That may be your opinion, but I think it's a matter for reasoned debate and empirical discovery. Personally, I'd like to see the experiment worked through, rather than casting it out of hand. The Kompany, and yourself, are not part of the experiment, by the looks of it, and you don't seem interested in the results.
The comparison was not between murder and a license issue. It was between something that might be said about a license and something that might be said about a murderer.
It was a statement about logic, not about philosophy.
I honestly don't think Malcontent intended to identify non-GPL licenses with murderous acts. Although there is a similarity; non-GPL licenses tend to kill our freedom.:)
You speak of the GPL like it is the constitution, it's not.
I don't mention the GPL at all in my post. I was talking about Free Software, and the four freedoms guaranteed by it. I know it's not the constitution. Why do you draw a comparison?
Tough.
Whatever. Read my post properly before you gloat with false achievement.
It's the bigots like you that keep holding Linux back and driving companies away from it.
Hardly. I do whatever I can do introduce Linux not companies. I have paid cash for several distributions. I don't really care about companies who make money selling proprietary software, but I think that's obvious from my posts. I am against the encroachment of the proprietary into the Free Software community. I don't mind people making money. You don't seem able to differentiate the two.
Who I am? I should have thought it was obvious that I am an advocate of Free Software. I do whatever I can to promote it.
I do so because I believe that Free Software offers a better alternative, for the end user and the developer, than proprietary software. Software plays an increasingly large part of most people's lives. It is important that people have the opportunity to control it themselves. To this end I promote Free Software.
I don't understand why you call me arrogant. I can understand gasbag, because you might not agree with my words, but not arrogant!
And no, it's not a KDE thingy - lets look at Ximian with Red-Carpet. What if Ximian tommorow decides to start making money from their service (and trust me - they will, they are after all, a commercial company). If Red-Carpet will be able to manage my 400 Linux machine with all the securities update - then rest assure that I'll be among the first people to sign a service contract with them...
You don't understand, though you say it yourself. Ximian will charge for services whilst the user retains his four free software freedoms. The Kompany, on the other hand, charge for a license to run and modify the code. You may not redistribute. They are proprietary
Kapish?
And the incentive for Ximian to improve the code will lie in it's incentive to get more people to pay for the service of receiving it quickly and effectively.
See the logical AND in my statement. I am correct.
The FSF doesn't advocate never making money. They state specifically on their web site that they think it is good to make money from Free Software. Obviously you can't rely on the 'charge for a license to run the code' method. Hence the 'experimental' business models we see, which you do not espouse. That's fine, if you don't want to be part of the experiment, you won't be part of my desktop.
The 'reality to life' that you mention... may I humbly suggest, without the intention of causing offence, that this is short term greed? A bad thing, in my own book. The point about being human, and having intelligence, is that we can (at least try to) rise above this.
That's because the Kompany is a proprietary software company.
I don't like it, you don't like it. The strange thing about this story is the number of people who seem to understand the need to modify code and distribute modifications (fix and submit patches) but don't care about the Free Software Definition.
I thought the tone of the parent to my post was dismissive. My reply was in the same vein.
And I honestly sought Shawn's answer to my question.
Specifically, my impression is that the Kompany is happy to 'revert' to the GPL code which is deemed worthless by the users (as measured by profitability to the Kompany). That they will enforce a one year waiting period makes this even more empty a gesture, as something else will likely surpass the code in that time.
I am simply pointing out that this gesture is empty.
You know this anyway, but software is not a hammer.
You know this too, but software brings with it liabilities that hammers don't; in particular the twin burdens of maintenance and enhancement.
Conversely software has the advantage that it is essentially free to reproduce. Hammer's need to be made, each one individually, over and over again.
The benefits of Free Software to society are related to these differences; the differences between a hammer and a database system.
Firstly, the freedom to modify the code allows the end-user to accomplish the tasks of maintenance and enhancement in the way most commensurate with their personal goals. Note that by end user I am not necessarily referring to an individual, but perhaps to a company, or even an industry sector.
Secondly, the freedom to distribute the code, coupled with the zero copy cost, allows the end-user to share this overhead with those who have similar requirements.
Yes, popularity is an important factor in development of Free Software. That is as it should be. Why should unpopular projects have development time focussed on them?
Home users, however, are not the only yardstick of popularity. Many people who develop Free Software are employees of companies who use enterprise-level products, like high-end RDBMSs. Many are academics, who are involved in research which affects such products. Postgresql came from an academic background. I don't know whether to call it high-end or not (that's a subjective call) but it does have enterprise-level features.
I think you have it back to front. The desktop is a tough nut for Free Software to crack because of the vast range of end-user point-and-click apps that Windows has available, and that users don't want to give up. The server, in contrast, is a much less varied arena. Servers don't generally need point-and-click interfaces, because they are used remotely, by definition. And precisely because the likes of Oracle costs big bucks, Free (and, more relevant to this argument, plain old free) software is attractive.
Finally, the corporation has an advantage over the home user when it comes to adopting Free Software. They can afford to devote developer time. When mainstream, as opposed to hi-tech, companies realise that they can replace their license fees with salaries for one or two good programmers and some third party support, and when developers from different companies co-operate on improving their common technologies, then we shall start to see the true benefits that Free Software can bring.
Sorry, I neglected to consider that the term 'Open Source Outfit' (O.S.O.) is one which you invented and thus you have sole control over the definition.
According to that definition Apple is an O.S.O. Others would disagree, though they might recognise that Apple has been involved in 'Open Source'. I'd contend that the larger part of their involvement has been appropriation.
Of course, there is really no such term as Open Source Outfit in general usage.
The generally accepted definition of Open Source includes rights of modification and redistribution. The Kompany's stated business plan is to make money by selling software where the end user has no right of modification and redistribution. I call that kind of company proprietary. The goal of the Free Software Movement for the last fifteen years is to move away from this outdate, inefficient, exploitative model.
1: Free as in speech gives free as in beer. If you allow unrestricted distribution you will loose your revenue.
Only if your revenue depends on restricted distribution.
2: No, Redhat is not an example of a working software development business model. Redhat lives on selling other peoples work (nothing wrong with that, they have choosen to give it away), they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people are developers and must make a revenue on the products they develop.
Sure. Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com) isn't a developer.
Sometimes I wonder why people open their mouths about open source / free software when they quite clearly have never read either the OSI or FSF web pages. It's quite astounding.
How long did it take Microsoft to get from their purchase of DOS to Windows 2000 (which I'd argue is the Microsoft product most comparable to a free Unix)?
20 years?
How long did it take to get GNU/Linux to get where it is now? around 15?
I can't remember exactly, but Excel has been in the making since around the late 80s. Gnumeric has been around for a couple of years. It's not Excel yet, by a long shot. But give it a couple more years and it won't be far off. (woops... I'm betraying my Gnome allegiance! here come the flames...)
One of the benefits of Open Source software according to the OSI is rapid development, facilitated by exposure of code to a large developer base. I take it you disagree.
I expected an answer sometime the next day, as it was Sunday. I got a message back in about a half an hour, telling me what I needed to know. I then called the sales number, and guess who answered...Shawn Gordon.
Hehe.. So the CEO gives you tech support. I promise you, that's not because they "have a clue about the community", it's just because he can't have been particularly busy...
If they grow their customer base like they say they want to, I am quite sure Shawn will have things he'd rather do than telephone support.
I am inclined to believe this is due more to the immaturity of the techology, than some flaw inherent in the idea of digital books.
Personally, I am quite content to read considerable amounts of text from a standard crt display; the encumberance is that I cannot take my monitor to bed with me, or on the bus to work, and the screen of my Palm Pilot is of insufficient size and contrast to be of use.
In pop-lit fandom, very few would ever dream of ripping their favorite novels into pdf and distrbuting them for free.
This wouldn't be because it is not particularly easy to do, would it?
I mean, ink on paper is not an easily reproducable format. Translation into such a format is not a trivial task, certainly if you care about efficiency or accuracy.
Now, if books were released as standard as pdfs, without copy protection, and portable readers were cheap and readily available... I really don't think the hardback book market would be quite as robust.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough.
It was a statement about logic, not about philosophy.
I honestly don't think Malcontent intended to identify non-GPL licenses with murderous acts. Although there is a similarity; non-GPL licenses tend to kill our freedom. :)
Woops.. Typo!
I do whatever I can do introduce Linux not companies.
should read
I do whatever I can do introduce Linux into companies.
Please stop resorting to insult.
You speak of the GPL like it is the constitution, it's not.
I don't mention the GPL at all in my post. I was talking about Free Software, and the four freedoms guaranteed by it. I know it's not the constitution. Why do you draw a comparison?
Tough.
Whatever. Read my post properly before you gloat with false achievement.
It's the bigots like you that keep holding Linux back and driving companies away from it.
Hardly. I do whatever I can do introduce Linux not companies. I have paid cash for several distributions. I don't really care about companies who make money selling proprietary software, but I think that's obvious from my posts. I am against the encroachment of the proprietary into the Free Software community. I don't mind people making money. You don't seem able to differentiate the two.
I do so because I believe that Free Software offers a better alternative, for the end user and the developer, than proprietary software. Software plays an increasingly large part of most people's lives. It is important that people have the opportunity to control it themselves. To this end I promote Free Software.
I don't understand why you call me arrogant. I can understand gasbag, because you might not agree with my words, but not arrogant!
Who are you?
And no, it's not a KDE thingy - lets look at Ximian with Red-Carpet. What if Ximian tommorow decides to start making money from their service (and trust me - they will, they are after all, a commercial company). If Red-Carpet will be able to manage my 400 Linux machine with all the securities update - then rest assure that I'll be among the first people to sign a service contract with them...
You don't understand, though you say it yourself. Ximian will charge for services whilst the user retains his four free software freedoms. The Kompany, on the other hand, charge for a license to run and modify the code. You may not redistribute. They are proprietary
Kapish?
And the incentive for Ximian to improve the code will lie in it's incentive to get more people to pay for the service of receiving it quickly and effectively.
See the logical AND in my statement. I am correct.
The FSF doesn't advocate never making money. They state specifically on their web site that they think it is good to make money from Free Software. Obviously you can't rely on the 'charge for a license to run the code' method. Hence the 'experimental' business models we see, which you do not espouse. That's fine, if you don't want to be part of the experiment, you won't be part of my desktop.
The 'reality to life' that you mention... may I humbly suggest, without the intention of causing offence, that this is short term greed? A bad thing, in my own book. The point about being human, and having intelligence, is that we can (at least try to) rise above this.
Thanks for saying so eloquently that which I could not find the words to say myself.
And sorry about your karma, in advance.
That's because the Kompany is a proprietary software company.
I don't like it, you don't like it. The strange thing about this story is the number of people who seem to understand the need to modify code and distribute modifications (fix and submit patches) but don't care about the Free Software Definition.
And I honestly sought Shawn's answer to my question.
Specifically, my impression is that the Kompany is happy to 'revert' to the GPL code which is deemed worthless by the users (as measured by profitability to the Kompany). That they will enforce a one year waiting period makes this even more empty a gesture, as something else will likely surpass the code in that time.
I am simply pointing out that this gesture is empty.
You know this anyway, but software is not a hammer.
You know this too, but software brings with it liabilities that hammers don't; in particular the twin burdens of maintenance and enhancement.
Conversely software has the advantage that it is essentially free to reproduce. Hammer's need to be made, each one individually, over and over again.
The benefits of Free Software to society are related to these differences; the differences between a hammer and a database system.
Firstly, the freedom to modify the code allows the end-user to accomplish the tasks of maintenance and enhancement in the way most commensurate with their personal goals. Note that by end user I am not necessarily referring to an individual, but perhaps to a company, or even an industry sector.
Secondly, the freedom to distribute the code, coupled with the zero copy cost, allows the end-user to share this overhead with those who have similar requirements.
This is the long view. This is the right way.
I was not asking you.
Yes, popularity is an important factor in development of Free Software. That is as it should be. Why should unpopular projects have development time focussed on them?
Home users, however, are not the only yardstick of popularity. Many people who develop Free Software are employees of companies who use enterprise-level products, like high-end RDBMSs. Many are academics, who are involved in research which affects such products. Postgresql came from an academic background. I don't know whether to call it high-end or not (that's a subjective call) but it does have enterprise-level features.
I think you have it back to front. The desktop is a tough nut for Free Software to crack because of the vast range of end-user point-and-click apps that Windows has available, and that users don't want to give up. The server, in contrast, is a much less varied arena. Servers don't generally need point-and-click interfaces, because they are used remotely, by definition. And precisely because the likes of Oracle costs big bucks, Free (and, more relevant to this argument, plain old free) software is attractive.
Finally, the corporation has an advantage over the home user when it comes to adopting Free Software. They can afford to devote developer time. When mainstream, as opposed to hi-tech, companies realise that they can replace their license fees with salaries for one or two good programmers and some third party support, and when developers from different companies co-operate on improving their common technologies, then we shall start to see the true benefits that Free Software can bring.
Sorry, I neglected to consider that the term 'Open Source Outfit' (O.S.O.) is one which you invented and thus you have sole control over the definition.
According to that definition Apple is an O.S.O. Others would disagree, though they might recognise that Apple has been involved in 'Open Source'. I'd contend that the larger part of their involvement has been appropriation.
Of course, there is really no such term as Open Source Outfit in general usage.
The generally accepted definition of Open Source includes rights of modification and redistribution. The Kompany's stated business plan is to make money by selling software where the end user has no right of modification and redistribution. I call that kind of company proprietary. The goal of the Free Software Movement for the last fifteen years is to move away from this outdate, inefficient, exploitative model.
My point: No, they can't.
Only if your revenue depends on restricted distribution.
2: No, Redhat is not an example of a working software development business model. Redhat lives on selling other peoples work (nothing wrong with that, they have choosen to give it away), they are not developers (as their major business anyway). These people are developers and must make a revenue on the products they develop.
Sure. Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com) isn't a developer.
Sometimes I wonder why people open their mouths about open source / free software when they quite clearly have never read either the OSI or FSF web pages. It's quite astounding.
Just wondering.. why revert to GPL after a year?
How can you say that the development is slow?
How long did it take Microsoft to get from their purchase of DOS to Windows 2000 (which I'd argue is the Microsoft product most comparable to a free Unix)?
20 years?
How long did it take to get GNU/Linux to get where it is now? around 15?
I can't remember exactly, but Excel has been in the making since around the late 80s. Gnumeric has been around for a couple of years. It's not Excel yet, by a long shot. But give it a couple more years and it won't be far off. (woops... I'm betraying my Gnome allegiance! here come the flames...)
One of the benefits of Open Source software according to the OSI is rapid development, facilitated by exposure of code to a large developer base. I take it you disagree.
Yes, lack of nebulosity in business plans is precisely what attracts me to the Linux, GNU, Free Software world. Not.
If they are making cash out of binaries, how can you call them an Open Source Outfit?
I'm sure I'll be modded as a troll. Oh well, that's what I get for posting in KDE related news items...
Hehe.. So the CEO gives you tech support. I promise you, that's not because they "have a clue about the community", it's just because he can't have been particularly busy...
If they grow their customer base like they say they want to, I am quite sure Shawn will have things he'd rather do than telephone support.
Huh? Read the article, the Kompany make closed source i.e. proprietary software.
Yes, they contribute open source i.e. free software too, but their focus is on making cash from binaries.
Well the first was news as of July 20th, i.e. today, and the second has only now made it to Slashdot immediately after update()'s posting...
Bzzzt, as they say.
Perhaps the initial Gnome usability study was covered, because that took place in March, but the report was issued today.
Wow, update(), you are a one man Slashdot!
A monodot!
(yes I know mono is Spanish for monkey...)
I am inclined to believe this is due more to the
immaturity of the techology, than some flaw
inherent in the idea of digital books.
Personally, I am quite content to read
considerable amounts of text from a standard
crt display; the encumberance is that I cannot
take my monitor to bed with me, or on the bus to
work, and the screen of my Palm Pilot is of
insufficient size and contrast to be of use.
This wouldn't be because it is not particularly easy to do, would it?
I mean, ink on paper is not an easily reproducable format. Translation into such a format is not a trivial task, certainly if you care about efficiency or accuracy.
Now, if books were released as standard as pdfs, without copy protection, and portable readers were cheap and readily available... I really don't think the hardback book market would be quite as robust.