Your view on the BSD vs. GPL licenses is beside the point of the parent's post about commercial software, but I'll address it anyway.
The GPL doesn't "force" anyone to use it. Many people write software and choose not to use the GPL, and it is their right to do so. People who complain about being "forced" into this "viral license" are people who are trying to take without giving back. That is not allowed by the GPL and Free Software community. People who don't like it, are free to write their own software and keep it as secret as they like.
As a "FSF zealot" (to use your inflammatory words) let me clarify something for you.
The FSF does *NOT* think that commercial software is evil, amoral, or any of those things. Commercial software is just fine. Many people create commercial Free Software and they are a valuable part of the Free Software movement.
What *is* wrong is software that takes away the user's rights to do what she pleases with the software. Be it studying the source code, modifying it to suit her needs, sharing it with friends, etc.
The *restriction of the user's freedom* is what the Free Software Foundation is against.
The GPL has nothing to do with the *output* of a program. The only exception is if the program output is a large amount of verbatim copy of the GPL'ed program's source code.
For example, the BISON parser generator copies its own source code into its output. This out put would be covered under the GPL. BUT the GNU/FSF folks have made an exception for BISON which allows people to use it to create output for inclusion in non-free programs.
To put it another way, you can use a GPLed program to produce output and the GPL will have no effect over that output. That output is yours to do with as you please. That's part of "Freedom 0" in the GNU Free Software definition.
1. Frustrated client calls me for the third time this year complaining of virus/spyware outbreak on their Windows computer. 2. I calmly suggest that I can solve the problem for good, and all the software I would use will cost them nothing. I also provide a reduced hourly rate for the first few hours after doing the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux. 3. While I'm installing the GNU/Linux system, I tell them about Free Software, and let them know how the new system is different from Windows.
Out of the dozen or so clients (mostly home users) that I've switched, only one of them has gone back to Windows. And that person still calls me to come fix spyware problems...
I occasionally get questions from the others about how to actually *use* their computer to do useful work, rather than how to *fix* their computer.
They have been doing all of these things for years now. And still OpenOffice.org is gaining in numbers and mind-share because some people occasionally are able to see through the MS BS.
If there is a *policy* in place that tells folks that they must save in the ODF, then those folks will naturally ask their IT staff to make it easier to do, whether it's with a MS product add-on or OpenOffice or KOffice, or whatever.
All of you complaining about the GPL are completely free to create your own software from scratch and keep it as secret and proprietary as you like.
I think you are bitching because you have found some really useful GPL'ed software that you want to steal for your own selfish uses. Sorry, you can't.
The spirit (and the main restriction) of the GPL is that you have to share and share alike if you want to use the Free Software community's resources. The GPL was designed to make sure that selfish people can't steal the software out from under the community which worked hard to build it.
Just because a huge portion of the U.S. population don't perceive a problem, that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. I agree that the majority of the U.S. population is nowhere near the level of discontent that the previous post mentioned. Yet.
People in the U.S. are fairly comfortable because the raping and pillaging of resources is happening in other parts of the world.
Sure, we can let things slide status-quo style through our own lifetimes, but in two or three generations, all of this unsustainable mess will come unraveled in one way or another. By putting off dealing with the problems (because they don't "contribute to our daily lives") just means that our children's grandchildren will be f*cked, just like people in other parts of the world are now.
BTW: It's those "excessively pessimistic" people who see the forest for the trees and get other people worked up enough to make positive changes. And paranoia isn't paranoia if the things you think are happening are really happening.
Ask this question again when some corporation has purchased the water rights to the area you live in (much like the Bechtel Corporation did in Cochabamba Bolivia in 1999)
So, in addition to the delivery fees (if any) you pay now, you'll also need to buy the actual water. And don't go thinking that you can just collect it as it falls from the sky, because that will be forbidden.
Turn off your television, open your eyes and have a good look at what's going on in the world. Read some foreign news sources. Put two and two together.
Or, put your head back into the Fox News. There that's more comfortable now isn't it?
But they're not taking any freedom from you are they?
Let's say that XYZ Corp. has been filing 10 patent applications per week (a modest number, to be sure) since they learned that they could do so.
Let's also say that because of the patent office's absolute lack of clue about software, and their willingness to grant patents which feature language that is so general in nature, and written in a way that most people simply cannot understand (including the patent officers), that XYZ Corp. gets the patent for something like "passing XML finacial data from one program to another over a network".
Suddenly, there are hundreds of people who may have even started their programming project before the patent was filed, who stand to be sued because of the patent. I would hazard that facing the possibility of massive lawsuits would force the person/business to stop development and distribution of their independently developed product which just happens to pass financial data in XML format over a network.
Yes, I'd say that was a lack of freedom due to software patents.
Is freedom the ability to take someone's hard work and make money off of it.
No, that's theft and breach of copyright. A different issue from software patents.
But what is happening isn't theft of someone else's code, it is that multiple people are developing software using similar ideas. And since those ideas are patented, the corporation that holds the patent stifles the advancement of society because people are too afraid to program.
Yes, that's a bit melodramatic, but not unlikely to happen.
The question that I have and would really like a thought-out reply is: "What freedom have they taken from you by patenting something (ignoring the obvious bad-patents like one-click, etc.)?"
Why ignore the "bad-patents"? You make it seem like there are only one or two! You don't think the proliferation of "bad-patents" will continue?
The answer to your question is that society has lost the freedom to develop software without having to worry that when the program is finished and distributed, that the developer won't get clobbered by XYZ Corp. for patent infringement.
Society advances when people can build on the ideas of those who came before them. What could we build if each time we started, we were forced to create something the likes of which had never been seen before?
How have software patents helped the United States? Do we see lots of bright individuals and small software companies getting rich on their duly won patents? Or perhaps do we see large software corporations filing hundreds of patents per day, getting ready to crush any one who writes a program that people like? Which situation do you think is happening?
The patent system was originally created to promote the avancement of "Science and the Useful Arts" (technology) by providing limited copyrights for the developer, and then releasing the knowledge and technology to the people.
Do you think that corporations are going to be willing to give up these patents to release the "discovery" to the people? Corporations, by their very nature have no reason to do such a thing. Profit for shareholders is their only motive by design. NOT the advancement of society.
Everyone, please at least read about alternatives and try to see the bigger picture before choosing the status quo.
Do you honestly think that psychopathic corporate interests would willingly agree to 6 months to a year? Even if it started that way, their foot would be in the door, and soon enough, the patents would last for 5 years, then 10, then the lifetime of the corporation.
Freedom is more important than money. It really is. I'm not kidding. You can't tell a corp. to "take just a little bit" of our freedom. The corp. won't listen.
With the amount of media (digital and otherwise) being produced and distributed ALL OVER THE PLANET these days, you don't figure that any of it is going to be accessible in 500 years? A dark age?! That's a stretch.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that not every scrap of paper, magazine, e-mail, video, image, etc. SHOULD last. Would we benefit from having every prehistoric post-it note ever written? The librarians and archivists of each age take care of what the society on the whole deems important.
If in 500 years, archaeologists are trying to read my e-mail, or see photos of last Saturday's picnic, they should be slapped upside their minutiae-lovin' heads and told to get on with their own lives.
Let's face it. Not everything is important. Including this comment. Forget you ever read it.
From personal experience, I can say that in most cases GNU/Linux system does take an experienced user/consultant to set up fully/properly. I have done this work for many of my clients.
What you don't seem to realize is that once I have done this setup, and a bit of training, my GNU/Linux clients call me far less often than my Windows clients.
Fewer visits means less $$ paid to me by them over the long term.
The fact is, GNU/Linux is much more stable, secure , and predictable than Windows. There are no pop-ups, no "free offers" when you install software, no firewalls popping up incessantly asking them questions they don't know the answers to, etc.
A GNU system boots the same way every time, and presents the user with their system exactly the way they left it.
It is really a much more peaceful place to get work done.
I haven't RTFA, but I do have a DLP projector (Infocus X1) which I love. For me it's relative. I liked CDs and CD players when they first came out because they were much handier than cassettes and records, and I like DVD much better than VHS, and I love my projector because it's a thousand times better than my old 19-inch television screen.
So I don't care what it can't do. What it _can_ do is terrific!
Ideology should trump pragmatism sometimes. Especially at a national government level
Consider this:
While it is true that one may learn a great deal about an automobile which has all of its doors, boot, and bonnet locked, One can learn a great deal _more_ if one has the keys to the automobile.
Free access to source code is the "key" to computer software.
The "vast majority" of the users will not benefit from free access to the source code, but what about the not-insignificant minority? They _could_ benefit immensely, but with proprietary software they would be prevented from doing so.
Granted, I'm a bit biased toward freedom, but having the ability to learn, but then being prevented from doing so, sounds like hell on Earth to me.
If I recall correctly, the/. tagline is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." I believe, despite your objection and concern about the size of the/. article database (i.e. "wasted space") that this article fits the general area of interest.
I might suggest that the next time you encounter something that bores you, you don't take the time to read it and comment on it, as that tends to muck up your boredom experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Your view on the BSD vs. GPL licenses is beside the point of the parent's post about commercial software, but I'll address it anyway.
The GPL doesn't "force" anyone to use it. Many people write software and choose not to use the GPL, and it is their right to do so. People who complain about being "forced" into this "viral license" are people who are trying to take without giving back. That is not allowed by the GPL and Free Software community. People who don't like it, are free to write their own software and keep it as secret as they like.
Have a nice day.
As a "FSF zealot" (to use your inflammatory words) let me clarify something for you.
The FSF does *NOT* think that commercial software is evil, amoral, or any of those things. Commercial software is just fine. Many people create commercial Free Software and they are a valuable part of the Free Software movement.
What *is* wrong is software that takes away the user's rights to do what she pleases with the software. Be it studying the source code, modifying it to suit her needs, sharing it with friends, etc.
The *restriction of the user's freedom* is what the Free Software Foundation is against.
Have a nice day.
The GPL has nothing to do with the *output* of a program. The only exception is if the program output is a large amount of verbatim copy of the GPL'ed program's source code.
For example, the BISON parser generator copies its own source code into its output. This out put would be covered under the GPL. BUT the GNU/FSF folks have made an exception for BISON which allows people to use it to create output for inclusion in non-free programs.
To put it another way, you can use a GPLed program to produce output and the GPL will have no effect over that output. That output is yours to do with as you please. That's part of "Freedom 0" in the GNU Free Software definition.
Have a nice day.
Usually it goes something like this:
1. Frustrated client calls me for the third time this year complaining of virus/spyware outbreak on their Windows computer.
2. I calmly suggest that I can solve the problem for good, and all the software I would use will cost them nothing. I also provide a reduced hourly rate for the first few hours after doing the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux.
3. While I'm installing the GNU/Linux system, I tell them about Free Software, and let them know how the new system is different from Windows.
Out of the dozen or so clients (mostly home users) that I've switched, only one of them has gone back to Windows. And that person still calls me to come fix spyware problems...
I occasionally get questions from the others about how to actually *use* their computer to do useful work, rather than how to *fix* their computer.
It's very refreshing for them and me.
They have been doing all of these things for years now. And still OpenOffice.org is gaining in numbers and mind-share because some people occasionally are able to see through the MS BS.
If there is a *policy* in place that tells folks that they must save in the ODF, then those folks will naturally ask their IT staff to make it easier to do, whether it's with a MS product add-on or OpenOffice or KOffice, or whatever.
Well done, Massachusetts.
All of you complaining about the GPL are completely free to create your own software from scratch and keep it as secret and proprietary as you like.
I think you are bitching because you have found some really useful GPL'ed software that you want to steal for your own selfish uses. Sorry, you can't.
The spirit (and the main restriction) of the GPL is that you have to share and share alike if you want to use the Free Software community's resources. The GPL was designed to make sure that selfish people can't steal the software out from under the community which worked hard to build it.
Just because a huge portion of the U.S. population don't perceive a problem, that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. I agree that the majority of the U.S. population is nowhere near the level of discontent that the previous post mentioned. Yet.
People in the U.S. are fairly comfortable because the raping and pillaging of resources is happening in other parts of the world.
Sure, we can let things slide status-quo style through our own lifetimes, but in two or three generations, all of this unsustainable mess will come unraveled in one way or another. By putting off dealing with the problems (because they don't "contribute to our daily lives") just means that our children's grandchildren will be f*cked, just like people in other parts of the world are now.
BTW: It's those "excessively pessimistic" people who see the forest for the trees and get other people worked up enough to make positive changes. And paranoia isn't paranoia if the things you think are happening are really happening.
Ask this question again when some corporation has purchased the water rights to the area you live in (much like the Bechtel Corporation did in Cochabamba Bolivia in 1999)
http://www.democracyctr.org/waterwar/
So, in addition to the delivery fees (if any) you pay now, you'll also need to buy the actual water. And don't go thinking that you can just collect it as it falls from the sky, because that will be forbidden.
Turn off your television, open your eyes and have a good look at what's going on in the world. Read some foreign news sources. Put two and two together.
Or, put your head back into the Fox News. There that's more comfortable now isn't it?
But they're not taking any freedom from you are they?
Let's say that XYZ Corp. has been filing 10 patent applications per week (a modest number, to be sure) since they learned that they could do so.
Let's also say that because of the patent office's absolute lack of clue about software, and their willingness to grant patents which feature language that is so general in nature, and written in a way that most people simply cannot understand (including the patent officers), that XYZ Corp. gets the patent for something like "passing XML finacial data from one program to another over a network".
Suddenly, there are hundreds of people who may have even started their programming project before the patent was filed, who stand to be sued because of the patent. I would hazard that facing the possibility of massive lawsuits would force the person/business to stop development and distribution of their independently developed product which just happens to pass financial data in XML format over a network.
Yes, I'd say that was a lack of freedom due to software patents.
Is freedom the ability to take someone's hard work and make money off of it.
No, that's theft and breach of copyright. A different issue from software patents.
But what is happening isn't theft of someone else's code, it is that multiple people are developing software using similar ideas. And since those ideas are patented, the corporation that holds the patent stifles the advancement of society because people are too afraid to program.
Yes, that's a bit melodramatic, but not unlikely to happen.
The question that I have and would really like a thought-out reply is: "What freedom have they taken from you by patenting something (ignoring the obvious bad-patents like one-click, etc.)?"
Why ignore the "bad-patents"? You make it seem like there are only one or two! You don't think the proliferation of "bad-patents" will continue?
The answer to your question is that society has lost the freedom to develop software without having to worry that when the program is finished and distributed, that the developer won't get clobbered by XYZ Corp. for patent infringement.
Society advances when people can build on the ideas of those who came before them. What could we build if each time we started, we were forced to create something the likes of which had never been seen before?
How have software patents helped the United States? Do we see lots of bright individuals and small software companies getting rich on their duly won patents? Or perhaps do we see large software corporations filing hundreds of patents per day, getting ready to crush any one who writes a program that people like? Which situation do you think is happening?
The patent system was originally created to promote the avancement of "Science and the Useful Arts" (technology) by providing limited copyrights for the developer, and then releasing the knowledge and technology to the people.
Do you think that corporations are going to be willing to give up these patents to release the "discovery" to the people? Corporations, by their very nature have no reason to do such a thing. Profit for shareholders is their only motive by design. NOT the advancement of society.
Everyone, please at least read about alternatives and try to see the bigger picture before choosing the status quo.
Do you honestly think that psychopathic corporate interests would willingly agree to 6 months to a year? Even if it started that way, their foot would be in the door, and soon enough, the patents would last for 5 years, then 10, then the lifetime of the corporation.
Freedom is more important than money. It really is. I'm not kidding. You can't tell a corp. to "take just a little bit" of our freedom. The corp. won't listen.
No, I say GNU/Linux. That way you're helping to acknowledge the GNU Project, that has been working against things like this for over twenty years.
And you don't have time to learn to use a system that doesn't steal your freedom? Man, you must be busy... :)
With the amount of media (digital and otherwise) being produced and distributed ALL OVER THE PLANET these days, you don't figure that any of it is going to be accessible in 500 years? A dark age?! That's a stretch.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that not every scrap of paper, magazine, e-mail, video, image, etc. SHOULD last. Would we benefit from having every prehistoric post-it note ever written? The librarians and archivists of each age take care of what the society on the whole deems important.
If in 500 years, archaeologists are trying to read my e-mail, or see photos of last Saturday's picnic, they should be slapped upside their minutiae-lovin' heads and told to get on with their own lives.
Let's face it. Not everything is important. Including this comment. Forget you ever read it.
What the hell is going on with the moderation on this thread? Something is fucked up. I'm keen to see how this one gets modded.
You're almost right, but not quite.
/consultant to set up fully/properly. I have done this work for many of my clients.
From personal experience, I can say that in most cases GNU/Linux system does take an experienced user
What you don't seem to realize is that once I have done this setup, and a bit of training, my GNU/Linux clients call me far less often than my Windows clients.
Fewer visits means less $$ paid to me by them over the long term.
The fact is, GNU/Linux is much more stable, secure , and predictable than Windows. There are no pop-ups, no "free offers" when you install software, no firewalls popping up incessantly asking them questions they don't know the answers to, etc.
A GNU system boots the same way every time, and presents the user with their system exactly the way they left it.
It is really a much more peaceful place to get work done.
You should try it sometime.
I haven't RTFA, but I do have a DLP projector (Infocus X1) which I love. For me it's relative. I liked CDs and CD players when they first came out because they were much handier than cassettes and records, and I like DVD much better than VHS, and I love my projector because it's a thousand times better than my old 19-inch television screen.
So I don't care what it can't do. What it _can_ do is terrific!
Ignorance in this topic apparently _is_ bliss.
We need much more chlorine in our gene pool...
Consider this:
While it is true that one may learn a great deal about an automobile which has all of its doors, boot, and bonnet locked, One can learn a great deal _more_ if one has the keys to the automobile.
Free access to source code is the "key" to computer software.
The "vast majority" of the users will not benefit from free access to the source code, but what about the not-insignificant minority? They _could_ benefit immensely, but with proprietary software they would be prevented from doing so.
Granted, I'm a bit biased toward freedom, but having the ability to learn, but then being prevented from doing so, sounds like hell on Earth to me.
In terms of wasted time|space|*, how long does it take one to properly ignore one /. article and read the next that interests them? 15 minutes?
If I recall correctly, the /. tagline is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." I believe, despite your objection and concern about the size of the /. article database (i.e. "wasted space") that this article fits the general area of interest.
I might suggest that the next time you encounter something that bores you, you don't take the time to read it and comment on it, as that tends to muck up your boredom experience.