Look at the networking products that are gpl'd. Even the proprietary ones have bugs. The proprietary ones charge you for the license then charge you for a "support contract". The GPL'd ones are more upfront and just charge to custom code the features you want/implement the network. Software becomes your product still, but its an implemented running piece of software, not a box on a shelf. It delivers more value to the end customer, and becomes a mature, robust codebase with less resources for the parent company. (Sorry, too early in the morn to dig up links)
To me its the difference between freedom and anarchy. I don't believe that freedom without some protection from other's simply deciding to take that freedom away is freedom at all. Just because I'm at one end or the other of that stick doesn't change my view on it.
Free as in constitutional representative democracy vs Free as in anarchy then?
And you might want to ask for a course in logic and manners.
Are the citizens of the United States (or any other free country) free? They have restrictions placed on them as to being able to commit murder, rob, steal, defraud. There are any number of activities a free person can not do because it restricts the freedom of another, equally deserving of freedom, person.
Yet still we call them free people. Hmm.. strange how that's similar to the idea of free software.
Because it leaves the impression that it is ONLY free as in beer, which is incorrect. I've seen this point made before, and as the GP clearly indicates in his responses, he BELIEVES it is only free as in beer because a BSD license would be SO much better for GNU and Linux to release under.
It's disingenuous to use the terminology of the software freedom movement (who defined via the GPL what software freedom even was) to leave the impression that by those definitions an OS is licensed under more restrictive terms than it is.
It doesn't prevent you from accomplishing your goal of having a program that you can charge money to distribute and maintain to fulfill your customer's need of a task being done.
It does, however, protect the intentions of those people who worked to create that codebase that you wish to exploit. It protects that codebase that they made freely available from being used in a way that is not good for the software ecosystem as a whole.
If what you are providing is valuable, how you do it doesn't need to be a secret. You're mistaken that our definitions of freedom are different, its your frame of reference for freedom. You're looking for the "freedom to make others less free". If you make a parallel to American History, the Civil War made the South less free for Plantation owners, "deal with it".
And that's an activity that it was designed to prevent because you shouldn't benefit from other's work without making your own available. Start with a blank codebase if you're going to do something like that.
If you wish to leverage other's work, you must play by their rules. What's Micorsoft's policy on using their source code?
The GPL doesn't restrict what you can DO with any piece of GPL'd code, it restricts you from restricting others from using your work in the same way you used the work of the thousands of developers who made the GNU system and the Linux kernel.
Share and share alike. Otherwise one bad apple spoils the freedom for everyone.
Why is Linux always referred to as free as in beer? It's GPL'd and there are distros (Debian anyone) that are free as in freedom to the core. Where does this come from?
If you were not trying to be a troll or flamebait-ish, you would drop the "Linuzzz" as was pointed out to you yesterday.
If you want to be taken seriously (as most people who are saying M$ at times drop it when they're making a more sober, interesting point), drop the High School Nerd flamebait attitude.
And, while you're at it, saying, "I know you're going to mod this flamebait" only works when its a slightly offensive statement, not a statement filled with sophomoric jargon. (not to mention that you don't know what you're talking about).
Then where's the MOLB? Not that I completely disagree, but if "blackhats" would find such a challenge in this, and given all the hype that Linux has around it right now as the secure OS, why don't grey/blackhats go after it?
Sorry buddy, but HP purposefully disables their BIOS's to have bugs that Windows will ignore, but violate standard implementations that will break Linux. There are hacked workarounds in the kernel, but they require bootline options be put in the grub configuration file.
I have an Ubuntu HP laptop, and I hate that I have to hack around their anti-linux fear (remember that HP makes HPUX?).
I'm an Ubuntu evangelist, and I felt the same way reading that... oh no, this article is BS... darn.
Sorry, but no matter what OS is on it, unless its a locked down, set up server with no X, I don't put it anywhere near an open connection.
Funny, the verification is "fenced":)
Re:One nice thing about Fedora7 is the buildtools
on
Fedora 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Isn't Debian's (and thus Ubuntu's) packaging system also F/LOSS? (honestly a question, don't know and feeling lazy) I would be surprised if Free as in Freedom Debian was using something proprietary to spin packages/distros.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the networking products that are gpl'd. Even the proprietary ones have bugs. The proprietary ones charge you for the license then charge you for a "support contract". The GPL'd ones are more upfront and just charge to custom code the features you want/implement the network. Software becomes your product still, but its an implemented running piece of software, not a box on a shelf. It delivers more value to the end customer, and becomes a mature, robust codebase with less resources for the parent company. (Sorry, too early in the morn to dig up links)
just had to:
http://www.360voice.com/tag/bean1979
To me its the difference between freedom and anarchy. I don't believe that freedom without some protection from other's simply deciding to take that freedom away is freedom at all. Just because I'm at one end or the other of that stick doesn't change my view on it.
Free as in constitutional representative democracy vs Free as in anarchy then?
And you might want to ask for a course in logic and manners.
Are the citizens of the United States (or any other free country) free? They have restrictions placed on them as to being able to commit murder, rob, steal, defraud. There are any number of activities a free person can not do because it restricts the freedom of another, equally deserving of freedom, person.
Yet still we call them free people. Hmm.. strange how that's similar to the idea of free software.
Oops, mixed up the GP and the AC.
Because it leaves the impression that it is ONLY free as in beer, which is incorrect. I've seen this point made before, and as the GP clearly indicates in his responses, he BELIEVES it is only free as in beer because a BSD license would be SO much better for GNU and Linux to release under.
It's disingenuous to use the terminology of the software freedom movement (who defined via the GPL what software freedom even was) to leave the impression that by those definitions an OS is licensed under more restrictive terms than it is.
It doesn't prevent you from accomplishing your goal of having a program that you can charge money to distribute and maintain to fulfill your customer's need of a task being done.
It does, however, protect the intentions of those people who worked to create that codebase that you wish to exploit. It protects that codebase that they made freely available from being used in a way that is not good for the software ecosystem as a whole.
If what you are providing is valuable, how you do it doesn't need to be a secret. You're mistaken that our definitions of freedom are different, its your frame of reference for freedom. You're looking for the "freedom to make others less free". If you make a parallel to American History, the Civil War made the South less free for Plantation owners, "deal with it".
And that's an activity that it was designed to prevent because you shouldn't benefit from other's work without making your own available. Start with a blank codebase if you're going to do something like that.
If you wish to leverage other's work, you must play by their rules. What's Micorsoft's policy on using their source code?
The GPL doesn't restrict what you can DO with any piece of GPL'd code, it restricts you from restricting others from using your work in the same way you used the work of the thousands of developers who made the GNU system and the Linux kernel.
Share and share alike. Otherwise one bad apple spoils the freedom for everyone.
But Linux is also freely available to modify, make derivative works of, and redistribute, even for a cost. That's more free than beer.
Why is Linux always referred to as free as in beer? It's GPL'd and there are distros (Debian anyone) that are free as in freedom to the core. Where does this come from?
All jokes aside, I wouldn't wish that on anybody/thing.
If you were not trying to be a troll or flamebait-ish, you would drop the "Linuzzz" as was pointed out to you yesterday.
If you want to be taken seriously (as most people who are saying M$ at times drop it when they're making a more sober, interesting point), drop the High School Nerd flamebait attitude.
And, while you're at it, saying, "I know you're going to mod this flamebait" only works when its a slightly offensive statement, not a statement filled with sophomoric jargon. (not to mention that you don't know what you're talking about).
You must be new here :)
Try loading Ubuntu on the same hardware. Trust me, it'll boot faster, respond better at the desktop, and apps will load faster.
Then where's the MOLB? Not that I completely disagree, but if "blackhats" would find such a challenge in this, and given all the hype that Linux has around it right now as the secure OS, why don't grey/blackhats go after it?
If you don't like vi (which I understand...) try using nano, emacs, or the text editor in the accessories menu.
Sorry buddy, but HP purposefully disables their BIOS's to have bugs that Windows will ignore, but violate standard implementations that will break Linux. There are hacked workarounds in the kernel, but they require bootline options be put in the grub configuration file.
I have an Ubuntu HP laptop, and I hate that I have to hack around their anti-linux fear (remember that HP makes HPUX?).
Yes, but the price tag and hardware hogginess makes it a terrible competitor to Ubuntu.
I'm an Ubuntu evangelist, and I felt the same way reading that... oh no, this article is BS... darn.
:)
Sorry, but no matter what OS is on it, unless its a locked down, set up server with no X, I don't put it anywhere near an open connection.
Funny, the verification is "fenced"
Isn't Debian's (and thus Ubuntu's) packaging system also F/LOSS? (honestly a question, don't know and feeling lazy) I would be surprised if Free as in Freedom Debian was using something proprietary to spin packages/distros.
0 offtopic before I posted, so blow me.
n/t
Of course it's news, I saw in on CNN the other day (like 3 days ago).
Saw that, the OP was from when they didn't have the specifics up, just the model number :)