[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Sunday 10 October 2004 7:29 pm, Grant Sewell wrote:
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.How exactly does using non-GPL software cause GPLed software to disappear?
"embrace and extend" the Microsoft mantra. Where are QuarterDeck? DR-DOS?
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?What has this got to do with using non-GPL software?
The developers of the original program made their choice to use code that they knew was already patented and/or to patent the code they added. If they had chosen to use free software, everyone would benefit. This is a trend and when it gives the proprietary program a programmatic advantage over free software, it gives the company leverage over the community. If members of the community follow like lambs, the free software version can get left behind. The cycle begins.
I was under the impression that _this_ thread was about PowerDVD!
Originally, but I changed the heading. :-)
How the hell could PowerDVD cause GNU/Linux to be non-Free with a £150 fee per licence?
The process is clear and the more programs that are involved, the more it weakens the position of free software. You probably noticed that the tickets to the LinuxWorld Expo were created in a Windows version of Adobe Acrobat that was incompatible with all GNU/Linux readers - even MacOSX. This kind of proprietary-only feature creep is insidious and dangerous. I complained in the strongest terms and I won't let up until I am satisfied.
Forgive me for being a little naive, but I was under the impression that Cyberlink were/are writing DVD playing software, not an OS. The bottom line of GNU/Linux, maybe, but not the bottom line of Cyberlink/PowerDVD. Their bottom line is £.
As is RedHat. Cyberlink had the option to use the GPL, they had the option to do things the free software way, albeit harder. They chose not to, so they should not expect to get an easy ride from those who DID do things the hard way! It's hard work following standards you know! Dead easy to do only what you want to support.
Yes, we do, but that doesn't mean that evangelism and closed-mindedness
You know I'm not of a closed mind - but I will stand up against things that threaten my projects or GNU/Linux or software freedom in general.
his own admission) and it was someone else's suggestion to him that it be under the GPL.
At least he listened, otherwise we'd all be getting our first taste of the GNU/Hurd.
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.Doesn't the phrase "full and free choice of software" also encompass using non-GPL software?
Of course, but why should that mean that the choice cannot be challenged?
May I make an observation: It would be rather unwise for a company that is basing at least some of its revenue-making software on Free Software (ie GNU/Linux) to actively try to disrupt the status-quo by supporting Software Patents (or rather, the restrictiveness of said patents)
Cough, IBM, Novell, Sun, . . .
. Rather than saying "Don't use their software, they support Software Patents",
My opposition is to the legal status of patents, not those who own them - deal with the cause, not the symptom. If patents can be muted, those who own them are less of a threat. Remember, the biggest problem with patents is not the ones you know you've already avoided but the spurious ones that have no basis but need expensive legal cases to disprove.
and thereby giving The Company reason to pursue patenting (if we're not using their software, they're losing money - to make money, kill the opposition with patents)
The Microsoft way is not the only way. Look at RedHat.
, wouldn't it be more advisable to try to persuade The Company that Software Patents are not a good idea and that they will succeed in killing off one platform of revenue if they persist and restrictive Software Patents become the norm.
Of course, but also fight the patents themselves - they aren't legal in the EU, yet.
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.Unfortunately, to be technically legal the Free Software written to play DVDs also needs a licence to use the CSS encryption/decryption, and unfortunately this licence is not a one-off payment variety. Who would pay the on-going licence fees to allow the Free Software DVD player to remain legal?
Not me. This whole area is off-limits to my machines. Thereagain, I don't watch DVD's on the computer, I'm too busy with code and email. However, that does not mean I won't protest for the benefit of others! (I do have some unencoded DVD's because they don't come from the big name producers.)
Now, I do not agree with the idea of said licence fees, but my opinion doesn't change the reality of the _current_ situation!
No, that's true. Still worth a protest though.
Bottom line for me is that non-Free Software will _always_ be around, so burying one's head in the sand is daft. Forgive me, but where did the idea of support from "The Community" come into this debate?
Umm, because someone asked us (and we are part of the GNU/Linux community) for help with a proprietary package! (Before I changed the thread.)
Any why wouldn't proprietary software work with Free Software? Surely Free Software uses Open Standard, which even proprietary software manufacturers are open and allowed to use?
I didn't say it wouldn't, just that users shouldn't expect support when it doesn't. (I get a lot of that over on the GnuPG mailing list - lots of queries about PGP - umm, go and ask PGP, it's not our program!!)
I fully appreciate everyone's opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do, however, find that some people can be a little (putting it nicely) overly evangelical. _My_ opinion is that Free Software is fantastic, and that *important* things need/must be be Free. Not just Open, because Open is, as its name implies, open to interpretation and some softwares' interpretation of Open is not. However, there is a place for proprietary software too. Indeed, the argument could very well be that without the two types of licencing in the same field, software will certainly stagnate.
I certainly agree there. I do NOT want a GNU/Linux monopoly - contrary to what some may believe so far.
For example, using the ol' example of a world with NO Free Software: The Company with the most money will buy the competition "Embrace and Extend" is the phrase, I believe!
Precisely.
Therefore the software will stagnate because there is no competition anymore!
As Microsoft found. I like the idea that GNU/Linux is bringing Microsoft into the open about security and firewalls - this kind of thing is GOOD for all computer users and all computer developers.
Take the other extreme, though - there is nothing BUT Free Software: All sofrware will function in exactly the same manner because they will all emulate the one that is most popular.
I know your point but I don't think it's quite that simple. How many HTTP servers are available for your distribution? Just because Apache is far and away the leader by all measurements, doesn't mean the others are not being developed.
A certain GUI function is causing software A to pull ahead - due to the openness of it all, software B implements an identical function, but the icon is different. Both pieces of software end up being functionally identical. No competition.
KDE and Gnome? As you say, there are dangers with a completely GNU/Linux world but the examples you've selected are too simplistic. I don't think examples are particularly necessary, the point is clear and I agree fully. The thing with free software is that it really doesn't matter if you only have 1 user for your program in the entire world.
Please bear in mind that this is a very simplistic version of my views since this is already a very long email!
Understood. -- 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:
pgp00022.pgp
Description: PGP signature