around and say "do you mean free as in beer or free as in speech?"? None of them! They'll just assume it's free-as-in-beer.
And that's why I claim the term "open source" is "less ambiguous". (Not unambiguous).
That's true, and it's good to have such a strong viewpoint to work towards.
I just wish he'd react positively to steps in the right direction rather than negatively.
He could say, "It's excellent that the eeePC has preloaded software based on the GNU/Linux distribution, even though they aren't entirely free". Versus saying "I don't use the eeePC because it has some non-free software on it, and that cannot be endorsed". (NOT A QUOTE, just an example of his style).
I have seen him use the phrase "it's a step in the right direction". But usually he's quite negative unless something matches his ideals. Which is rare.
Right. Well once again, I see your point, and am somewhat convinced (wow this must be the most agreeable discussion I've ever had or read on Slashdot).
I think it's ultimately up to the developer in the first place. If he chooses GPL, that means he values the recipients of his code sharing alike more than he values any potential patches he gets back from them.
I understand your point, and I fully understand the issues. I'm just using terminology differently than you. I'm deciding to continue using the term "end user" as a blanket term encompassing all recipients of the software.
Once I receive a piece of software, I am the "end user", and I am restricted (by the GPL) in what I can do with it. Specifically, I can run it, with no restrictions. But I can't distribute it unless I agree to certain terms.
If you have a better term...? (Perhaps "recipient" is a better blanket term for "end users" + "distributors").
I'm the same guy you explained it to last time...
RMS is always so adamant that we call it "Free Software" and not "Open Source Software". Problem is, whether Free Software is a better name for it or not, it's got hideous problems. The main one being this (from TFA):
You just can't use the term "free software" around normal people - they don't get it. They use the term "free software" themselves all the time, to mean Internet Explorer and Stupid Window Theme Pack For Windows 30 Day Trial and other garbage. Like it or not, the term is overloaded, and RMS's definition is not the default.
I prefer the term "open source". It's far less ambiguous (the ambiguity between "open source" and RMS-free is a much more subtle distinction than the ambiguity between "free software" and RMS-free). People either know what it means, or don't know what it means (and I can explain). Much better than people assuming it means something it doesn't.
You make some convincing/interesting points.
But my main rebuttal is that the wording of freedom 3, "release your improvements ... to the public, so that the whole community benefits" -- well arguably (and certainly if you take the statement in the context of the FSF mission), if you release your improvements to the public in a non-free way, the whole community does not benefit.
Still, I can now see where you're coming from.
Well that's more or less my (unstated) point. What I said was that BSD makes the end user free, while GPL makes the code free.
The problem with the BSD model is that each end user is free to make the code non-free, and spoil it for everyone else downstream (which is the situation you describe).
The GPL model forces the code to be free forever. The users' freedoms take a back-seat - specifically those users who want to proprietarise the code, but also the users who want to port to BSD model lose out, as collateral. The GPL view is, oh well, at least the code is, and will always be, free.
So yes, I agree with you.
Hang on ... you're confusing "freedom in software" with "free software". By "true software freedom", I assume you mean "end users being able to do whatever they like with software". That isn't his mission.
His mission is "free software". You say that true free software "wouldn't be restricted to only people who carry on making it free". Well there you go -- you said it yourself -- free software is, by definition restricted to the set of software which people continue to make free. Otherwise, it stops being free software.
If you want to go into the exact wording of what Stallman has always promised, look at the Four Freedoms:
Nowhere in his mission statement does he say users should be totally unrestricted in what they can do with the software.
That's exactly right, and that's why the biggest things to happen in free software -- in promoting Stallman's cause -- in the past decade have been the very things he cries out against.
Dell putting Linux on PCs, preinstalled! Fantastic. It works out of the box, and your average user *just might* stumble upon it without having to go out of their way to learn about it. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because it has some non-free software).
Ubuntu happened! Fantastic. Linux for human beings. For the first time, we can give Ubuntu CDs to our grandmas and get some degree of success. It's a Linux distro that's tuned for normal users. It looks great. It can play DVDs and do 3D graphics. (But that's not cool, according to RMS, because there are binary blobs).
I'm sure there are more examples. My point is that we aren't going to "win" by mouthing off every Linux-based OS or computer with non-free code in it, or, as you say, by refusing to open Word documents. That's just being stubborn. We're going to win by piece-by-piece showing the world what free or almost-free software can do.
It's the code that is free, not the user.
I assume you're contrasting BSD or similarly permissive licenses with the GPL. BSD makes the end user free. GPL makes the code free. You can't really have it both ways (because there will always be end users who want to make the code non-free).