Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    i like to divide real jobs
    1x) programmer (p)
    2x) saler (s)
    What now is real problem its that company/saler can take programmer work and own it, by NDA/work hours in office. Programmer/customer not receive ownership of real product(as he receive limited/protected/changed(compiled,encrypted(trojan horse)) product) . GPL fixes problem.
    So what is basis for this jobs
    (p) create progamm
    (s) sale product to end-user
    (s) without GPL receive product for basis cost of programmer work. Create infinite amount of copy's and PROFIT. This render real economic dis-balance. Leave really tight hole for programmer to develop and make money more than for living.. this is not cooperation.. more like population control for species of kind.. and to have more chances to survive and grow you need to mix your type with other(preferably dominant(saler ).

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      I'm talking about freedom for the code. In contrary the BSD allow others to take developers code and if developers don't want this how is this freedom for the developers?
      Sorry, I mis-replied in the previous post.
      The point here is that the developers chose to make their code absolutely free and to give absolute freedom to those who get the code. Obviously if this is no what they want they should choose another licensing style.

      The GPL, instead, limits developers that want to contribute to a project because it forces them to release the contributions under the same license, thing that they might actually dislike. This, in turn, might drive away potential contributors.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by o0max0o View Post
        Freedom is just being free to do what you want, with no bounds (except the physical ones that are proper of your form, I guess) the rest is part of the "rules of society".
        We've got different view on freedom However, it doesn't really matter how we'll be calling the licenses, but the thing which really matters is what licenses allow others to do with the code.

        Ok, then please explain in which way did TiVo break the code freedom. I am talking about TiVo because it is probably the biggest case that brought on the proposal of GPLv3. The code developed by TiVo was available, compilable and executable, and the contributions were given back to the community with the same license.
        I don't know too much about the GPLv3, but if TiVo broke the law they didn't follow the GPLv3 rules which they should accepted if they decided to use the GPLv3.

        I am sorry, but anarchy is a kind of social pact/organization (or rather lack of it), it has nothing to do with freedom.
        For example take the Ogre3D engine dev team: it is far from being anarchic, yet it has made its code entirely free (even more free than what the FSF believes to be free).
        Anarchy is doing what you want (in my opinion, but if yours opinion is different there's no problem ). I'm only talking about the code. If someone can do what he wants with someone else code then it's anarchy for me. The GPL doesn't allow others to do what they want to do with someone else code, so there's some kind of pact/rules.

        Well, then you may wonder why a long and "boring" flame about GPLv2 vs GPLv3 appeared on the Linux kernel mailing list: isn't it GPL anyway? It actually is so different that v3 is not adopted by the kernel mainline.
        Like I said I don't know about the GPLv3 too much. I'm interested in GPLv2 only.

        The point is that this is a Website that talks about technology and in particular technology and software (not only Free Software, but also Open Source software or even Closed Source software), and the point proposed was worthy of a read/discussion in the Forum.
        Why some *bsd fanboy and not Stallman for example? :> The Phoronix is mainly about Linux which is GPL.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by o0max0o View Post
          This, in turn, might drive away potential contributors.
          Yes, but this can also be opposite, because if they decided to use GPL software one contributor will usually benefit from another one and then original project authors and community will benefit too.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            We've got different view on freedom However, it doesn't really matter how we'll be calling the licenses, but the thing which really matters is what licenses allow others to do with the code.
            Excatly!
            The GPL enforces a kind of copyright that it calls copyleft (the whole GPL thing is born to fight software patents, basically), while BSD and similar licenses grant the highest level of freedom possible.
            So, in my point of view, the GPL is restrictive (and it is in yours as well, since you say "The GPL doesn't allow others to do what they want to do with someone else code, so there's some kind of pact/rules").

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            I don't know too much about the GPLv3, but if TiVo broke the law they didn't follow the GPLv3 rules which they should accepted if they decided to use the GPLv3.
            Here's a brief, so you can understand what happened (and what makes me angry with Stallman).
            1 - TiVo makes media players. They use Linux as the O.S., and they release on the net both upstream code and the patches they develop (GPLv2).
            2 - TiVo does, although, limit the users ability to update the EPROMS of their products by using a public/private encryption scheme (if I remember correctly). Only properly signed O.S. images can be used for upgrading the system.
            3 - People that advocate software freedom suddenly get angry because they cannot "play" with their toy as they want (and this has nothing to do with code freedom, even the GPLv2 explicitly states that it makes no assumption on the ability to run the code on any given platform).
            4 - Stallman and the FSF claim that in order for software to be free the user must be able to modify it and re-run it on the hardware platform as well. This, in my mind, has nothing to do with knowledge/software freedom and is totally b-shit.
            5 - The GPLv3 is born.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Anarchy is doing what you want (in my opinion, but if yours opinion is different there's no problem ).
            Please, let's agree at least about the basics of language: check a dictionary!
            Anarchy is the absence of a social pact/social rules/government. Anarchy is too often mistaken for freedom.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            If someone can do what he wants with someone else code then it's anarchy for me.
            Then, I am sorry, but you should take a good look at the dictionary, as I said.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            The GPL doesn't allow others to do what they want to do with someone else code, so there's some kind of pact/rules.
            And that is exactly the reason why I say that BSD/MIT/etc. grant entire freedom, while GPL grants only limited freedom.

            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            Why some *bsd fanboy and not Stallman for example? :> The Phoronix is mainly about Linux which is GPL.
            This interpretation of Phoronix is entirely untrue, otherwise there would be no reason for comparative tests including Closed Source OSs such as Windows, for which I believe the appropriate licensing cost has been paid (so, you see, even Phoronix helps Microsoft become rich).

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              Yes, but this can also be opposite, because if they decided to use GPL software one contributor will usually benefit from another one and then original project authors and community will benefit too.
              How is this different with BSD licensed code? The contributor gives some code back to the community and everyone is happy.

              Not only the community is happy, but also the guy who wants to start his own company and make a close source branch of the project (see the complete freedom here?).

              Really: if you believe in Open Source/Free Software you will contribute with a permissive license anyway (please read the Ogre3D post again).

              On the other hand, pretending that everybody has to agree with your views (which is Stallman's position on the matter) is just plain silly (and not different from any other kind of totalitarian thought).

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by o0max0o View Post
                while BSD and similar licenses grant the highest level of freedom possible.
                For people, companies who can do what they want with the BSD code, so like I said it's not a good license to compete with GPL and proprietary projects.

                So, in my point of view, the GPL is restrictive (and it is in yours as well, since you say "The GPL doesn't allow others to do what they want to do with someone else code, so there's some kind of pact/rules").
                Yes, it's restrictive and those restrictions are rules for me, so they guarantee a freedom for the code and they also guarantee some additional code (made by some company and shared) will be free too.

                Here's a brief, so you can understand what happened (and what makes me angry with Stallman).
                1 - TiVo makes media players. They use Linux as the O.S., and they release on the net both upstream code and the patches they develop (GPLv2).
                2 - TiVo does, although, limit the users ability to update the EPROMS of their products by using a public/private encryption scheme (if I remember correctly). Only properly signed O.S. images can be used for upgrading the system.
                3 - People that advocate software freedom suddenly get angry because they cannot "play" with their toy as they want (and this has nothing to do with code freedom, even the GPLv2 explicitly states that it makes no assumption on the ability to run the code on any given platform).
                4 - Stallman and the FSF claim that in order for software to be free the user must be able to modify it and re-run it on the hardware platform as well. This, in my mind, has nothing to do with knowledge/software freedom and is totally b-shit.
                5 - The GPLv3 is born.
                Thanks for the explanation. Sometimes there's maybe a need to use GPLv3, but the GPLv2 is probably better for most projects.

                Please, let's agree at least about the basics of language: check a dictionary!
                Anarchy is the absence of a social pact/social rules/government. Anarchy is too often mistaken for freedom.
                "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people," the governing persons it this case are the license rules.

                And that is exactly the reason why I say that BSD/MIT/etc. grant entire freedom, while GPL grants only limited freedom.
                This can be true when comes to developers, but they cannot prevent others from taking their code and using it in proprietary apps, so it not gives them an entire freedom.

                This interpretation of Phoronix is entirely untrue, otherwise there would be no reason for comparative tests including Closed Source OSs such as Windows, for which I believe the appropriate licensing cost has been paid (so, you see, even Phoronix helps Microsoft become rich).
                There are mainly tests including Open Source OSs and sometimes Closed Source. There wasn't Stallman or some other pro GPL guy article yet :> So it's like Phoronix benchmarking only Closed Source systems.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by o0max0o View Post
                  How is this different with BSD licensed code? The contributor gives some code back to the community and everyone is happy.
                  It's very different. In BSD case there's not a single guarantee someone will give the entire code back or even some part of it. BSD doesn't even guarantee there will be contributors.

                  Not only the community is happy, but also the guy who wants to start his own company and make a close source branch of the project (see the complete freedom here?).
                  If the guy didn't give the code back the community looks like bunch of idiots But maybe they're still happy? :> I see a complete freedom for companies here :>

                  Really: if you believe in Open Source/Free Software you will contribute with a permissive license anyway (please read the Ogre3D post again).
                  Bla, bla bla. Sorry, but it's too funny to reply MS, Apple and other competitors indeed believes on FOSS.

                  On the other hand, pretending that everybody has to agree with your views (which is Stallman's position on the matter) is just plain silly (and not different from any other kind of totalitarian thought).
                  I use my own brain not Stallman's one. He doesn't force anyone to agree with him.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Sprewell View Post
                    Apopas, my only point was that your claim was weak while my claim had a lot more rationale behind it. If you want to make it about who's more capable instead, feel free.
                    Yup... and all these just from a phrase of ten words that I said which you answered back with another ten words...
                    Great argument... the way of the dogmatist...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      First of all: there is a fundamental difference in our point of view, so I will not post anymore after this one. I believe in people's freedom, you believe in what you call code freedom. I believe that Open Source can be competitive even with permissive licenses, you don't.

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      There are mainly tests including Open Source OSs and sometimes Closed Source. There wasn't Stallman or some other pro GPL guy article yet :> So it's like Phoronix benchmarking only Closed Source systems.
                      Come on it was a joke, don't get it too seriously!
                      I love Phoronix and I understand it, believe me.

                      If there has been no pro-GPL article that might tell you something about the editorial choices (until now), or about the fact that it is so understated that it needs no further explanation.

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      It's very different. In BSD case there's not a single guarantee someone will give the entire code back or even some part of it. BSD doesn't even guarantee there will be contributors.
                      How does the GPL guarantee that there will be contributors? In order to contribute you have to agree to the license, if you don't you can't contribute. So the basic assumption the GPL makes is that there are other developers that agree with it. The same assumption that other licences do, without crippling anybody's freedom.

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      If the guy didn't give the code back the community looks like bunch of idiots But maybe they're still happy? :> I see a complete freedom for companies here :>
                      Now, you might think that you would look like an idiot, but what if I choose to release my code in such way, consciously, and I am well aware that somebody might make a commercial product out of it? What if I am happy with it? How is it wrong? It's my choice.

                      I understand what the GPL is and what it means. I just hate that anybody who supports the GPL thinks those who like to use other licenses are complete idiots.

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Bla, bla bla. Sorry, but it's too funny to reply MS, Apple and other competitors indeed believes on FOSS.
                      So what, I am not talking about MS or Apple, I am talking about people, contributors. That's the difference. You believe everybody out there is just trying to fool us, I believe there are people that will help no matter what.

                      Still I am not criticizing those who choose the GPL, I criticize the idea of "freedom" that it proposes.

                      A distribution license is a choice, just like any other. So why should I be "the idiot" for making a different choice?

                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      I use my own brain not Stallman's one. He doesn't force anyone to agree with him.
                      He does when he releases code under the GPL. If I want to contribute I have no choice but to agree with his view of the concept of "software freedom".

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        This topic has gone wildly astray, but meh, I'll dive in.

                        Being able to choose between open technologies and free software and proprietary software is barely even a choice if you want to maintain a completely free and open market for software and ideas.

                        Choice isn't just about how many players work with x codec, it's about allowing the creation and maintenance of choice in situations where it hasn't previously existed or is becoming limited, in which free software and open technologies inherently encourage. Proprietary software doesn't - it helps limit and reinforce the decline in choice, and helps further the creation of new monopolies where neither businesses both new and old nor users are able to break it - certainly not within a reasonable time frame to not be harmful to both.

                        A society that allows one individual to encroach on another individuals freedom is not a free society. To stop that from happening you create rules and laws that stop people stepping over those barriers, but irrespective of those laws everyone has a guaranteed set of freedoms. To define freedom as entirely about choice is a myopic view of freedom.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by ModplanMan View Post
                          This topic has gone wildly astray, but meh, I'll dive in.
                          You're right, we're astray but it's too fun.

                          Originally posted by ModplanMan View Post
                          A society that allows one individual to encroach on another individuals freedom is not a free society. To stop that from happening you create rules and laws that stop people stepping over those barriers, but irrespective of those laws everyone has a guaranteed set of freedoms. To define freedom as entirely about choice is a myopic view of freedom.
                          No, I am sorry. Freedom is freedom, independently of the social pact chosen by a group of people.

                          By your definition no society is free (not America, nor any of the European countries) since only a few hundred people decide what the rest of the population is free to do or not... that's not it, they decide what is legal and what is not!

                          Again: freedom is unrelated to social pacts and government. You are free only if you are free to disrespect the law: in the same moment the law becomes an absolute barrier to your freedom of choice you are not free anymore (in the pure sense of the word).

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by o0max0o View Post
                            I believe in people's freedom, you believe in what you call code freedom. I believe that Open Source can be competitive even with permissive licenses, you don't.
                            You believe in some developers and companies freedom. In few areas it can be competitive even with permissive licenses.

                            If there has been no pro-GPL article that might tell you something about the editorial choices (until now), or about the fact that it is so understated that it needs no further explanation.
                            Not the same things. Believe me, there are many people who don't understand a thing and they are able to believe others in everything they say.

                            How does the GPL guarantee that there will be contributors?
                            If someone uses GPL and shares he must be a contributor. It's, so simple.

                            In order to contribute you have to agree to the license, if you don't you can't contribute.
                            If you don't agree you're not using GPL or you're braking the law. Stop playing, because it makes you to look stupid.

                            So the basic assumption the GPL makes is that there are other developers that agree with it. The same assumption that other licences do, without crippling anybody's freedom.
                            Playing strawman now? GPL makes there are contributors and BSD do not guarantee this. GPL also gives the code freedom, because it mast remain available for community and BSD does not

                            Now, you might think that you would look like an idiot, but what if I choose to release my code in such way, consciously, and I am well aware that somebody might make a commercial product out of it? What if I am happy with it? How is it wrong? It's my choice.
                            I don't care about you. I was talking about community or developers, companies who want to compete with others and who weren't be happy.

                            I understand what the GPL is and what it means
                            . I just hate that anybody who supports the GPL thinks those who like to use other licenses are complete idiots.
                            Not the ones who like to use other licenses are idiots. I explained it didn't I?

                            So what, I am not talking about MS or Apple, I am talking about people, contributors. That's the difference. You believe everybody out there is just trying to fool us, I believe there are people that will help no matter what.
                            Good for you

                            A distribution license is a choice, just like any other. So why should I be "the idiot" for making a different choice?
                            You'll be an idiot if you want to compete with MS or Apple and you decided to use the BSD license, so MS and Apple can just take all your project advantages.

                            He does when he releases code under the GPL. If I want to contribute I have no choice but to agree with his view of the concept of "software freedom".
                            If you want then you're not forced.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              because it mast remain available for community and BSD does not
                              must* of course.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Why linux is not a success on the desktop?

                                Why is Linux not a success on the desktop?
                                ------------------------------------------

                                * To begin I would like to counter with saying that for many people Linux _IS_ a success. I gave my parents an older computer, and put ubuntu on it. It does anything they need: web, internet banking, word processing, printing, burning CD's, etc. They had a windows computer before, but it was so slow and so full of viruses, it was just frightening. Then they got a macbook, but after a few years it broke down, and was out of warranty. On their pensions they cannot afford another Mac. So Linux is a big success for them actually, and in no way are they held back in doing the things they want. In fact, they can do lots more then they ever could with windows or the macbook.
                                * Millions of people around the world use linux as a desktop system, but they are hard to count. How can you count them without clear sales figures, right? Only statistical methods apply, but they are unreliable.
                                * Linux is not pre-installed on computers like windows or mac, and 95% of people (statistic made up, meaning only the vast majority) will never put a new OS on their computers. This means that most people never get to choose to install Linux. The only way most people start using a new version of Windows or OS X is when they buy a new computer. Half of the people even never update their OS within a major version, i.e. they do not install Microsofts' service packs. With OS X this is somewhat easier, and Mac users will update more often, but still I bet that over half of them have no plans to run Snow Leopard. The only way that Linux will ever be mainstream is when it comes with the computer you buy. Only 10% or so will ever consider doing anything else than what other people are doing. We are a species or mostly stupid sheep, followers, don't ever forget that people.

                                But Linux is doesn't have many games, proper open source 3D drivers, multimedia gadgets etc.!
                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * The graphics and sound infrastructure in linux is a big mess. Way too many developer groups not working together enough is the biggest problem, followed by not having access to necessary documentation for programming the hardware.
                                * Here I think is an opportunity for a concerted effort by a few big teams of experienced programmers, with proper funding and a good plan. This will need to be funded, because people like that are scarce, therefore not cheap. Linux needs something like OS X corevideo, coreaudio and coregraphics. The many little projects there are, like for instance Gallium3D, DRI, and ALSA, Pulseaudio and all the others that overlap or leave gaps need to be consolidated and work together. Following a good plan with clear milestones, and with proper funding.
                                * To get there, the Aladdin license it not such a bad idea at all. You either pay for the latest and greatest driver infrastructure that works for the latest and greatest hardware NOW, or you wait half a year, or one year, but not more, and you get it for free under the GPL. I find that very reasonable, I having spent say 300 euros on a new videocard or high-end soundcard, I would not mind to spent say 50 euros on the driver infrastructure. Not at all. And neither should you mind, or you should just use the slightly older version. The half-year (or so) delay of releasing the code under GPL might also be enough to get nvidia to give their hardware documentation under NDA.
                                * When important driver infrastructure and software libraries for sound, graphics, video etc. are in place, games are easier to port to linux, so they will come. Linux can be a gaming platform. The video library mess and audio mess are reasons given by Adobe why Linux still has no proper working 64 bit Flash plugin. The one there is now really sucks, as you all know.
                                * There are other areas lacking in Linux land: wifi drivers, printer drivers, easy color management support (it exists, say lprof, but it is not easy like in a mac), gimp not close to being a photoshop, compatibility with iPhones, digital cameras, lots of other gadgets. These things could also be developed in the same way, or by the same as yet imaginary company.
                                * Once gaming comes to linux because the infrastructure for it is there, Linux is mainstream. Gaming systems get used as normal PCs by the parents of those gamers, say, and Linux will gain more and more users. Once it gets market share, all the stupid little gardening, bookkeeping etc., meaning the tens of thousands of applications that windows has but Linux lacks, will come too.
                                * And with becoming mainstream the viruses and other malware will come to Linux too. Linux may be less vulnerable a priori, but that only means that malware creators for Linux will need to work harder, be more sophisticated. With mainstream use come lowering of the collective IQ of the Linux users, and the stupid masses are the targets of the organized crime that are after the identities, banking passwords, money of those masses.
                                So be careful what you wish for.

                                Patents will destroy Linux/open source long before it becomes mainstream!
                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * They will not. They did not destroy Apple, Microsoft, Sun, IBM etc. Worst case it means that you will need to pay royalties for using a distro.
                                * There almost certainly is going to be a fight, with Apple, Microsoft, this `mpeg-la' on one side, and Google, Redhat, maybe IBM, Canonical, Redhat on the other. Oracle hopefully sides with the bright side.
                                * With this Bilski lawsuit, and lots of criticism on the patents systems of USA and EU, there is bound to be a reform in that area too. If only because big and upcoming tech producing countries like India and China are never going to abide by these patents. Asia generally does not respect copyright, let alone software patents. And they shouldn't. The same goes for copyright on music and movies. Sooner or later the corporates are going to loose, because sooner or later there will be a system like bittorrent which cannot be traced back to an individual or IP number, will be completely encrypted, cannot be blocked because simply working at port 80. A system that can only be blocked when shutting down the internet completely, or forbidding all encryption. Some file sharing system that is totally dark and can be used with total anonymity, not distinguishable from normal ssl traffic (to https:// sites). It will come if the MPAA and RIAA will keep doing what they are doing.
                                * So the market will change and a sane way of getting pay-for content to users and still get paid. Like some kind of flat fee system that does not exclude the little indie record companies. This will make DRM and things like h.264 obsolete sooner or later.

                                In the mean time, it is really important to get the Linux software infrastructure for 3D graphics, video and audio in a good state. At least as good as Windows and OS X, preferably a lot better. It is possible, with good leadership and proper funding, and a good plan. Not even that much funding, but still probably somewhere in the tens of millions. And a strong legal arm, to shield the programmers from patents lawsuits and stuff like that. It can be done in a year or two, and I think Google, Redhat, Canonical, Novell, IBM, Oracle and more are the companies that will gain enormously from it, and should therefore fund this idea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X