[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Sunday 10 October 2004 4:48 pm, Dave Trudgian wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:Do NOT make your system a sacrifice to the proprietary binary. There are enough problems with ePatents without GNU/Linux users ACTIVELY installing proprietary binary programs that are KNOWN to have patent issues.I dare say for many Linux users, including myself, there are proprietary binaries that make linux a usable single desktop solution.
Proprietary isn't quite as bad as proprietary with known patent issues! Freedom is important because unless GNU/Linux remains free software, it will disappear. Open Source only helps proprietary systems steal the code unless it is open source under a GPL compatible licence.
Why is it sacrificing your system if you do not believe wholeheartedly in the FSF ethos?
Because you are still using free software, still benefitting from it and you presumably have an interest in keeping it available to you (and me) and those who will use it in the future. If GNU/Linux became non-free, required £150/licence to install and the source code disappeared behind non-disclosure agreements, EULA (to prevent you copying the binary-only install CD) and DRM, would *you* still use it? Freedom is what makes GNU/Linux so popular, it's what drives all the work on security, flexibility, openness, co-operation, stability, usability, development, support and design. Every reason for anyone to move to GNU/Linux only exists because of the freedom of the code itself - as GNU/Linux itself only exists because of the freedom of the source code. There's no escaping the bottom line of GNU/Linux: Free software exists for the benefit of everyone - not just those using it now but all those who will want to use it in the future. By holding back development now (as Cyberlink are doing) they directly harm the usability of the OS for the future. There is no justification for hiding source code - read that again: NONE. All source code is for sharing. Even if you don't care for freedom for your personal use, it doesn't mean you should encourage or perpetuate systems that threaten to remove that freedom for those who follow. It's a little like conservation: Those who are alive today have an obligation to respect those who are yet to enjoy what we have. Allowing/encouraging the extinction of a species/landscape/structure shows a disrespect for future generations. Most people accept that what happened to the Dodo was a bad thing and that the hunters had no right to obliterate an entire species for their sport.
I laugh at some of the GNU preaching,
Without the work of the FSF, Linus Torvalds wouldn't have been able to release the Linux kernel. The kernel itself is no use without the body of GNU software, created by the FSF. I think we all owe an enormous debt to the FSF.
but don't go around telling people it's utter tripe on LUG lists as it's my opinion and I respect those with different ideas.
Until those ideas threaten the survival of my own code and projects, yes. I'm a free software developer, I have enormous vested interests in the GNU/GPL and the FSF. It isn't wise to let these issues just sail passed us - others on this list may disagree, some will be alerted into becoming involved. Such is the way of any such group.
Isn't this a Linux *User* Group?
Soon to be a GNU/Linux User Group. It is also being considered that the Devon and Cornwall GNU/Linux User Group may become an FSF (non-)Corporate sponsor. Besides, *Linux* (or more accurately GNU/Linux) is just as important as *user*.
Looking back at recent discussions I really have to side with those who put forward the notion that the most important thing for Linux these days is a large installed user base that go "wow, this is really good", something that definitely can happen with Knoppix etc.
Knoppix simply would not exist without the FSF.
The more Users, the more successful a User group?! I
Only so far as those users continue to have the freedom to use the software as they see fit, which includes having a full and free choice of software - arising from free and full access to the source code to bring new developers into the loop. I don't think all proprietary software is evil, that's part of freedom, but when certain proprietary programs, companies, policies (patents) threaten to REMOVE the choice of whether to use proprietary or free - that I DO care about.
didn't argue the case as I don't feel a user group is an appropriate place to discuss the complex politics of Open Source/Free Software at length as it alienates people.
Unfortunately, the idyllic world of non-politics doesn't exist, the archive contains political/ethical/moral questions as well as technical ones.
This is someone taking from the community without giving anything back. Like a parasitic louse, it benefits from the flexibility of GNU/Linux but refuses to allow itself to be 'contaminated' by the freedoms that are fundamental to the rest of the GNU/Linux system.> Just use another program, like Ogle. In my eyes they are giving something back. Familiar, proprietary programs let people have an easy transition to a new O/S.
That can be done by improving the existing free software. This program is not giving anything back to the community because they are not helping the other products to improve. GNU/Linux is not about competition and secrecy but openness, cooperation and choice for the user. Why shouldn't I have a choice of 6 very similar programs? If a majority of users get tempted into a proprietary program that uses proprietary codecs, we all lose.
I despise xine, ogle, mplayer etc as they lack features, and have always been flaky for me.
Have you tried them recently? Have you filed a bug report?
Bottom line for me is that proprietary software can boost the Linux user base, and make linux an acceptable platform for many.
Bottom line is that those who choose to use proprietary software should not expect to get support via the community or expect any proprietary software to work with free software.
Once onto Linux people are likely to experiment with the multitude of OSS available which is a good thing.
If proprietary binaries overtake the free software, will there be anything left that is good? I used to be ignorant of the problems when I first started with GNU/Linux and I believe that many of those who support GNU/Linux don't do enough to promote the reasons why it all works. I certainly feel that it was not made clear to me when I was a newbie. I feel that I've come to the freedom party a little late and I don't want others to be left in the dark. I came through the very route that you describe - it did me significant harm and took some time to adjust to the real GNU/Linux structure. I still come across vestiges of the old proprietary attitude and it can be hard sometimes to appreciate the finer points, which is why it should be discussed openly on the list - so that others can raise their own queries and we can all learn and grow in the free software structure, given to us by the FSF. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.codehelp.co.uk/ http://www.dclug.org.uk/ http://www.isbn.org.uk/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00017.pgp
Description: PGP signature