[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 15/11/06 22:26:17, Matt Lee wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 08:48:38PM +0000, Mark Jose wrote: > I dislike the Microsoft company methods - their ethics if you like. > Thats the main reason I don't use Windows. Right, so you don't like their proprietary nature.
Matt, there is a difference between sharp business practice and proprietary methods - proprietary code is all about hiding things, preventing sharing and being protectionist. A lot of those things are also common in monopolist behaviour. However, a monopolist software company has similar "ethics" to a monopolist transport company etc. -proprietary behaviour is not limited to mega corporations. Some of the most troublesome proprietary behaviour arises from smaller, more ambitious (some would say desperate) companies, say like SCO.
:-)This is a particular threat with software patents where aggressive companies pick up large patent portfolios without any "production" background and then leech off other larger rivals. These don't produce proprietary software - most don't produce anything - but that does not mitigate their threat.
Many users dislike Microsoft for it's aggressive business behaviour and have little knowledge of how this is linked to their passion for proprietary software.
What's better, more people using a free system or more people using a system where they install proprietary software? To me, that negates the point of freedom.
Yes, it does. As I mentioned in the other email, it also impairs the ability of the free software community to help those who taint their systems.
Proprietary and non-free code *should* be distasteful, it *should* have a stigma. It damages the user, it damages the community and it damages the prospects of having free software available for the next generation.
Unfortunately, there aren't enough free software developers yet to completely negate the increasingly limited roles of non-free code. There isn't a free software alternative for all proprietary code, that's one possible reason why non-free still exists in Debian.
Actually, in Debian you have to add the respository manually, but yes it is there. I think they should not offer any proprietary software.
You may want to review that, Matt. A lot of non-free code is still open source. It is licence discrepancies that are mostly to blame - licences that are incompatible with the GPL or restrict what Debian should be able to do when distributing the code. I'm not saying this isn't important, just that not all packages in Debian non-free can be equated with code from companies like Microsoft.
Packages in Debian non-free still have to be distributable by Debian - most Windows EULA's do not allow you to share binaries from one installation to another, let alone source code.
> Are you saying that no non-free should be available, full stop, for distros? Yes.
Does that include software that is open source but not free?In an overall sense, I do agree that non-free should become redundant. However, it is important to stress that some non-free packages only need a change of licence to become free software - the source code is already available. It's a case of persuasion - the carrot, rather than the stick.
non-free isn't actually that large: http://archive.debian.org/debian-archive/pool/non-free/ (and quite a few packages are already stale.)Each package has a link to the .diff.gz and most browsers will decompress that file for you. That allows anyone to browse the "copyright" details for that package (data that is also available direct from the Debian Package Overview pages) which include the licence.
A quick review of non-free shows that most directories contain only a handful of packages.
Because I can contribute to GNU/Linux - at least the free part with code or documentation perhaps? Or with some advocacy, bug testing or reporting? I cannot practically do so for Mac OSX.
Why not? An awful lot of OS X is free software, there's even a lot of stuff from the GNU project in there. There's a fair bit of non-free stuff too, but it sounds like you've already got that.
It is awkward to do this on OSX - Fink is notoriously overloaded and responses take ages. Asking for help on upstream mailing lists (as I did with gnucash) just gets a lot of blank looks because the build system on OSX is just so alien.
Whilst I would like to see all these binaries released under the GPL and opened up, it isn't going to happen I suspect.
Experience has shown that it is closer than you may fear.In many ways, non-free acts as a staging post from full Microsoft style EULA restrictions to a full free software GPL release. Most companies - most developers - cannot move from one directly to the other. There needs to be a transformation, a movement - not a sudden "Damascus experience".
ATI and Nvidia are in direct competition and industry secrets are carefully guarded. It will take a while before 3d support is sufficiently good enough for me to be able to employ it here on my main system.
This is no different to other battles that have since moved into the free software domain. These companies are nothing special - they have clever programmers but so does free software. The only thing that matters is that their programmers aren't allowed to share. It takes time, but with sufficient motivation, free software programmers can work around such lunacy and create free software alternatives.
The imperative is that *users* then install these alternatives - even though they are necessarily inferior to the proprietary version - and help fix the bugs. That is the only way the free software alternative will thrive and when that happens, the proprietary version starts to lose out. Nothing gets their attention better than a loss of income.
Are those who use a few non-free programs alongside their GNU/Linux core not at least experiencing the pleasures of the Open Source community and software?
What's the pleasure of the open source community? We're talking about free software here, which is similar, but I'm sure open source people would agree with you. People like Eric S. Raymond - however he has never shared the goals of the free software movement.
Choice - it's a great thing. I don't like using code that is open source but not free software because it is an inherently weaker system and problems (like JRMI) are far more likely. The OSI licences are less rigorous, the OSI itself is less aggressive, there is often a lack of clarity in the licences and in the mindset of those developers and licensors who cling to being open without being free. It's their choice.
Don't forget, it is possible to migrate some open source code into free software - depending on the exact licence. (It may also be possible to migrate some code from packages in Debian non-free into free software packages - that isn't going to happen with proprietary code from companies like Microsoft.)
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on that area Matt - I admire your stance on the free software points, but totally free is just not practical for now on my main system.
I'd be keen to see a list of stuff you have installed.
So would I. :-) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpSJZLDwp5Gu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html