Peachy Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=5737 Using the name "Linux" for the entire operating system, instead of just the kernel, wrongly associates the entire project with "the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds, who thinks that all software licences are legitimate and that it is wrong ever to violate them," Stallman said."So his views on this are more or less the same as Microsoft's.... I object to our work becoming the main basis for promoting his views," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Snip from the article above. The life of a saint is difficult, Stallman explained, because it involves leading a life of moral purity. "You must exorcise the evil proprietary operating systems that possess the computers under your control, and install on all of them a holy free operating system instead," he said.I'm against "free" software and this nut job Stallman just reinforces my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 (edited) I'm against "free" software and this nut job Stallman just reinforces my view.I think he may have been overplaying it just a wee little bit ...either way, there's nothing wrong with "free" or "proprietary" software. If someone makes a product, they can sell it if people are willing to buy it or give it away if they so desire. Edited April 7, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I go into a store and ask if I can trade my "free" software for a loaf of bread. No... There is a reason for that. Also I could work 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread or I could work zero hours for a loaf of bread. I choose to work zero hours for a loaf of bread. No, there as well... We tried Socialism and it failed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zox Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I go into a store and ask if I can trade my "free" software for a loaf of bread. No... There is a reason for that. Also I could work 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread or I could work zero hours for a loaf of bread. I choose to work zero hours for a loaf of bread. No, there as well... We tried Socialism and it failed...Well if you try and trade your proprietary software for loaf of bread, you might get arrested as it's against the law.I would choose zero hours for bread too but only after I asses if there are other charges and looking at the big picture what is more worthwhile.e.g. "free" software can be free and you can have business model on top of it that charges for support and services.What is wrong with that?Everybody collaborates on a software, many people involved, huge benefit to both customers and companies.Just another (IMHO better) way of doing bussiness.As I see it, Bill Gates and Richard Stallman are two extremes, fine we need both, as long as everybody is happy and not just small bunch of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 From the article Stallman urged listeners not to install any software that isn't covered by a free licence, even such common applications as Java and Flash. I can't agree with that. Basically he is saying that you should cripple your computer by only using free license products! I'm sorry but I will always have a mix of free and paid. I use, IMO, the best product for the job I want to do. Sometimes I find a free product, other times I find a paid product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 e.g. "free" software can be free and you can have business model on top of it that charges for support and services.What is wrong with that?Why don't you ask Red Hat. So far the giving away the goods and charging for support has not panned out well for Red Hat. It is really a business model of let's spend $700 to make $200. Hey we made $200!. No you lost $500 and you're in the red. That is the track history to date.Read their annual report where they break it all down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 e.g. "free" software can be free and you can have business model on top of it that charges for support and services.What is wrong with that?If you have the time and resources to do that and it will work for you, then that's fine - nothing's wrong with that!Why don't you ask Red Hat. So far the giving away the goods and charging for support has not panned out well for Red Hat. It is really a business model of let's spend $700 to make $200. Hey we made $200!. No you lost $500 and you're in the red. That is the track history toSo, it didn't work for RH. That doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with it: it may work for someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I go into a store and ask if I can trade my "free" software for a loaf of bread. No... There is a reason for that. Also I could work 12 hours a day for a loaf of bread or I could work zero hours for a loaf of bread. I choose to work zero hours for a loaf of bread. No, there as well... We tried Socialism and it failed... Really does gaul you that Open Source is impinging on M$'s godgiven monopoly, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 So, it didn't work for RH. That doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with it: it may work for someone else.You missed the point... Spending $700 to get $200 is not a sustainable business model for anyone. Sure companies can try but they always fail in the end. Remember the dot com bubble crash? Plenty of companies tried and failed.The only company that has been somewhat successful in giving away free software has been IBM. But with the free software there is their proprietary software offerings. There are some programs that IBM will never port to Open Source. But IBM has always been a "services" company with strong hardware offerings as well.Right now IBM is offering shops $20 per license (up to $20,000) to migrate Exchange users to Lotus Notes. Have you ever worked with Lotus Notes? Have you ever developed for Lotus Notes? I can see many IT guys paying $30 per seat for IBM to disappear and still come out ahead when the dust clears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I'm against "free" software and this nut job Stallman just reinforces my view.hmmm well i been loyal Debian user for the longest time and its free, thousands of people and programmers worldwide contribute to it ... some things you cant put a price on, such as developing a program or helping with some security feature that everyone uses ... none of the developers i know are looking for any rewards they are just helping out there fellow debs, just one lil community so i dont see anything wrong at all with free sotware in that sense. As far as other distros like Pclos and Slackware... i do truely believe in supporting it $$ because of that hard work that Pat and Tex has put into there awesome distros .... and far as Microsoft cant say much about it havent had that on my computer in ages dont have any need for it either .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 There is nothing wrong with either philosophy.Free software is not socialism. It is free software. It is a community of developers and users. Not a political party.And making use of free java or flash, is a personal preference.Or Linux, Mac or Windows for that matter!I understand what he's saying but it is something everyone has to decide for themselves.Just my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I was not calling free software a political party. I was only referring to it as a failed system.In the news just the other day was Red Hat agreeing to purchase JBoss for $420 million in stock and cash. At first glance, that appears to be a rather expensive deal for RH. It looks even worse if you look closely at the revenue of JBoss.Fiscal year 2005, JBoss generated $17.5 million in revenue...So the deal is to spend $420 million for a company that only brought in $17.5 million in revenue??? Folks, this is the old "dot com" thinking (madness) at it's worst. All this does for RH is allow JBoss to go public without filling a single piece of paper. JBoss resisted other offers from the likes of Oracle because it was not comfortable with closed licensing ala Stallman.And as to "free"... if a company gives away the software but instead charges for a service agreement to generate revenue, how is it truly "free"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Many will not need the service, but they can still get the software for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Great... how does the company pay it's employees if no one wants a service agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 This whole issue about "free" is, at it's roots, a language problem. The English language has a variety of and sometimes conflicting definitions of the word "free", which isn't surprising coming from its etymological heritage that runs back through Old English, proto-German, Indo-European, and finally originating in Sanskrit! I remember reading a political philosophy text which had a reference to the German's using the word "frei" -- which gets picked up by the English and turned into "free" -- in a translation that goes something like, "city air makes you free!"Going back to first principles, here is the GNU definition of "Free Software" which Stallman advocates: We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.It clearly does not preclude selling the software as you read the full definition in the link above. Clearly, if I decide my software should be licensed under a "Free Software" license, I still have every right to charge you for it. What Stallman objects to is the idea of proprietary software, i.e., you can't see the code. Many people freely distribute their software but it remains proprietary and not "free". See the difference and irony?You see, Stallman would have no problems with Microsoft selling Windows XP for $200 a pop as long as they made the code freely available to anyone who wanted it. Is it socialism? Not really. Is it communitarian? Probably, in the best sense of the word (and please don't bring in Communists, since that is neither socialism nor communitarianism!) Can this thrive and coexist in a Capitalist economic order? Sure, why shouldn't it be allowed to? If I make changes to someone else's code and it's an order of magnitude better than the original or someone else's version, why I can't I charge for it, too? The "Free Software" license model doesn't restrict me from doing it. The market isn't stupid. If your software is crap, giving it away isn't going make it you money and won't get it propagated. And here's the key: think of the code as DNA. Natural selection will ensure its survival if it fulfills a need, whether it can be obtained without cost or a premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burninbush Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 No, there as well... We tried Socialism and it failed...Just to be clear on this, when did We try Socialism, failed or otherwise? Doncha think maybe that's a little overwrought, on both sides of the question? Seems to me there's room for everybody in this situation -- if you can get someone to pay you for your software work, go for it. If you want to give it away, and insist that nobody can resell your work, that's fine too, and ought to be respected. I have win2k and Office AND linux distros on all my machines -- can't see myself abandoning either any time soon. Hope I never have to make that choice. It's very unlikely we'd even have these machines to run linux if not for Microsoft's working; there wouldn't be a pc industry if they were only bought by linux fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Peachy! Leave it to a college professor to be able to cut to the chase! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Profitability should not be the only measure of failure or success. It shouldn't even be the more important criterion. Community-building, freedom, service to others and advancement of understanding and technology are more valuable. Unfortunately for RS, LT is the symbolic name and face of these ideals. RS is the contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 Just to be clear on this, when did We try Socialism, failed or otherwise? Doncha think maybe that's a little overwrought, on both sides of the question?Wholeheartedly! And don't point to Canada as a Socialist Paradise since it is nothing close to the truth. We are as capitalistic as any G8 nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 freedom...is actually the reason that men live together in political organisations at all. Without it, political life as such would be meaningless. The raison d'être of politics is freedom, and its field of experience is actionIf OE 'freon', German 'frei' and Sanskrit 'priyah' mean love, dear or beloved, then the action is ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted April 13, 2006 Author Share Posted April 13, 2006 If OE 'freon', German 'frei' and Sanskrit 'priyah' mean love, dear or beloved, then the action is ... This would make perfect sense to Emma Goldman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daihard Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I was not calling free software a political party. I was only referring to it as a failed system.It could prove to be a failed system if, and only if, you would only look at software as a business. That's how Bill Gates started out - he complained when his BASIC program was copied freely among hackers. OTOH, free software is usually made out of personal necessity or curiosity (or both). Someone thought about writing a useful tool and opened it up on the 'Net. Others are interested so they look at the code and tweak it as they see fit. The group becomes bigger, with more users fixing bugs, adding features, etc, making the tool more stable and more useful. That's what free software is about.And as to "free"... if a company gives away the software but instead charges for a service agreement to generate revenue, how is it truly "free"?What Stallman calls "free" software is "free as in free speech," not "free as in free beer." Calling something "free software" has nothing to do with whether you give it away free or charge for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryB Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I would venture to say that Redhat's (and a few others) problems have more to do with basic business practices than "free software". Any business is at risk that spends more than revenue generated...I would also venture to say that RD and development cost are lower for Redhat (opensource is baseline for kernel and apps) compared to software companies that RD/sale and service their own software...so to me either they have way to much overhead..or they have not grown business at a rate to complete the swing from pure capitol investment spending into revenue generation(bad execution of business plan)...or they can't get enough contracts at a proper rate for self sustainment(bad business execution) But the point is that there are plenty of examples of companies that provide services for a (any)particular software rather than develop software and provide services, that are successful...and software isn't the only place the concept works. So, to me it's the execution of the business model rather than a "free software" (either freedom or beer) issue.I think Stallman comments about Linus are, welll....Stallman being Stallman...I don't think anyone expects more or less from him...Linus has become the face of "free" software, Stallman has become perceived (rightly or wrongly) as politician /social cursader that talks and attempts to set a social agenda ..argues ...but really does nothing compared to a guy who is personally lower key but produces results. And in a "Doers" society ....Anyway..Just my thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 *bump*I just want to add another insight from a linguistic point. As I said previously, English conflates many meanings into the word "free" that are sometimes incompatible. On the other hand Romance languages such as French or Spanish still have separate words that both describe different forms of freedom: libre and gratis. software libre is free software as in "free speech" and software gratis is free software as in "free beer".Basically, Stallman advocates for software liberty but that doesn't mean one has to give the software away without cost. Wouldn't it be great if you could buy Vista with the source code and then have the ability to recompile Vista to suit your hardware? That's the ideal, but not the reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 And how many could actually tweak the source code and not bugger it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) Wouldn't it be great if you could buy Vista with the source code and then have the ability to recompile Vista to suit your hardwareWell, that really depends on your hardware...knowing what you need just to run Vista, think of what you'd need to compile it! (and, yes, that would be great)And how many could actually tweak the source code and not bugger it up?Editing code isn't black magic. There are plenty of programmers in the world who could work with the language they use...and, hey, this is Microsoft source code we're talking about...how much worse can it get? Edited July 4, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teacher Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 And how many could actually tweak the source code and not bugger it up?In Linux we do it all the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daihard Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 In Linux we do it all the time! Indeed. Sure, you might end up breaking something while fiddling with the source, but hey, we all learn from mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trigggl Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I was not calling free software a political party. I was only referring to it as a failed system. Only if your goal is money. My goal is a computer that works how I want it to without having to buy an antivirus, spam blocker, Office package, media player, burning software,.......... Perhaps that you forgot that the word "Free" usually refers to the ability to look at and improve the code. As long as there are people willing to do it, it works. I'm not running a business or trying to. If RedHat is failing, it may have more to do with them alienating people with their business model. It's free of cost for Fedora and I still don't use it. I'll stick with Debian for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.