Free softwares

[Kiba]

Do you believe/like the ideas of the Free software movement?

The Free Software Definition - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)


I believe that softwares should be in the hand of the user, giving them the right to use it, modify it, and even distribute it(Even at any price they want, although wheather if it is practial is another matter).

A lot of propriteary softwares only give you permission to use. Free software on the contraty, grant you the right, with some responsibility to use the software(and the right to distribute, modify the software). Free softwares are often protected under copyright law to ensure that it is Free softwares for years to come.

I wonder what Steve Pavlina think about this, because he develop sharewares once for a living.


Btw, the forum Steve Pavlina is running is proprietary software. I hope that someday, it will change.

[Savage]

I think it's best left to the software developers to decide the licensing terms for what they develop.

Personally I use both proprietary and free software. I don't really care whether the software is free or whether it costs $200. I just select the best available if it's within my budget.

I use WordPress (free) for the blog because it's the best blogging software available for my needs. I use VBulletin (proprietary) for the forums because no free software can compete with it -- the price is irrelevant. I use NetCaptor (proprietary) for my primary web browser because I find it more efficient than either Firefox or IE. If Firefox was better for me, I'd use it.

[John Wesley]

I'm with Steve. I just use whatever works the best. The great thing is that a lot of the best software is free. If you have a Mac of ever get one, start using Quicksilver. It's free and the best part of using a Mac once you get used to it. I doubt I'll ever go back to PC.

Paul Graham wrote a great essay about this: What Business Can Learn From Open Source.

Basically open source software is so great because people enjoy working on it. They do it voluntary and cooperatively. There is none of the big business beaurocracy.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Do you believe/like the ideas of the Free software movement?

No. I don't agree with the Richard Stallman extremism. I'm a software developer myself, and I use a lot of LGPL (open source) libraries but I also use proprietary libraries. I use open source software, including Linux (which I absolutely love) but I also use proprietary software. I don't believe that all software must be open source and free. Both have their place. Steve said it well -- the licensing choice should be left to the developer.

Originally Posted by Kiba

I believe that softwares should be in the hand of the user, giving them the right to use it, modify it, and even distribute it(Even at any price they want, although wheather if it is practial is another matter).

How does that make any sense? What incentive would someone have to write software if they effectively couldn't make money from selling it? The FSF ideology flies completely in the face of capitalism (which in my opinion is the best economic system we'll ever have). People can choose to donate their time and fruits of their labor if they want to. But forcing it on everyone is absolutely wrong.

Originally Posted by Kiba

A lot of propriteary softwares only give you permission to use.

The only beef I have with proprietary software is that usually the license allows you to install it on only one computer. If a user has five computers at home, is it fair to force them to buy five licenses? It makes sense when selling to businesses but not home users. This includes the Windows operating system (Mac OS X can be bought as a "family pack" which allows it to be installed on up to five computers).

And by the way, despite being a software developer I never once had the urge to modify any open source software I use. Not even the development libraries I'm using. It's simply not worth my time. If something doesn't do what I need it to do, I go and find something that does. And I'll buy it if necessary. The assumption that people actually want to spend time modifying the software that they use is very flawed.

Originally Posted by Kiba

Btw, the forum Steve Pavlina is running is proprietary software. I hope that someday, it will change.

That's just silly. Why would he use an open source forum if a proprietary forum works better? There's a lot of proprietary software that's MUCH better and more powerful than open source alternatives. The idea that open source software is always better than proprietary software is a myth that's perpetuated by the FSF.

[Kiba]

It is not about price, it is about freedom.

While Free softwares is often free as in cost, they do not have to be. Wheather if it is impractical or not to sell softwares is not the point.

When a proprietary vendor decided to try to screw you, they can very easily.

Free software developers, however have a lot less power to screw you.

Free software is not against business, nor does it create disincentive to produce softwares. If anything, Free softwares have direct and indirect economic benefit. There are companies that DO make money depsite being 100% Free software.

Open Source != Free software btw



Extremism is bad is a logical fallacy. That would like saying I am in the middle ground of the slavery debate, instead of against slavery. It is more correct to say that I took the right side, instead of the middle ground.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

I agree with a lot of what's been said and I thought I would chime in because I work actively with open source software and even am developing a website called Explore Open Source to help make people aware of other software options like open source and when it is a good solution or option.

I run linux myself and do all my web development on linux and open source software. It's partially because most of it is free, but more so because it works for me, its what I work best in, offers me the most flexibility and can accomplish what I'm trying to accomplish. Open source allows me to alter the code to fit what I need if I so desire because I have the source, hence the name open source. So yes, for me as other people have said, its very much about freedom and flexibility, but its definitely not for every job or everyone.

I agree with Steve and the people who've said that you should use what works for you, but I would definitely be open to all the possibilities. It seems in the graphic design community I see too many designers get caught up in using one piece of software instead of using whatever is best for the job. On my graphic design jobs I often use 5-6 different programs and even both my mac and my linux system to accomplish a project.

As for software companies trying to screw the consumers, it certainly seems that way sometimes, but I can't really say.

The issues I've had with Microsoft's licenses are ridiculous but then I have a bad relationship with Microsoft in general. Some days I'm convinced that Bill Gates writes software purposely to screw with me, lol.

To each their own I guess, can't beat wordpress though, I think its great.

[andrew]

Free speech, not free beer.

I'm a software developer myself, and create both open source and proprietary. You can't say that everything should be OS. A lot of OS projects don't have support or much funding.

They each have their place. People need to make money somehow, and if they have a valuable peice of software that they spend their time on, and it's their own form of income, you bet they should charge for it. A lot of OS projects are from companies that are already financially secure.

[Kiba]

Please don't lump me with the open source movement. Open source is an allegely more pragamatic movement. They make agurements based on practialities, not me.

For me, this is about moral, about what is right; not what is best software to use.

It is about freedom in the sense of liberty, not free beer, not how good it is, not how flexible it is, or how convinent it is.


Please don't called me an open source advocate, it would mislead people to what I stand for.


Open source is often, Free softwares, and vic-versa. But it is not alway so.


I tried to be congurent in what I believe and my action. And so I run Debian GNU/linux, and run no propreitary flash player(the player I am using is of bad quality, but I decided to live with it). It is hard, but I want to be consistent.

I develop only Free softwares. I adovcate OGG and other open format.
My current direct action is to replace the dependencies on proprietary games by creating my own Free software games.
My long term goal is to eventually make a living off Free softwares.
And maybe...it is time to drop this forum because of the refusual to run Free softwares(in an attempt to be consistent). It won't hurt the forum in the long run I am sure. I do not know what to make now, but in a few days I will decide.

[gberardi]

Price is irrelevant. The question was about Free software, not freeware.

People can make money with open source, and clearly there are projects that don't have funding that still get made. The incentive to develop is there, whether there is a profit motive or not.

Stallman is not insisting that all software be available at no cost. He wants to ensure that software doesn't unnecessarily restrict what he considers to be important freedoms.

Not everyone agrees that those freedoms are important, however. Most people don't know much about the technical issues with computers, let alone the social/political issues.

To illustrate, I remember working at a help desk when one of those worms struck what seemed like very Windows machine in the world at once. I got a call in which I had to explain that the problem was with an RPC vulnerability and not anything that the person downloaded or installed. This person became upset and then calmed herself down by saying, "Well, what can you do? It isn't like I can use anything else. We're pretty much stuck with it, huh?"

I replied, "Well, I use Linux." B-)

It's funny when people look at the Free Software Foundation and think, "Communists!" because it seems to me that the FSF and Free Software actually level the playing field, allowing a more competitive, capitalist market, as opposed to giving a monopoly to a single entity. Capitalists believe that competition is good, but I recall that a number of the big proprietary software companies actually tried to make it harder for Free and Open Source software to compete in the market. What does that say about what economic model those companies would prefer? B-)

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by gberardi

Price is irrelevant. The question was about Free software, not freeware.

Ok perhaps you can explain this to me -- how the hell am I going to make money if I create software and release it under the GPL? The GPL license allows anyone to freely distribute the software. This means that nobody will ever have to pay for it. This goes way beyond the "freedom to modify the source code", which can be argued to be "free as in speech". However, allowing people to distribute the software freely makes it "free as in beer" since nobody has to pay for it.

Originally Posted by gberardi

People can make money with open source, and clearly there are projects that don't have funding that still get made. The incentive to develop is there, whether there is a profit motive or not.

Can you give some examples? As far as I know, there are very few things one can do to make money from open source. The usual response that's given is "providing support" for open source software. That may work well for Red Hat or Novell, and perhaps for those people who want to be system administrators for Linux or provide tech support for other open source systems. But what about those of us who want to make our own software? Support as a means of making money is only feasible if you're making software for businesses. Home users are not going to pay you much, if anything, for tech support.

Originally Posted by gberardi

Stallman is not insisting that all software be available at no cost. He wants to ensure that software doesn't unnecessarily restrict what he considers to be important freedoms.

Not everyone agrees that those freedoms are important, however. Most people don't know much about the technical issues with computers, let alone the social/political issues.

He believes that people have certain "rights" to do things with software. To me he's very much a left wing extremist. Nobody has any inherent rights to something that another person created. And by the way, the GPL is ironically enforced by copyright law which restricts people's rights to other people's creations. Without copyright law, the GPL would be unenforceable. If people didn't want to protect their creations then the GPL wouldn't even be possible.

Originally Posted by gberardi

To illustrate, I remember working at a help desk when one of those worms struck what seemed like very Windows machine in the world at once. I got a call in which I had to explain that the problem was with an RPC vulnerability and not anything that the person downloaded or installed. This person became upset and then calmed herself down by saying, "Well, what can you do? It isn't like I can use anything else. We're pretty much stuck with it, huh?"

I replied, "Well, I use Linux." B-)

The Microsoft monopoly is an exception in the marketplace, not the rule. And being a monopoly its status is illegal, despite the fact that nothing substantial is being done about it by our government. Although as you just said yourself, Linux is also available. There's also Mac OS X. People simply choose to be ignorant about their options.

Originally Posted by gberardi

It's funny when people look at the Free Software Foundation and think, "Communists!" because it seems to me that the FSF and Free Software actually level the playing field, allowing a more competitive, capitalist market, as opposed to giving a monopoly to a single entity.

As I said above, monopolies are illegal. Our government is just not very effective in prosecuting and dealing with Microsoft. The EU is being more effective, although fines alone won't fix the problem (Microsoft has deep pockets, so fines aren't a major deterrent to anti-competitive behavior). However, I'm not aware of any other monopolies for software.

Originally Posted by gberardi

Capitalists believe that competition is good, but I recall that a number of the big proprietary software companies actually tried to make it harder for Free and Open Source software to compete in the market. What does that say about what economic model those companies would prefer? B-)

Which companies are against open source? Of course Microsoft is extremely scared of the open source movement because they can only prosper as a monopoly. But who else would care so much about it? Open source isn't a threat to anyone else in my opinion. Perhaps to a few companies who've managed attain vendor lock-in, but how many of those are out there? If a company is only doing well by using vendor lock-in (like Microsoft is) then they'll crumble eventually with or without the open source movement.

[Kiba]

Just because Free softwares is often free as in cost doesn't mean people aren't willing to pay for it.

I'll give you some analogy. It is not perfect, but it is the best I can find.

Consider a webcomic like megatokyo. Its contents is entirely free of cost. But you can buy the book Megatokyo, which often have the same contents, with a bit more extra, but the meaty contents from the site is still there. To date, Megatokyo is one of the best selling English language manga in the United States. Its popularity on the net continue to grow, and its sale will also grow.


Companies like RedHat prove that it is possible to make money, so that make your point moot. And there are plenty of ways to make money off Free softwares. Customization, patronage, and various other models.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Just because Free softwares is often free as in cost doesn't mean people aren't willing to pay for it.

I'll give you some analogy. It is not perfect, but it is the best I can find.

Consider a webcomic like megatokyo. Its contents is entirely free of cost. But you can buy the book Megatokyo, which often have the same contents, with a bit more extra, but the meaty contents from the site is still there. To date, Megatokyo is one of the best selling English language manga in the United States. Its popularity on the net continue to grow, and its sale will also grow.

Your analogy doesn't work well because software is not something that can be turned into a physical product. Applying this analogy to software would be the same as charging for a CD or DVD that contains the software. This may work somewhat for huge software which some people can't download, but what if your software is only a few megs in size? Why would someone want to buy a CD of it when it takes a couple of minutes to download it?

Another argument may be that boxed software can include a manual or other physical items, but usually such manuals are outdated compared to information you can get online (or even the documentation that comes on the CD). I personally never use them. And digital distribution saves trees, fossil fuels, and so on.

Originally Posted by Kiba

Companies like RedHat prove that it is possible to make money, so that make your point moot.

Like I said in my previous post, it's possible for large companies to make money from open source if they sell to other businesses. In the wikipedia entry on Red Hat it says: "Red Hat sells subscriptions to the support, training, and integration services that help customers in using the open source software."

They can do this is because of the complexity involved in setting up enterprise systems, and because businesses can afford (and are willing to) pay for these services. This business model wouldn't work for other kinds of software, especially software that targets the home user market. Have you seen Red Hat make any money from Fedora Core? Red Hat has explicitly separated its commercial business-targeted Linux distro from Fedora Core:

"The Fedora Project was created in late 2003, when Red Hat Linux was discontinued. Red Hat recommended that commercial Red Hat Linux users switch to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which continues to be Red Hat's only officially-supported Linux distribution, while providing Fedora Core for more casual users."

Originally Posted by Kiba

And there are plenty of ways to make money off Free softwares. Customization, patronage, and various other models.

I'm not disputing that it's possible to make money somehow from open source software in general. However that doesn't mean that everyone who makes software is interested in those ways of making money. Personally I prefer to make a product and sell it, rather than develop a product, give it away for free, and then charge for services related to it (if that's even possible for that particular product).

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Baltar

Ok perhaps you can explain this to me -- how the hell am I going to make money if I create software and release it under the GPL?

I never understand this question. There are ways to do it, and you even admit it yourself that there ARE in fact ways to do it, yet because you can't easily do it the way YOU want to do it, somehow it is an invalid license to use?

The GPL license allows anyone to freely distribute the software. This means that nobody will ever have to pay for it. This goes way beyond the "freedom to modify the source code", which can be argued to be "free as in speech". However, allowing people to distribute the software freely makes it "free as in beer" since nobody has to pay for it.


Can you give some examples? As far as I know, there are very few things one can do to make money from open source. The usual response that's given is "providing support" for open source software. That may work well for Red Hat or Novell, and perhaps for those people who want to be system administrators for Linux or provide tech support for other open source systems. But what about those of us who want to make our own software? Support as a means of making money is only feasible if you're making software for businesses. Home users are not going to pay you much, if anything, for tech support.

Let's assume that we're not talking about leveraging open source and free software to run your own business. If you want to package software like a toaster and sell it, then the GPL is not for you because it assumes that you are not trying to artificially restrict what someone can do with software. Selling an application as a product that you can purchase is not exactly going to work, as you said.

That is why people keep referring to support, and interestingly enough, the people who usually suggest it as "the only thing" they ever hear are the people who argue that you can't make money from open source. Everyone else knows that there are hundreds of ways to make money from open source. There is even a website that lists them.

Most of them are variations on support: selling books, manuals, magazines, proprietary add-ons, and consulting based on an open source product.

As for people redistributing an application, you can sell software. One of the things that the GPL specifies is that you don't need to distribute the source code with the binary files. Another thing it specifies is that you could sell your binary files for as much as you think the market can allow.

If your business model depends on people NOT distributing your application for free, then don't use a license that tells them that they can. No one complains about the business feasibility of the Creative Commons licenses just because anyone can redistribute works licensed under it at no cost. Why is the GPL so special that people MUST show that it is not going to allow people to sell software like toasters? And why do people have to be so closed-minded to think that if you can't sell software like a toaster that you can't make money?

And by the way, the GPL is ironically enforced by copyright law which restricts people's rights to other people's creations. Without copyright law, the GPL would be unenforceable. If people didn't want to protect their creations then the GPL wouldn't even be possible.

Ironic? No, I am pretty sure that the GPL is just like any other EULA. Instead of specifying exactly what you can and cannot do, it says what you cannot restrict from someone else. Nothing cute is happening here. Stallman was purposefully using copyright to guarantee that free software will remain free software.

Which companies are against open source? Of course Microsoft is extremely scared of the open source movement because they can only prosper as a monopoly. But who else would care so much about it? Open source isn't a threat to anyone else in my opinion. Perhaps to a few companies who've managed attain vendor lock-in, but how many of those are out there? If a company is only doing well by using vendor lock-in (like Microsoft is) then they'll crumble eventually with or without the open source movement.

Lots of companies enjoy vendor lock-in, and the SCO lawsuit involving IBM, Novell, and a few high-profile software developers shows that Microsoft (although perhaps they were just behind the scenes) isn't the only one who wanted the courts to say that the GPL is invalid.

This business model wouldn't work for other kinds of software, especially software that targets the home user market. Have you seen Red Hat make any money from Fedora Core? Red Hat has explicitly separated its commercial business-targeted Linux distro from Fedora Core:

"The Fedora Project was created in late 2003, when Red Hat Linux was discontinued. Red Hat recommended that commercial Red Hat Linux users switch to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which continues to be Red Hat's only officially-supported Linux distribution, while providing Fedora Core for more casual users."

I'm not disputing that it's possible to make money somehow from open source software in general. However that doesn't mean that everyone who makes software is interested in those ways of making money. Personally I prefer to make a product and sell it, rather than develop a product, give it away for free, and then charge for services related to it (if that's even possible for that particular product).

Ok, Fedora software ends up in RHEL. Yes, Red Hat doesn't make money directly, but I am sure that the bottom line is improved by the fact that a lot of people are testing its software for free.

The GPL is not appropriate for software-as-a-toaster. I am pretty sure that no one argues this point. Still, software-as-a-toaster isn't exactly the only way to make money from software, and neither is selling support. Heck, you can even dual-license your software, and it has worked out well for Trolltech so far. I could keep pointing out examples, but someone will continually point out that it only works for this special case or that certain company's business model.

In the end, if you don't want to use it, no one is forcing you to do so. GNU ninjas aren't going to hack into your computer and change the license on all of your code. You won't wake up in the middle of the night, find that your software license has been changed to the GPL, and scream, "NOOOOOOO!!!!! STALLMAN!!!!!"

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by gberardi

Lots of companies enjoy vendor lock-in, and the SCO lawsuit involving IBM, Novell, and a few high-profile software developers shows that Microsoft (although perhaps they were just behind the scenes) isn't the only one who wanted the courts to say that the GPL is invalid.

SCO more or less represents Microsoft's interests. They've gotten funding from Microsoft to help them pay for their lawsuits. SCO sued both IBM and Novell which are supporters of open source. Novell even owns SuSE Linux.

Originally Posted by gberardi

In the end, if you don't want to use it, no one is forcing you to do so. GNU ninjas aren't going to hack into your computer and change the license on all of your code. You won't wake up in the middle of the night, find that your software license has been changed to the GPL, and scream, "NOOOOOOO!!!!! STALLMAN!!!!!"

The reason I said what I said is that the FSF (and their hardcore supporters) want all software to be released under the GPL. I have no problem with people using GPL if they want to. My problem is that they want everyone to use it. If they didn't push it this way I wouldn't even be arguing here.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Baltar

The reason I said what I said is that the FSF (and their hardcore supporters) want all software to be released under the GPL. I have no problem with people using GPL if they want to. My problem is that they want everyone to use it. If they didn't push it this way I wouldn't even be arguing here.

Ok, so I stand by what I said. Price is irrelevant. The original question was not about freeware.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by gberardi

Most of them are variations on support: selling books, manuals, magazines, proprietary add-ons, and consulting based on an open source product.

So in the end you are okay with people selling non open source software?

[Cat Dancer]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Do you believe/like the ideas of the Free software movement?

When I first read the GNU Manifesto ten or fifteen years ago, I was quite inspired:

In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.

"Cool!" I said, "a post-scarcity world! Let's get to it!" And I did some work helping the free software movement along.

Since then I've seen that the world is full of arguments that we could have A if only we had B. And I've realized that most of the time there's then way too much focus on B. Instead, the best way to get A is to go and create A directly.

My observation now of the free software movement is that it focuses too much on proprietary software. Oh my gosh, look at all the proprietary software. Isn't it terrible that people have to use proprietary software. No software should be proprietary.

Proprietary software doesn't exist in my life. I use only non-proprietary software. Some of that software calls itself free software, some calls itself open source software. But in any case, I don't use proprietary software because I don't want to. I don't want the spyware, the viruses. I don't want someone else to be running code I don't know about on my personal computer. I want my personal computer to belong to me, to do want I tell it to, not what someone else is telling it to.

You say it is hard for you to use Debian GNU/linux and not to run the proprietary flash player. So far, for myself, I haven't found it hard. There are times when I come across some web site and it says I need to install Flash to view their content. But I have yet to be inconvenienced, I have yet to come across a site that requires me to have Flash that I care whether I can see their content or not.

My feeling now is if someone wants to create some proprietary software, let them. Let them wall themselves off on their isolated island. I don't need to go batter down their walls for them.

That said, I'm not not in favor of monopolies enforced by the power of government. In medieval times, there was the idea that industries had to be protected to survive. The crown would grant a company an exclusive monopoly in a particular industry. Our copyright and patent system is a holdover of those medieval ideas, that programmers and inventors won't be able to make money if they aren't given monopolies enforced by the government. If a referendum was held today on whether to retain or repeal the copyright and patent laws, I myself would vote to repeal them. In my opinion, they're unnecessary and people waste a lot of time with them.

But it doesn't matter. The copyright and patent laws don't stand in the way of the post-scarcity world. Proprietary software doesn't stand in the way of free software. The way to get more free software is to create more free software. Someone, somewhere, has the same pain you do, and is working on a better free Flash player. That's how it works. If you want a good free Flash player, you can go find them and do something to help them.

[gberardi]

Originally Posted by Brutha

So in the end you are okay with people selling non open source software?

I play games on GNU/Linux, and many of those games are using proprietary code. Some are open source AND commercial, though. Interestingly, I remember reading on the FSF website that they don't care about entertainment software, although proprietary 3D drivers are deemed a problem.

I don't personally have a problem with someone else selling non-open source software, but it is because I agree that the developer has the right to decide how you use his/her software. It doesn't mean that I have to use it, though, and if I can help it, I avoid using Windows Media Player among other proprietary pieces of software because I don't like what the restrictions are.

The part you quoted wasn't to indicate that proprietary add-ons are perfectly fine for everyone but to indicate that selling software as toasters is not the only way to make money. My personal problems or lack of them doesn't change this fact.