Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

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

  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • o0max0o
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • ModplanMan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • o0max0o
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • o0max0o
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • o0max0o
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X