Competition might lower prices, but even if they weren't MS's profits would be much less with more competition due to the way the software economy works.
MS's huge profits are a result of amortization of costs over a staggeringly huge number of copies. Reduce the number of copies sold while keeping the price the same, and the profits go down significantly.
The problem is that some people believe that making profit is immoral, or at least making anything more than a meager profit.
This argument is stupid. If I develop a way to product my products more efficiently and earn more profit at the same price, I'm under no obligation to reduce my prices if my competitors don't.
The problem is transmission speed over the network. Even the slowest modern processor is orders of magnitude faster at parsing than the fastest network.
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Further, yes. There have been many cases of one open source developer stealing others code. For example, a Red Hat employee once copied a BSD licensed driver, relicensed it under the GPL and stripped out the BSD license and attributions.
It doesn't happen very often no, but aggreeing to IBM's tems still would prevent any recourse.
The way the license is worded, it means that if I use anything that has an IBM patent in it, I can have my license to use that technology revoked if I assert *ANY* Intellectual property rights against any other open source software, not just the software that contains IBM's IP.
Now, this is a bit of a quandry, because IBM only gives up 500 of their patents for open source, but I must give up all of mine, no matter how many of them I might own. Further, the GPL explicitly states that patents must be licensed for everyone's free use, or not at all. That is, not just those that agree to abide by IBM's additional terms.
Finally, the biggest issue here is the vague use of the term "intellectual property". Since copyright is intellectual property, anyone that enforces a copyright against open source will also lose those rights, effectively giving open source the right to violate copyright as it sees fit, even against each other (ie, not giving proper credit for authors, etc..).
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.
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.
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"?
These days, with numerous companies large and small developing and benefiting and profiting from software libre I feel the conclusion is basically proven.
Also, I think what we are seeing here is a temporary effect caused by the introduction of a monopoly into the ecosystem. Without a single (or even a few) large foes to catalyze people, I don't think you would see the kind of corporate sponsorship of open source (and thus the kind of growth) we see today.
If Microsoft is ever dethroned, and the world is thrown back to the way it was before the emergence of a monopoly, we'll see a lot less reason to galvanize the forces.
So the theory goes, but centuries of creation before copyright suggests otherwise.
But that's just it, before copyright, there wasn't all that much creation on the level we see today. Maybe that's a good thing, but I doubt very much that we would see even a fraction of the open source development we see today if there was no copyright. Without copyright, there would be no way to enforce attribution, and without attribution (credit, reputation, etc..) a large number of people would probably not write free software.
Your arguments seem contrived. Yes, if your phone break, so breaks your pda, mp3 player and camera. Think about it the other way though, if you trip and fall and smash stuff in your jacket or on your belt, then you only have to replace one thing instead of 4 that might break all at the same time. Also, there's insurance on cell phones, none on the others.
As for interrupting your calls, most of these phones have speakerphones and "driving modes". They also have headsets that can be used while using the phone for other things. Do you really WANT to be listening to MP3's while you're on the phone? Does it matter if the phone call interrupts your song?
Great, a convergence unit is not for you. That doesn't mean they're not for me, and more like it doesn't mean all phones will be convergence phones.
The nebulous nature of software doesn't alter anything. In fact, I can duplicate food indefinately at almost no cost. Nature has been doing that for millions of years all by itself through the "seed" mechanism.
Now, to grow food in a more organized, and productive manner is labor and cost intensive. It's a derived work, so to speak. I spend the effort to create the improved food (through fertilization, irrigation, etc..) and I should reap some reward for that, ie selling my product. And you see the benefit in that exchange, since you're free to walk through nature and harvest your own food, but you don't.. you pay for it, because you gain benefit from that.
Yes, the person I distribute my code to *DOES* have *EXACTLY* the same rights I had. The right to see and alter the source code to the work I derived my code from. Adding the right to see and alter MY code is adding additional rights.
Free software should include the freedom of whether or not I wish to extend similar rights to others for MY code derived from free code. I understand that it's your right to offer your code at whatever terms you see fit, including the GPL. What I object to is calling RMS's definition "Free". It's not. it's deceptive, and it's not free at all. If you intend for your code to be free, it should have no encumberances, other than perhaps attribution.
Your argument about XEmacs is specious, since again, my work based on "supposedly" Free code that should give me the right to use it as I see fit, including distributing it without source. That does not detract from the rights anyone has with my code. If you don't like my program, don't use it. Use the program I derived it from, but then I'm not claiming my code is "Free".
The users ARE the developers, otherwise they have no need for the freedoms offered by the GPL.
The GPL is not about being a good samaritan. Good samaritan's do their deeds with no expectation of reward or even acknowledgement. The GPL not only enforces an expectation of reward, it also passes that encumbrance on to others.
You're correct that what I meant was that you have the freedom to utilized a freedom or not. Just because I have the right to free speech, doesn't mean I am forced to speak freely. Just because I have the freedom to have happiness doesn't mean i am forced to be happy.
Now, while it's true that you have the choice to use the GPL or not today, that's is not the GPL's purpose or the FSF and RMS's intent. RMS wants ALL software to be GPL'd, and or to abolish intellectual property completely. That's the GPL's purpose, and ultimately I find that disconcerting.
Some of us do not consider The GNU "four freedoms" to be freedoms at all, but rather ruses to restrict freedom.
The GPL is an interesting document in that it misleads you as to it's true nature through the use of a preamble that holds no legal weight, and does not correspond to the actual legal terms of the license itself.
It claims to protect freedom while it is actually destroying it. It claims to offer rights when what it really offers is restrictions and coercion, which give the illusion of freedom if you don't think too hard about it. It uses emotionally charged words known to have ambiguous interpretations.
My problem with the GPL is that it is itself immoral and hypocritical. I have to ask you, how can YOU sleep at night advocating it?
Poor you. So under the GPL you have to let the person you distribute to have the same freedoms you had yourself. That is really restrictive, almost as restrictive as democracy -- you don't have the freedom to restrict freedom to yourself and a few friends! I mean, that's practically GULag.
Straw man. I am not restricting anyone elses freedom if I don't redistribute the source. The original program still exists for anyone else to base their own derivitive work upon. The same freedom I had is still there, and nothing I do can change that (short of tracking down every copy and destroying them).
Extending the same freedom to the users of my derivitive work should be a choice, not a requirement. It's like saying that I have to give away the food I farm because it comes from seeds that others grew and sold or gave to me (remember, you can sell Free software, if you can find a buyer).
Maybe I will give away some or all the food I farm, but there is no moral or ethical question if I do not.
The question of civil liberties is never about the "stuff", because it's just "stuff". The question arises when humans decide what they're going to allow other humans to do with the stuff. When you're allowed to have a printing press, but restricted in what you can print with it or in whether you can change how it operates, that is a civil rights issue.
Then how exactly can you justify the GPL? It's a control mechanism that restricts what you can do with the "stuff", and by your own logic is a civil rights issue, and should be "immoral".
The GPL tries to artificially create a condition in which it's impossible for intellectual property to exist. It does this be compelling those that adhere to it to follow restrictions. It is, itself, the very thing that it abhors. You don't see the hypocricy in that?
Yeah, that's ridiculous, because shoes are just stuff! By the way, I'm the government and if you wear white shoes after labor day you'll be imprisoned and/or shot. Have a nice day.
That's a straw man, since we're not talking about the government here. We're talking about individuals intellectual creations, and the restrictions placed ont those creations by those that inspired them.
Copyright exists because media (words, images, sounds, concepts) cannot be controlled if it is shared. Once someone else perceives it, it's out of your control.
The problem with that, is that it discourages more advanced (and expensive) creation if there is no control at all. I might be willing to whip out a lymeric, but i'm less likely to write a 1500 page novel if I have no way to compensate myself for the time lost when I could be earning a living doing something else.
Creativity should be rewarded. Depending on creativity only from those who seek no reward is a VERY slow pace of innovation.
Stallman also ignores the largest freedom of all, the freedom to give up your freedom, or rather the freedom for me to limit my own freedom for my own reasons.
He uses words like "you have the freedom to..." when what he really means is "you have the requirement to..."
ie. not only do I have the freedom to redistribute source, I have the requirement to do so if I redistribute my program based on it. That's just playing word games, and frankly he should be more mature about it. It's not good marketing though to say otherwise.
To head off all the "Then don't use it" arguments, that's not the point. The point is that his arguments are deceptive, vague, and emotionally charged. He lulls you in with the claim of freedom, then does a bait and switch on you and tells you that you're going to lose your intellectual property if you don't do as he demands.
And yes, that's hyperbolic, and an exageration, but it certainly is the way I feel about him and his views.
Freedom means that (within reason) I can do what I like, even if you don't agree with it. The problem is, Stallman forgets the second half of that.
he doesn't drag the community in pointless debates
Uhhh.. what?
You mean you honestly think the "Gnu/linux" debate isn't pointless? You honestly think the "Free software or die" debate isn't pointless? And yes, he does imply he knows what's best for everyone, otherwise he wouldn't try to enforce his beliefs on others.
I think what he means is that Open Source can't survive as a viable business model. Sure, open source will be around forever, so long as people maintain it. The question is, will we continue to see massive corporate sponsorship of it? I don't know the answer to that one, and I doubt you do either.
Open source is thriving in spite of Stallman, really. In fact, with the exception of the Linux kernel, most of the popular open source software is not GPL'd. Apache license, X license, BSD'd license...
Even the Linux kernel is a modified GPL, giving explicit permission to make derivitive works (ie linking to the API).
What typical back peddling bullshit. You first claimed it was "impossible" to have popups blocked with IE, now you claim this.
The vast majority of users out there have legitimate copies of Windows, since it came with the computer they bought. Of those that are pirates, they also know how to get around the SP2 problem (there are lots of valid SP2 VLK keys out there, not to mention SP2 VLK keygenerators).
Tabbed browsing is also something only power users use. It just confuses the average user, which is why Apple disabled tabbed browsing by default in Safari.
Most users only use one program at a time, and browse only one web site at a time. Yes, SP2 is a big download (about 90MB for most users) but then it's a lot more than just browser improvements. They should install it anyways, regardless of the browser they're using.
Slashdot Mirror
Competition might lower prices, but even if they weren't MS's profits would be much less with more competition due to the way the software economy works.
MS's huge profits are a result of amortization of costs over a staggeringly huge number of copies. Reduce the number of copies sold while keeping the price the same, and the profits go down significantly.
Visicalc was a pretty entry level product though, and had a relatively small development cost.
123 was much more expensive than Visicalc. Excel was cheaper than 123 from what I remember.
The problem is that some people believe that making profit is immoral, or at least making anything more than a meager profit.
This argument is stupid. If I develop a way to product my products more efficiently and earn more profit at the same price, I'm under no obligation to reduce my prices if my competitors don't.
The problem is transmission speed over the network. Even the slowest modern processor is orders of magnitude faster at parsing than the fastest network.
You didn't check very closely then.
From the GPL:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Further, yes. There have been many cases of one open source developer stealing others code. For example, a Red Hat employee once copied a BSD licensed driver, relicensed it under the GPL and stripped out the BSD license and attributions.
It doesn't happen very often no, but aggreeing to IBM's tems still would prevent any recourse.
There's a problem with that.
The way the license is worded, it means that if I use anything that has an IBM patent in it, I can have my license to use that technology revoked if I assert *ANY* Intellectual property rights against any other open source software, not just the software that contains IBM's IP.
Now, this is a bit of a quandry, because IBM only gives up 500 of their patents for open source, but I must give up all of mine, no matter how many of them I might own. Further, the GPL explicitly states that patents must be licensed for everyone's free use, or not at all. That is, not just those that agree to abide by IBM's additional terms.
Finally, the biggest issue here is the vague use of the term "intellectual property". Since copyright is intellectual property, anyone that enforces a copyright against open source will also lose those rights, effectively giving open source the right to violate copyright as it sees fit, even against each other (ie, not giving proper credit for authors, etc..).
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.
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.
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"?
These days, with numerous companies large and small developing and benefiting and profiting from software libre I feel the conclusion is basically proven.
Also, I think what we are seeing here is a temporary effect caused by the introduction of a monopoly into the ecosystem. Without a single (or even a few) large foes to catalyze people, I don't think you would see the kind of corporate sponsorship of open source (and thus the kind of growth) we see today.
If Microsoft is ever dethroned, and the world is thrown back to the way it was before the emergence of a monopoly, we'll see a lot less reason to galvanize the forces.
So the theory goes, but centuries of creation before copyright suggests otherwise.
But that's just it, before copyright, there wasn't all that much creation on the level we see today. Maybe that's a good thing, but I doubt very much that we would see even a fraction of the open source development we see today if there was no copyright. Without copyright, there would be no way to enforce attribution, and without attribution (credit, reputation, etc..) a large number of people would probably not write free software.
Your arguments seem contrived. Yes, if your phone break, so breaks your pda, mp3 player and camera. Think about it the other way though, if you trip and fall and smash stuff in your jacket or on your belt, then you only have to replace one thing instead of 4 that might break all at the same time. Also, there's insurance on cell phones, none on the others.
As for interrupting your calls, most of these phones have speakerphones and "driving modes". They also have headsets that can be used while using the phone for other things. Do you really WANT to be listening to MP3's while you're on the phone? Does it matter if the phone call interrupts your song?
Great, a convergence unit is not for you. That doesn't mean they're not for me, and more like it doesn't mean all phones will be convergence phones.
The nebulous nature of software doesn't alter anything. In fact, I can duplicate food indefinately at almost no cost. Nature has been doing that for millions of years all by itself through the "seed" mechanism.
Now, to grow food in a more organized, and productive manner is labor and cost intensive. It's a derived work, so to speak. I spend the effort to create the improved food (through fertilization, irrigation, etc..) and I should reap some reward for that, ie selling my product. And you see the benefit in that exchange, since you're free to walk through nature and harvest your own food, but you don't.. you pay for it, because you gain benefit from that.
Yes, the person I distribute my code to *DOES* have *EXACTLY* the same rights I had. The right to see and alter the source code to the work I derived my code from. Adding the right to see and alter MY code is adding additional rights.
Free software should include the freedom of whether or not I wish to extend similar rights to others for MY code derived from free code. I understand that it's your right to offer your code at whatever terms you see fit, including the GPL. What I object to is calling RMS's definition "Free". It's not. it's deceptive, and it's not free at all. If you intend for your code to be free, it should have no encumberances, other than perhaps attribution.
Your argument about XEmacs is specious, since again, my work based on "supposedly" Free code that should give me the right to use it as I see fit, including distributing it without source. That does not detract from the rights anyone has with my code. If you don't like my program, don't use it. Use the program I derived it from, but then I'm not claiming my code is "Free".
The users ARE the developers, otherwise they have no need for the freedoms offered by the GPL.
The GPL is not about being a good samaritan. Good samaritan's do their deeds with no expectation of reward or even acknowledgement. The GPL not only enforces an expectation of reward, it also passes that encumbrance on to others.
You're correct that what I meant was that you have the freedom to utilized a freedom or not. Just because I have the right to free speech, doesn't mean I am forced to speak freely. Just because I have the freedom to have happiness doesn't mean i am forced to be happy.
Now, while it's true that you have the choice to use the GPL or not today, that's is not the GPL's purpose or the FSF and RMS's intent. RMS wants ALL software to be GPL'd, and or to abolish intellectual property completely. That's the GPL's purpose, and ultimately I find that disconcerting.
Some of us do not consider The GNU "four freedoms" to be freedoms at all, but rather ruses to restrict freedom.
The GPL is an interesting document in that it misleads you as to it's true nature through the use of a preamble that holds no legal weight, and does not correspond to the actual legal terms of the license itself.
It claims to protect freedom while it is actually destroying it. It claims to offer rights when what it really offers is restrictions and coercion, which give the illusion of freedom if you don't think too hard about it. It uses emotionally charged words known to have ambiguous interpretations.
My problem with the GPL is that it is itself immoral and hypocritical. I have to ask you, how can YOU sleep at night advocating it?
Poor you. So under the GPL you have to let the person you distribute to have the same freedoms you had yourself. That is really restrictive, almost as restrictive as democracy -- you don't have the freedom to restrict freedom to yourself and a few friends! I mean, that's practically GULag.
Straw man. I am not restricting anyone elses freedom if I don't redistribute the source. The original program still exists for anyone else to base their own derivitive work upon. The same freedom I had is still there, and nothing I do can change that (short of tracking down every copy and destroying them).
Extending the same freedom to the users of my derivitive work should be a choice, not a requirement. It's like saying that I have to give away the food I farm because it comes from seeds that others grew and sold or gave to me (remember, you can sell Free software, if you can find a buyer).
Maybe I will give away some or all the food I farm, but there is no moral or ethical question if I do not.
The question of civil liberties is never about the "stuff", because it's just "stuff". The question arises when humans decide what they're going to allow other humans to do with the stuff. When you're allowed to have a printing press, but restricted in what you can print with it or in whether you can change how it operates, that is a civil rights issue.
Then how exactly can you justify the GPL? It's a control mechanism that restricts what you can do with the "stuff", and by your own logic is a civil rights issue, and should be "immoral".
The GPL tries to artificially create a condition in which it's impossible for intellectual property to exist. It does this be compelling those that adhere to it to follow restrictions. It is, itself, the very thing that it abhors. You don't see the hypocricy in that?
Yeah, that's ridiculous, because shoes are just stuff! By the way, I'm the government and if you wear white shoes after labor day you'll be imprisoned and/or shot. Have a nice day.
That's a straw man, since we're not talking about the government here. We're talking about individuals intellectual creations, and the restrictions placed ont those creations by those that inspired them.
Copyright exists because media (words, images, sounds, concepts) cannot be controlled if it is shared. Once someone else perceives it, it's out of your control.
The problem with that, is that it discourages more advanced (and expensive) creation if there is no control at all. I might be willing to whip out a lymeric, but i'm less likely to write a 1500 page novel if I have no way to compensate myself for the time lost when I could be earning a living doing something else.
Creativity should be rewarded. Depending on creativity only from those who seek no reward is a VERY slow pace of innovation.
Stallman also ignores the largest freedom of all, the freedom to give up your freedom, or rather the freedom for me to limit my own freedom for my own reasons.
He uses words like "you have the freedom to..." when what he really means is "you have the requirement to..."
ie. not only do I have the freedom to redistribute source, I have the requirement to do so if I redistribute my program based on it. That's just playing word games, and frankly he should be more mature about it. It's not good marketing though to say otherwise.
To head off all the "Then don't use it" arguments, that's not the point. The point is that his arguments are deceptive, vague, and emotionally charged. He lulls you in with the claim of freedom, then does a bait and switch on you and tells you that you're going to lose your intellectual property if you don't do as he demands.
And yes, that's hyperbolic, and an exageration, but it certainly is the way I feel about him and his views.
Freedom means that (within reason) I can do what I like, even if you don't agree with it. The problem is, Stallman forgets the second half of that.
he doesn't drag the community in pointless debates
Uhhh.. what?
You mean you honestly think the "Gnu/linux" debate isn't pointless? You honestly think the "Free software or die" debate isn't pointless? And yes, he does imply he knows what's best for everyone, otherwise he wouldn't try to enforce his beliefs on others.
I think what he means is that Open Source can't survive as a viable business model. Sure, open source will be around forever, so long as people maintain it. The question is, will we continue to see massive corporate sponsorship of it? I don't know the answer to that one, and I doubt you do either.
Open source is thriving in spite of Stallman, really. In fact, with the exception of the Linux kernel, most of the popular open source software is not GPL'd. Apache license, X license, BSD'd license...
Even the Linux kernel is a modified GPL, giving explicit permission to make derivitive works (ie linking to the API).
And I suppose we all have Bill Gates to thank for making the PC a commodity, so you can afford to run your free software on it.
Same logic.
What typical back peddling bullshit. You first claimed it was "impossible" to have popups blocked with IE, now you claim this.
The vast majority of users out there have legitimate copies of Windows, since it came with the computer they bought. Of those that are pirates, they also know how to get around the SP2 problem (there are lots of valid SP2 VLK keys out there, not to mention SP2 VLK keygenerators).
Tabbed browsing is also something only power users use. It just confuses the average user, which is why Apple disabled tabbed browsing by default in Safari.
Most users only use one program at a time, and browse only one web site at a time. Yes, SP2 is a big download (about 90MB for most users) but then it's a lot more than just browser improvements. They should install it anyways, regardless of the browser they're using.
Uhh.. you are aware that IE also has a popup blocker, right?