Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

[SunnyDrake]

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 ).

[o0max0o]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[o0max0o]

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[o0max0o]

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).

[kraftman]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

[Apopas]

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...

[o0max0o]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".