The greatest benefit of free software is that the users have freedom when using it. M$ can't probably ever challenge us in that so it too should be mentioned.
One function of OSS is to ensure that the freedom available to programmers now is never diminished. Actually OSS only cares about quality code made by their method. Free Software is what you describe, and they care of the users' freedom too.
GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercialGo software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.
You probably mean proprietary software. For example MySQL is Free Software and commercial.
Well, all I can say is, if Microsoft were completely populated, or even majority-populated, by people like Mr. Taylor, Robert Scoble, and Raymond Chen, I would have substantially more hope that "peaceful coexistence" between Microsoft and the open-source community would be in fact possible.
In your dreams. M$ is a company which exists only to make as much money as possible. They will try to destroy the competition by lobbying for software patents and by creating undocumented and patented protocols.
On the other hand, they have an excellent support organization available. They will get Windows to do anything it is capable of if you pay them enough money. Same with Red Hat support.
On the other hand with free software there is competition in support. M$ can charge megabucks for a simple fix which wouldn't be possible if their software was free.
I want to demonstrate the application, or show a client how our application works, under GPL, I would have to supply them with the code. Yes, I could change the licensing solely for demonstration purposes, but the point remains.
No. If you don't give them the binary you don't have to give the source. A lot of web sites for example use modified free software which is copyleft and don't publish the source because there is no distribution.
How do you plan to respond to the freedom aspect of Free Software? You can try to compete with Open Source with features, better coding etc. but can you compete with freedom which is provided by free software?
I work as a penetration tester and recently started writing a whitepaper on the benefits of free, open-source security tools over commercial tools.
What if some of the developers of those F/OSS packages are paid money to code free software? MySQL comes to mind when I think commercial free software, although it isn't related to the software you search. There has been always money to be made in free software business. Your question should be about free vs. non-free.
Quoting RMS:``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
You can't change the law to permit unlimited online redistribution of movies without stealing those redistribution rights from the copyright holders.
We have given that limited monopoly power to them so we can take it back anytime we want. It's not like the movies are their "property". Monopolies don't fit well in capitalistic society.
This is a problem with USPTO, not Microsoft. I mean, how is this any different from me downloading pirated movies? It's wrong, but I do it anyway because I can (get away with it).
It is illegal, not wrong. Would you consider copying movies without permission still wrong if the law said that it is ok? I mean, we can change the law if it doesn't serve the public. Piracy is a newspeak term, please avoid using it.
GAME COMPANY CEO: That's that OS used by those people who are rabid about not paying for anything involving software, right?
The users of free operating systems value their freedom, they are not necessarily against paying for software. I would really like to see more commercial free software in the future. Just give us our freedom and we use your software.
RMS's writing about "trusted" computing
on
TCPA Support in Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
We gladly use free and libre and EULA'd software to get along in our daily lives.
I haven't seen any free software EULA, have you? The GPL is a distribution license, so are the BSD licenses. You don't have to accept those to use the software.
What you don't seem to realize is that releasing specs that would allow you to speak directly with the hardware would necessarily reveal trade secrets about how the hardware works.
What you don't seem to remember is that ATI has published the documentation for the older radeon cards. Why not for the new ones?
However, given their stance on Linux drivers, my next purchase will be Nvidia.
Oh, you mean the proprietary non-free drivers for GNU/Linux on x86 which taint your kernel. I think I'll pass and use my Radeon 8500 until there is a better card with Free drivers. Open Graphics Project comes to mind.
IMHO in the case of governments which don't want to be tied into foreign powers in their software we should tell the people about the freedom which they have with the software. In the short run promoting the goals of OSS (faster, bug free etc.) software may provide better (in terms of functionality) software but if we forget the idea of freedom we are back in square one with proprietary software everywhere in our lives.
Slashdot Mirror
The greatest benefit of free software is that the users have freedom when using it. M$ can't probably ever challenge us in that so it too should be mentioned.
It would be beneficial to look for the enemies of Free Software, not of one kernel.
Using _someone elses_ GPL'ed code in a non-GPL distributed software project is not allowed.
Actually you can do GPL+non-gpl (like BSD without the advertising clause) if the licenses are compatible. The result becomes GPL.
One function of OSS is to ensure that the freedom available to programmers now is never diminished. Actually OSS only cares about quality code made by their method. Free Software is what you describe, and they care of the users' freedom too.
In that case it wouldn't be pure free software any more.
Commercial. It would be illegal to make it proprietary because it is licensed under the GPL.
I could sell you GNU Go for 5$ with some special patches and that would make it also commercial :>.
GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercialGo software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.
You probably mean proprietary software. For example MySQL is Free Software and commercial.
Well, all I can say is, if Microsoft were completely populated, or even majority-populated, by people like Mr. Taylor, Robert Scoble, and Raymond Chen, I would have substantially more hope that "peaceful coexistence" between Microsoft and the open-source community would be in fact possible.
In your dreams. M$ is a company which exists only to make as much money as possible. They will try to destroy the competition by lobbying for software patents and by creating undocumented and patented protocols.
On the other hand, they have an excellent support organization available. They will get Windows to do anything it is capable of if you pay them enough money. Same with Red Hat support.
On the other hand with free software there is competition in support. M$ can charge megabucks for a simple fix which wouldn't be possible if their software was free.
I want to demonstrate the application, or show a client how our application works, under GPL, I would have to supply them with the code. Yes, I could change the licensing solely for demonstration purposes, but the point remains.
No. If you don't give them the binary you don't have to give the source. A lot of web sites for example use modified free software which is copyleft and don't publish the source because there is no distribution.
If you're not using encryption to protect your copyright...
You don't have to do anything to "protect" your copyright.
Someone who wants to run a totally free system.
It's GNU/Hurd which we all are using after 20 years
How do you plan to respond to the freedom aspect of Free Software? You can try to compete with Open Source with features, better coding etc. but can you compete with freedom which is provided by free software?
I work as a penetration tester and recently started writing a whitepaper on the benefits of free, open-source security tools over commercial tools.
What if some of the developers of those F/OSS packages are paid money to code free software? MySQL comes to mind when I think commercial free software, although it isn't related to the software you search. There has been always money to be made in free software business. Your question should be about free vs. non-free.
Quoting RMS:``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
You can't change the law to permit unlimited online redistribution of movies without stealing those redistribution rights from the copyright holders.
We have given that limited monopoly power to them so we can take it back anytime we want. It's not like the movies are their "property". Monopolies don't fit well in capitalistic society.
This is a problem with USPTO, not Microsoft. I mean, how is this any different from me downloading pirated movies? It's wrong, but I do it anyway because I can (get away with it).
It is illegal, not wrong. Would you consider copying movies without permission still wrong if the law said that it is ok? I mean, we can change the law if it doesn't serve the public. Piracy is a newspeak term, please avoid using it.
Trusted servers? Proprietary graphics and maps?
GAME COMPANY CEO: That's that OS used by those people who are rabid about not paying for anything involving software, right?
The users of free operating systems value their freedom, they are not necessarily against paying for software. I would really like to see more commercial free software in the future. Just give us our freedom and we use your software.
RMS has written a nice article about it: see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
We gladly use free and libre and EULA'd software to get along in our daily lives.
I haven't seen any free software EULA, have you? The GPL is a distribution license, so are the BSD licenses. You don't have to accept those to use the software.
What you don't seem to realize is that releasing specs that would allow you to speak directly with the hardware would necessarily reveal trade secrets about how the hardware works.
What you don't seem to remember is that ATI has published the documentation for the older radeon cards. Why not for the new ones?
However, given their stance on Linux drivers, my next purchase will be Nvidia.
Oh, you mean the proprietary non-free drivers for GNU/Linux on x86 which taint your kernel. I think I'll pass and use my Radeon 8500 until there is a better card with Free drivers. Open Graphics Project comes to mind.
IMHO in the case of governments which don't want to be tied into foreign powers in their software we should tell the people about the freedom which they have with the software. In the short run promoting the goals of OSS (faster, bug free etc.) software may provide better (in terms of functionality) software but if we forget the idea of freedom we are back in square one with proprietary software everywhere in our lives.