Even with the GPL, you are allowed to look at the code, study it, and then use what you learned to write whatever program you want, and you are not obligated under the GPL. You are only under obligation if you directly lift code.
As to your example of zlib, it's no different than a proprietary library that is small. Let's say MS releases office, and it includes a small little library (let's say 2K big) that has some really useful functionality. Do you have any rights to distribute it? No! Do you think MS would ever license it to you? Maybe if you paid them a few hundred thou. So the same applies to either side of the fence. The difference is that the GPL brings freedom while proprietary licenses bring division.
Of course if I were RedHat, before I put any work into an idea, I would leak it to the press and look and see what ideas Slashdot had about what I was thinking about doing, and then decide (1) if it's worthwhile and (2) what the best plan of attack is. Then, on Monday, I would just announce that I'm developing whatever the best idea on Slashdot was.
However, one nice thing about Tux is that it sparked the movement of most of its code to more generic parts of the kernel, thus allowing the creation of the X15? web server which is entirely userland, but even faster than Tux. The way this works is that a lot of the code from Tux was re-written more generically to make well-written 2.4 apps really scream. Thinks like zero-copy networking and the like. Anyway, it is possible that they did a similar thing with the database - used Tux's zero-copy stuff to make PostgreSQL excruciatingly fast.
However, my guess is simply that they are just packaging Postgres in a more user-friendly way, not actually changing it too much (although they might). Then again, they might not even be using Postgres. It looks like we're just going to have to wait and see:)
You said - Please don't compare our current business rules with selling crack
I WASN'T. You should read more carefully. I said intentionally unethical businesses practices are equivalent to selling crack. Which it is. Being intentionally harmful or unethical is no worse than selling crack.
As I said in my previous post, if you don't think it is unethical, then it is NOT the moral equivalent of selling crack, and we simply disagree.
What I take offense at is companies who try to justify being unethical using money.
I don't care if the "software industry" goes to pieces. The advent of the automobile made the "buggywhip industry" go to pieces. In the future, you will probably see most software being made by either (1) consultants or (2) IT shops collaborating together. In fact, that's how 90% of todays software is made. Only 10% of software is prepackaged. So, we're still only talking about a small part of the market changing.
Don't reject the ideals of freedom out of fear. If you are opposed to the freedoms outlined for software by the FSF, that's fine. Just don't do it because of fear.
We are not talking about utopia. We are talking about ALLOWING OTHERS to share.
RMS actually _did_ make money selling free software. That's how he started off funding the FSF, and where most of the money comes from today.
The point is not, "does the new model work" which it appears to, but rather, "is my current business practice ethical?" If it's not, it needs to be changed.
Also, the FSF never proposed a business model. Neither did I if you notice. I just said you need to re-think your model based on what is ethical.
If you disagree with my ethics, fine. That's certainly valid. However, saying that businesses should feel free to engage in unethical practices (whatever they are) just to prevent it from affecting your livelihood is just plain wrong. It's one thing to say, "I don't think proprietary software is unethical because of this and this, so I will continue to sell proprietary software" It's quite another thing to say, "I think proprietary software is good because it gives me more money, no matter who gets screwed". Using ethics like that, we should all go into selling crack because it makes more money.
Obviously, with a name like GPLwhore, you probably don't merit a response, but here is one anyone.
First of all, sharing software != screwing over others. In fact, companies that limit sharing forcefully are the ones doing the screwing.
GPL would not mean quick and swift death to the company's business, it would mean it needed to be re-thought. It would also probably take a while to make the change. If your company is based on screwing people over, it should probably be re-thought.
Re:This is an adequate response to the M$ FUD
on
Red Hat In The Black
·
· Score: 2
Of course, I am one who believes that making money should be difficult. i.e. - we should have to _work_ for a living. So the fact that money didn't just flow in a pipeline to free software companies actually encouraged me, because it showed that free software companies actually have to continually provide increasing value to their customers, instead of just forcing them to pay money.
It's obvious when money just flows out of someone's ears without hard work that something is amiss.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/fea tu res.asp
If you look at it, you will see that they include gcc, g77, and g++ in the package.
I think though you are missing the point of what people are saying about commercial software. Your statements are only true if you equate commercial and proprietary software. If you don't, they are false.
For example, Cygnus Solutions was a commercial software company. They sold free software. They made money. Red Hat is a commercial software company. The sell free software. They are (kind of) making money. ADA Core technologies is a commercial software company. They sell free software. They aren't public, so its hard to tell if they make money, but they've been around for awhile. So you see, GPL is not incompatible with _commercial_ software, only _proprietary_ software that restricts users' freedoms.
Another reason that free software people don't like Gate's comments is that they give the false impression that MS's software doesn't have these problems. For example, I can't use arbitrary MS software AT ALL, no matter what license I put it under. So, basically, they are twisting their side of the story so much that, although what they say is technically true, it gives completely false impressions. Then there is the outright lie about problems with the _use_ of the software, of which there is none (and MS software is infinitely more restrictive on use).
The funny thing about this is that the person who started the free software movement, RMS, makes money by selling software. He started selling tapes of emacs for $150, and now selling GNU deluxe distributions for a few thousand.
I think you're missing something. The point of free software is freedom for the user. It doesn't mean that the code needs to be publicly downloadable. So, in your case, you only need to provide source to the people who actually purchased your product, and only if they ask for it. That way, your competitors will probably only get the source if they buy it from you. I can't imagine a competitor going to one of your clients and asking for the disk with the source code on it, you know.
This is totally stupid. First of all, let me say that the president has almost nothing to do with the success or failure of the economy. In a free market, that is entirely on the hands of the people. Yeah, that's right, YOU! If you really think that presidents have anything to do with economics, then you would notice that it was the Clinton era that set up the recent downfalls. In fact, no Bush policy has had any real chance to take effect.
Anyway, presidents don't matter to the economy. You are better off blaming me for any economic downturn than the president or congress.
ADDENDUM: Actually, a president/congress _can_ hurt the economy, but that is very unlikely. It means that they would have to prevent you from doing business in some way. The only ones who can help the economy is you.
VA Linux has _always_ had great hardware. They do more testing than anyone else. Wonder why their servers are expensive? They use teflon cables, that usually run $100 a piece. Why? Because they NEVER wear out. VA has probably the best-constructed servers on the market, period. All of their servers include EMP, which makes remote-management a cinch. In fact, you can mess with the BIOS at boot-time remotely with EMP. Their 4U boxes also have dual hot-swap power supplies. My company would have bought more VA if they would have only had dual hot-swap power supplies in their 2U boxes (Penguin and Dell both do this).
VA also does extensive testing, finding obscure memory compatibility problems and fixing them _before_ they ship.
I've never seen someone build a 2U VA-like box themselves. Those things are amazing. They always use the best components - that's why they are expensive, and that's why they last forever.
eCos is probably the best bet. And I think it's an open-source kernel, too (could be wrong, though).
However, you are also missing the benefits of COTS (commodity-off-the-shelf). Although I doubt bombs use too many COTS parts, It is cheaper to use a known-working thing than it is to build something custom. Even if a bomb doesn't need megs of RAM (Linux does _not_ require an HD, just a flash card), it might be worth it to go ahead and use it to save the expense of writing a custom solution.
Re:This is Freshmeat stuff. Not Slashdot.
on
Mozilla 0.9.1 Out
·
· Score: 2
Because Mozilla isn't _just_ a browser. It's a testbed for Corporations doing free software. It's a possibility for a free software application to be used in many, many corporations and user desktops.
Although I disagree with the content of this post, I still have to give it a +20 Absolutely Hilarious, for characterizing quite adequately the way many of us behave around our favorite toys.
You're missing the point. X-Rays require the testimonial of the X-Ray operator. MRI's require the testimonial of the MRI operator.
In addition, tests such as X-rays mean nothing. The actual outcome that's being looked for is what counts. For example, getting rid of cancer is not the end we're going for. Living a long life is. If living a long life includes keeping the cancer in some form, it doesn't matter what the actual tests show.
You said - Unfortunately OSS engineers typically cost much more than MCSEs.
I have never seen that. Of course, I haven't look around a whole lot. Most of the high-priced people are for proprietary UNIXs, not Linux.
Anyway, one reason UNIX admins are pricey is because a) they know what they are doing, and b) it takes fewer of them.
If you run your company using thin client X terminals, you could probably get away with only one SysAdmin. If a terminal breaks, you throw it away, and the SysAdmin only needs to admin a) The application server (probably need 1 for every 50-100 people), b) The database server c) The mail server, and d) the web server.
You said - to the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick!
That's like saying, to the average corp., the ability to renovate your own building means nothing. Corporations which are not builders still need builders to renovate their buildings. Similarly, corporations which are not software developers need software developers to make customizations to their software. That is, if the software is actually useful to the organization.
In fact, most large commercial software packages come with source by default - like Oracle Applications, SAP, etc.
If your business relies on software, you _need_ the ability to modify your software. If your business doesn't rely on software at all, you're right, you probably don't need to modify it. And trust me, if your organization is of any considerable size, you do rely on software.
You said - It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely.
Have you read the support contracts for VA Linux servers? You can cheaply get 2 hours service time almost anywhere.
You said - If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure?
You are risking with going with proprietary software. If your company relies on its data, you have to ask yourself the question - who owns my data? If you are like most companies, the answer isn't you. Your data is worthless without the programs to operate it on. And you certainly have no control over those, if you use proprietary software.
The main question you asked was, "is it cheaper?" I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I use free software is the freedom, not the price. Do corporations care about freedom? Of course they do! Ask any CEO if they would want their future to be tied to the future of their suppliers. My guess is that all of them would say no, and that it would be worth more money to untie them from suppliers.
Actually, testimonials are the only form of scientific evidence. The difference being that in his case, he didn't do a controlled study of testimonials. How else would you know if someone feels better unless they tell you? Thinking that there is some way to come up with _pure_ fact without the interference of the human element is plain arrogant. The only difference is that the scientific community requires that the testimonials being randomly selected and have controlled dosages. But remember, even then, the only thing you have proving that the dosages were correct are testimonials.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand something in the GPL
Even with the GPL, you are allowed to look at the code, study it, and then use what you learned to write whatever program you want, and you are not obligated under the GPL. You are only under obligation if you directly lift code.
As to your example of zlib, it's no different than a proprietary library that is small. Let's say MS releases office, and it includes a small little library (let's say 2K big) that has some really useful functionality. Do you have any rights to distribute it? No! Do you think MS would ever license it to you? Maybe if you paid them a few hundred thou. So the same applies to either side of the fence. The difference is that the GPL brings freedom while proprietary licenses bring division.
Of course if I were RedHat, before I put any work into an idea, I would leak it to the press and look and see what ideas Slashdot had about what I was thinking about doing, and then decide (1) if it's worthwhile and (2) what the best plan of attack is. Then, on Monday, I would just announce that I'm developing whatever the best idea on Slashdot was.
However, one nice thing about Tux is that it sparked the movement of most of its code to more generic parts of the kernel, thus allowing the creation of the X15? web server which is entirely userland, but even faster than Tux. The way this works is that a lot of the code from Tux was re-written more generically to make well-written 2.4 apps really scream. Thinks like zero-copy networking and the like. Anyway, it is possible that they did a similar thing with the database - used Tux's zero-copy stuff to make PostgreSQL excruciatingly fast.
:)
However, my guess is simply that they are just packaging Postgres in a more user-friendly way, not actually changing it too much (although they might). Then again, they might not even be using Postgres. It looks like we're just going to have to wait and see
You said - Please don't compare our current business rules with selling crack
I WASN'T. You should read more carefully. I said intentionally unethical businesses practices are equivalent to selling crack. Which it is. Being intentionally harmful or unethical is no worse than selling crack.
As I said in my previous post, if you don't think it is unethical, then it is NOT the moral equivalent of selling crack, and we simply disagree.
What I take offense at is companies who try to justify being unethical using money.
I don't care if the "software industry" goes to pieces. The advent of the automobile made the "buggywhip industry" go to pieces. In the future, you will probably see most software being made by either (1) consultants or (2) IT shops collaborating together. In fact, that's how 90% of todays software is made. Only 10% of software is prepackaged. So, we're still only talking about a small part of the market changing.
Don't reject the ideals of freedom out of fear. If you are opposed to the freedoms outlined for software by the FSF, that's fine. Just don't do it because of fear.
We are not talking about utopia. We are talking about ALLOWING OTHERS to share.
RMS actually _did_ make money selling free software. That's how he started off funding the FSF, and where most of the money comes from today.
The point is not, "does the new model work" which it appears to, but rather, "is my current business practice ethical?" If it's not, it needs to be changed.
Also, the FSF never proposed a business model. Neither did I if you notice. I just said you need to re-think your model based on what is ethical.
If you disagree with my ethics, fine. That's certainly valid. However, saying that businesses should feel free to engage in unethical practices (whatever they are) just to prevent it from affecting your livelihood is just plain wrong. It's one thing to say, "I don't think proprietary software is unethical because of this and this, so I will continue to sell proprietary software" It's quite another thing to say, "I think proprietary software is good because it gives me more money, no matter who gets screwed". Using ethics like that, we should all go into selling crack because it makes more money.
Obviously, with a name like GPLwhore, you probably don't merit a response, but here is one anyone.
First of all, sharing software != screwing over others. In fact, companies that limit sharing forcefully are the ones doing the screwing.
GPL would not mean quick and swift death to the company's business, it would mean it needed to be re-thought. It would also probably take a while to make the change. If your company is based on screwing people over, it should probably be re-thought.
Of course, I am one who believes that making money should be difficult. i.e. - we should have to _work_ for a living. So the fact that money didn't just flow in a pipeline to free software companies actually encouraged me, because it showed that free software companies actually have to continually provide increasing value to their customers, instead of just forcing them to pay money.
It's obvious when money just flows out of someone's ears without hard work that something is amiss.
Check it out. MS themselves are selling GPL software:
a tu res.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/fe
It lists g77, gcc, and g++ as parts of the package.
Actually, MS sells GPL software:
a tu res.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/fe
If you look at it, you will see that they include gcc, g77, and g++ in the package.
I think though you are missing the point of what people are saying about commercial software. Your statements are only true if you equate commercial and proprietary software. If you don't, they are false.
For example, Cygnus Solutions was a commercial software company. They sold free software. They made money. Red Hat is a commercial software company. The sell free software. They are (kind of) making money. ADA Core technologies is a commercial software company. They sell free software. They aren't public, so its hard to tell if they make money, but they've been around for awhile. So you see, GPL is not incompatible with _commercial_ software, only _proprietary_ software that restricts users' freedoms.
Another reason that free software people don't like Gate's comments is that they give the false impression that MS's software doesn't have these problems. For example, I can't use arbitrary MS software AT ALL, no matter what license I put it under. So, basically, they are twisting their side of the story so much that, although what they say is technically true, it gives completely false impressions. Then there is the outright lie about problems with the _use_ of the software, of which there is none (and MS software is infinitely more restrictive on use).
The funny thing about this is that the person who started the free software movement, RMS, makes money by selling software. He started selling tapes of emacs for $150, and now selling GNU deluxe distributions for a few thousand.
The funny thing is that Microsoft _is_ making money from selling GPL software. Take a look at
a tu res.asp
this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/fe
You'll notice that their Interix PRODUCT includes g++, g77, and gcc, all of which are GPL products.
So, they are completely lying out their you-know-whats.
I think you're missing something. The point of free software is freedom for the user. It doesn't mean that the code needs to be publicly downloadable. So, in your case, you only need to provide source to the people who actually purchased your product, and only if they ask for it. That way, your competitors will probably only get the source if they buy it from you. I can't imagine a competitor going to one of your clients and asking for the disk with the source code on it, you know.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/featu res.asp
Look at what they're selling - gcc, g77, and g++.
Wierd, huh?
This is totally stupid. First of all, let me say that the president has almost nothing to do with the success or failure of the economy. In a free market, that is entirely on the hands of the people. Yeah, that's right, YOU! If you really think that presidents have anything to do with economics, then you would notice that it was the Clinton era that set up the recent downfalls. In fact, no Bush policy has had any real chance to take effect.
Anyway, presidents don't matter to the economy. You are better off blaming me for any economic downturn than the president or congress.
ADDENDUM: Actually, a president/congress _can_ hurt the economy, but that is very unlikely. It means that they would have to prevent you from doing business in some way. The only ones who can help the economy is you.
Actually, this is completely bogus.
VA Linux has _always_ had great hardware. They do more testing than anyone else. Wonder why their servers are expensive? They use teflon cables, that usually run $100 a piece. Why? Because they NEVER wear out. VA has probably the best-constructed servers on the market, period. All of their servers include EMP, which makes remote-management a cinch. In fact, you can mess with the BIOS at boot-time remotely with EMP. Their 4U boxes also have dual hot-swap power supplies. My company would have bought more VA if they would have only had dual hot-swap power supplies in their 2U boxes (Penguin and Dell both do this).
VA also does extensive testing, finding obscure memory compatibility problems and fixing them _before_ they ship.
I've never seen someone build a 2U VA-like box themselves. Those things are amazing. They always use the best components - that's why they are expensive, and that's why they last forever.
Actually, the ActivePerl stuff I believe is dually licensed under the artistic license and the GPL. I'll check to make sure, though.
eCos is probably the best bet. And I think it's an open-source kernel, too (could be wrong, though).
However, you are also missing the benefits of COTS (commodity-off-the-shelf). Although I doubt bombs use too many COTS parts, It is cheaper to use a known-working thing than it is to build something custom. Even if a bomb doesn't need megs of RAM (Linux does _not_ require an HD, just a flash card), it might be worth it to go ahead and use it to save the expense of writing a custom solution.
Because Mozilla isn't _just_ a browser. It's a testbed for Corporations doing free software. It's a possibility for a free software application to be used in many, many corporations and user desktops.
Although I disagree with the content of this post, I still have to give it a +20 Absolutely Hilarious, for characterizing quite adequately the way many of us behave around our favorite toys.
You said - it's rendering engine still sucks sweaty donkey balls
I personally have never done that, so I'll leave that metaphor to someone who has.
If you make it your production O.S. today you will get your improvements faster :)
Seriously, if you are frustrated with the situation you should work to change it, not just wait for someone else.
You're missing the point. X-Rays require the testimonial of the X-Ray operator. MRI's require the testimonial of the MRI operator.
In addition, tests such as X-rays mean nothing. The actual outcome that's being looked for is what counts. For example, getting rid of cancer is not the end we're going for. Living a long life is. If living a long life includes keeping the cancer in some form, it doesn't matter what the actual tests show.
You said - Unfortunately OSS engineers typically cost much more than MCSEs.
I have never seen that. Of course, I haven't look around a whole lot. Most of the high-priced people are for proprietary UNIXs, not Linux.
Anyway, one reason UNIX admins are pricey is because a) they know what they are doing, and b) it takes fewer of them.
If you run your company using thin client X terminals, you could probably get away with only one SysAdmin. If a terminal breaks, you throw it away, and the SysAdmin only needs to admin a) The application server (probably need 1 for every 50-100 people), b) The database server c) The mail server, and d) the web server.
You said - to the average Corp, the ability to modify software means precisly dick!
That's like saying, to the average corp., the ability to renovate your own building means nothing. Corporations which are not builders still need builders to renovate their buildings. Similarly, corporations which are not software developers need software developers to make customizations to their software. That is, if the software is actually useful to the organization.
In fact, most large commercial software packages come with source by default - like Oracle Applications, SAP, etc.
If your business relies on software, you _need_ the ability to modify your software. If your business doesn't rely on software at all, you're right, you probably don't need to modify it. And trust me, if your organization is of any considerable size, you do rely on software.
You said - It's often hard to get good support of OSS. Good in this case means timely.
Have you read the support contracts for VA Linux servers? You can cheaply get 2 hours service time almost anywhere.
You said - If it ain't broke don't fix it. When our commericial software does what we need it to do, why SHOULD we switch, and risk failure?
You are risking with going with proprietary software. If your company relies on its data, you have to ask yourself the question - who owns my data? If you are like most companies, the answer isn't you. Your data is worthless without the programs to operate it on. And you certainly have no control over those, if you use proprietary software.
The main question you asked was, "is it cheaper?" I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I use free software is the freedom, not the price. Do corporations care about freedom? Of course they do! Ask any CEO if they would want their future to be tied to the future of their suppliers. My guess is that all of them would say no, and that it would be worth more money to untie them from suppliers.
Actually, testimonials are the only form of scientific evidence. The difference being that in his case, he didn't do a controlled study of testimonials. How else would you know if someone feels better unless they tell you? Thinking that there is some way to come up with _pure_ fact without the interference of the human element is plain arrogant. The only difference is that the scientific community requires that the testimonials being randomly selected and have controlled dosages. But remember, even then, the only thing you have proving that the dosages were correct are testimonials.