The users ARE the developers, otherwise they have no need for the freedoms offered by the GPL.
The users need not to be actual developers, they just need to be computer literate (in the meaning that they can also program) to make use of these freedoms. If you have a free software tool that doesn't do exactly what you'd need it to do, you can modify it to do what you want. This makes the computer a more usable tool.
The GPL not only enforces an expectation of reward, it also passes that encumbrance on to others.
To return to my previous example, you are under no obligation to release your modification. However if you choose to distribute, you need to give the source with the distribution, which an intelligent person would do anyway because by releasing his "fix" he is feeding the feedback loop of free software (others will find the tool useful and possibly contribute to it). The license only exists to give the contributor the assurance that no greedy person will abuse the system.
I wouldn't say GPL "passes on the encumbrance to others". Nobody is forcing a developer to use GPL'd software, he is perfectly free to work his own code up from scratch. After all, it is the original writer's right (even under conventional copyright law) to say how his work can be used.
What do you mean by "enforces an expectation of rewared"?
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.
You are correct although I don't find it disconcerning. RMS wants this in the belief (I'm not saying whether he is right or wrong) that it will be in the best interest of everybody. The feedback loop of free software benefits everybody involved. As I said earlier, RMS *is* a radical. But sometimes radicals benefit the society (communistm resulted in democratic socialism).
As I've said before in this thread, free does not equal gratis. It is completely ok to sell free software. You have a valid point, though. A computer game would be hard to make using the "open source developing method", collaboration might not work in a "piece of art". The GPL says nothing about the developing model, though.
(When using the GPL) you are totally free to sell your software and not to publish it. Look at the GPL, does it have a clause that says "you must release everything that is under the GPL!"? No. Stallman himself says in the interview that developing software that is not released to the general public is morally right.
Yes, Stallman is a radical, but we need radicals to achieve important stuff (the founders of the U.S of A were quite radical at the time).
I recall someone saying something on the lines of "If you give up a freedom for something else, you didn't deserve the freedom in the first place" (seen in numerous sigs around here IIRC)
Giving up your freedom is not the greatest freedom of all. There is no point in giving up a freedom, you can simply *choose* not to do something you have a freedom to. That is freedom.
The GPL is not about giving freedom to the developer, it is about giving freedom to the *users*. The freedom to acquire, modify and redistribute the source. As Stallman says on [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]: Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. GPL is about being a "good samaritarian" and helping other people i.e being "social"
Thanks for an insiders view on the redmond monolith! Where are the mod points when you need them? Everybody might not agree with you, but it's nice to hear both sides of the "debate".
I'd like to ask a question: how do you programmers insed MS view the percieved faults in your software, the critique from many geeks and "the threat of free software"?
I live in finland and AFAIK it's lawful to download anything, but sharing is illegal. Finreactor (the site that was raided) had moderators so (according to the law) they knew they were distributing illegal stuff and the raid was legal. IANAL, though.
Err... If i take a free newspaper (e.g Metro that is availanble in many big european cities) i do disregard the commercials and shake out the ad inserts, I even do this for magazines i've paid for (OMG! if the magazine didn't have any ads, it'd be more expensive! this means i'm *stealing* from the publisher!!!!!1oneoneone111). I'm not violating any contracts, the advertisers know full well that over 50% of the people will simply disregard (and shake out) any advertisements.
According to the standard, the from field should have the email address the mail was sent from (in this case your uni addy). If you want replies to go to another address, use the standard Reply-To: header.
If you violate the mail standard you get labeled as a spammer because spammers frequently use tricks like this.
So you think domains exist only for web content? The web is a relative newcomer on the internet, and AFAIK full of crap. There's no point in adding to the crap if you have nothing to say. A domain with no web suits me fine, i prefer ssh, mail, irc and usenet:)
The JustWorks factor of gentoo has been quite high for me. Gentoo has worked as smoothly as debian (and IMO debian is very smooth) and conffing everything with emacs has been kinda fun...
Really? I haven't gotten my ballot for the Iraqi election yet. Has anyone else over here?
Sheesh! I hope you're not serious. Do you really think only the people of Iraq get to choose their leader?
India is the only country that really needs to worry about Pakistan's nukes.
Oh yeah? And the U.S of A had to worry about those non-existant WMDs in Iraq? I'd say a friggin *nuke* (BTW if used would blow away a sizeable chunk of our ozone layer an irradiate the place it was dropped into! This calls for a mission to save humanity and the poor suffering people, eh?) is quite serious.
I realise your post might've been somewhat tongue-in-the-cheek, but i wouldn't count "Arben" as a professional even in a joke. He's what I'd call a "opportunistic SCO-like bastard":)
Sorry, but all of those screenshots look damn ugly. I like to use systems that look elegant or at least don't look bad. CLI looks elegant (and is hard to make look bad), GUIs are too easy to make ugly, but they can be really nice if some effort is put into their outlook. If I have to stare at something all the time I do work, I'd rather stare at something nice.
Of course, it's a matter of taste, but this is my desktop (which I find good-looking)
Same here, when I'm forced to use something else than emacs (eg my friend's machine only has ed vim and pico), I still do a C-x C-s C-x C-c when I'm finished editing a file...
Slashdot Mirror
The users ARE the developers, otherwise they have no need for the freedoms offered by the GPL.
The users need not to be actual developers, they just need to be computer literate (in the meaning that they can also program) to make use of these freedoms. If you have a free software tool that doesn't do exactly what you'd need it to do, you can modify it to do what you want. This makes the computer a more usable tool.
The GPL not only enforces an expectation of reward, it also passes that encumbrance on to others.
To return to my previous example, you are under no obligation to release your modification. However if you choose to distribute, you need to give the source with the distribution, which an intelligent person would do anyway because by releasing his "fix" he is feeding the feedback loop of free software (others will find the tool useful and possibly contribute to it). The license only exists to give the contributor the assurance that no greedy person will abuse the system.
I wouldn't say GPL "passes on the encumbrance to others". Nobody is forcing a developer to use GPL'd software, he is perfectly free to work his own code up from scratch. After all, it is the original writer's right (even under conventional copyright law) to say how his work can be used.
What do you mean by "enforces an expectation of rewared"?
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.
You are correct although I don't find it disconcerning. RMS wants this in the belief (I'm not saying whether he is right or wrong) that it will be in the best interest of everybody. The feedback loop of free software benefits everybody involved. As I said earlier, RMS *is* a radical. But sometimes radicals benefit the society (communistm resulted in democratic socialism).
As I've said before in this thread, free does not equal gratis. It is completely ok to sell free software. You have a valid point, though. A computer game would be hard to make using the "open source developing method", collaboration might not work in a "piece of art". The GPL says nothing about the developing model, though.
(When using the GPL) you are totally free to sell your software and not to publish it. Look at the GPL, does it have a clause that says "you must release everything that is under the GPL!"? No. Stallman himself says in the interview that developing software that is not released to the general public is morally right.
Yes, Stallman is a radical, but we need radicals to achieve important stuff (the founders of the U.S of A were quite radical at the time).
I recall someone saying something on the lines of "If you give up a freedom for something else, you didn't deserve the freedom in the first place" (seen in numerous sigs around here IIRC)
Giving up your freedom is not the greatest freedom of all. There is no point in giving up a freedom, you can simply *choose* not to do something you have a freedom to. That is freedom.
The GPL is not about giving freedom to the developer, it is about giving freedom to the *users*. The freedom to acquire, modify and redistribute the source. As Stallman says on [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]: Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. GPL is about being a "good samaritarian" and helping other people i.e being "social"
YMMV but the nyud.net version doesn't seem to have pictures (the pictures are linked to the original site). Mirrordot seems to be working, though.
Thanks for an insiders view on the redmond monolith! Where are the mod points when you need them? Everybody might not agree with you, but it's nice to hear both sides of the "debate".
I'd like to ask a question: how do you programmers insed MS view the percieved faults in your software, the critique from many geeks and "the threat of free software"?
I live in finland and AFAIK it's lawful to download anything, but sharing is illegal. Finreactor (the site that was raided) had moderators so (according to the law) they knew they were distributing illegal stuff and the raid was legal. IANAL, though.
Err... If i take a free newspaper (e.g Metro that is availanble in many big european cities) i do disregard the commercials and shake out the ad inserts, I even do this for magazines i've paid for (OMG! if the magazine didn't have any ads, it'd be more expensive! this means i'm *stealing* from the publisher!!!!!1oneoneone111). I'm not violating any contracts, the advertisers know full well that over 50% of the people will simply disregard (and shake out) any advertisements.
But, guess i'm a freeloading bastard..
According to the standard, the from field should have the email address the mail was sent from (in this case your uni addy). If you want replies to go to another address, use the standard Reply-To: header.
If you violate the mail standard you get labeled as a spammer because spammers frequently use tricks like this.
So you think domains exist only for web content? The web is a relative newcomer on the internet, and AFAIK full of crap. There's no point in adding to the crap if you have nothing to say. A domain with no web suits me fine, i prefer ssh, mail, irc and usenet :)
I wonder will they be releasing the source. It could be an interesting read.
The JustWorks factor of gentoo has been quite high for me. Gentoo has worked as smoothly as debian (and IMO debian is very smooth) and conffing everything with emacs has been kinda fun...
Sheesh! I hope you're not serious. Do you really think only the people of Iraq get to choose their leader?
India is the only country that really needs to worry about Pakistan's nukes.Oh yeah? And the U.S of A had to worry about those non-existant WMDs in Iraq? I'd say a friggin *nuke* (BTW if used would blow away a sizeable chunk of our ozone layer an irradiate the place it was dropped into! This calls for a mission to save humanity and the poor suffering people, eh?) is quite serious.
I realise your post might've been somewhat tongue-in-the-cheek, but i wouldn't count "Arben" as a professional even in a joke. He's what I'd call a "opportunistic SCO-like bastard" :)
Are you planning to release other software under the GPL or some other open source lisence?
What about keventd, kswapd and friends? You wouldn't have room for init, getty and login.
Touche!
Sorry, but all of those screenshots look damn ugly. I like to use systems that look elegant or at least don't look bad. CLI looks elegant (and is hard to make look bad), GUIs are too easy to make ugly, but they can be really nice if some effort is put into their outlook. If I have to stare at something all the time I do work, I'd rather stare at something nice.
Of course, it's a matter of taste, but this is my desktop (which I find good-looking)
Same here, when I'm forced to use something else than emacs (eg my friend's machine only has ed vim and pico), I still do a C-x C-s C-x C-c when I'm finished editing a file...
dd is more useful for disk things than cat dd - the sledgehammer of the unix toolset!