[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:00:08 +0100 Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? I am all for Free Software, as well as Open Source, but I am not a particular advocate of evangelism and closed minds.
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? I was under the impression that _this_ thread was about PowerDVD! How the hell could PowerDVD cause GNU/Linux to be non-Free with a £150 fee per licence?
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.
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 £.
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.
Yes, we do, but that doesn't mean that evangelism and closed-mindedness to non-Free ideas is the way to go. And if I remember correctly, LT didn't specifically go out to find an Open/Free licence under which to licence Linux. He wanted his code available for others to look at, he had been to a seminar at Uni by RMS/FSF (although he didn't pay a lot of attention, by his own admission) and it was someone else's suggestion to him that it be under the GPL.
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? Or does this freedom to choose only come into play when talking about "Free" Software?
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.
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). Rather than saying "Don't use their software, they support Software Patents", 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), 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.
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.
Actually, I feel that non-real-time discussions of political topics is a great thing! This way you get to express your opinions without interruptions. People can't interject into your "speech".
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? Now, I do not agree with the idea of said licence fees, but my opinion doesn't change the reality of the _current_ situation!
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.
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? 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 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.
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. 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! Therefore the software will stagnate because there is no competition anymore! 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. 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. Please bear in mind that this is a very simplistic version of my views since this is already a very long email! -- Artificial intelligence is no match for nuratal stidutipy. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.