gnu=borg - discuss

[Aloone_Jonez]

How would I lose money by using GNU/Linux with only free software on my desktop and all the other desktops say in some web-design office I setup? The web-designers can use The GIMP for making raster images or editing some photos, Inkscape for the odd icon, and NVU if they're too noob for emacs, vim, gedit, or whatever.

In what areas in any type of business (not only web-design) would I be losing money? Or what job even?

Alright here's a situation were I would loose money if I decided to use GNU/Linux, an electronics engineering firm. I could use Protel DXP running on Windows XP (I can't remember how much it costs but it's >

[piratePenguin]

And of the software's you mentioned , only SDL is licensed under the GPL - and it's actually the LGPL. The rest are released under BSD-like licenses.

If your primary goal is adoption of software, then the GPL is not really the best choice.

Definetly. But for RMS and like-believers, adoption isn't the most important thing.

Alright here's a situation were I would loose money if I decided to use GNU/Linux, an electronics engineering firm. I could use Protel DXP running on Windows XP (I can't remember how much it costs but it's >

[Jenda]

piratePenguin, I strongly agree with you. Free Software is the right way to go, no matter the results. Nevertheless, since the results are at least adequate, I will gladly force myself through a small amount of suffering (people laughing, extra work, extra things to learn (since when is this a bad thing?), having to give up certain services) to be a member of the Free Software Community. In addition to that, I find myself in a great advantage to all the local Win-Users, and even the Mac folks.

I must say I will miss your GNU avatar. I hope you plan to return to it yet.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Wow, is it really that bad?

I've read the first half of volume one of these books. The person who wrote it is a lecturer, and the book is intended mainly for his students. The only software he teaches in it is SPICE. What an evil fucker!

SPICE isn't very user friendly, and it's not just simulation there's PCB and mechanical design softaware for Windows that simply surpasses anything written for GNU Linux.

I'm not talking about sharing wealth or anything else but source code.

It is if the author is relying on the source code for their wealth.

Because when they rent you a house, only you can step foot inside the frontdoor.
I'm losing out on nothing.

Since when have you rented a house from the aforementioned?
We're talking about software here, not renting accommodation.

I rest my case, the problem here is not proprietary software it's companies like Microsoft and the law giving them too much power. They should prevent companies from altering the licence agreement without written consent from the user but they should still have the right to with-hold the source code, limit the number of users and copying.

What you're suggesting is forcing the GPL on everyone which is more than communism, it's totalitarianism and how do  you plan to inforce this?

Software oten contains other media like music and films so if a company releases a computer game do they have to licence the music and films under the GPL to? Do they just have to release the source code? Can they keep everything else under a triditional proprietary licence?

Do you plan to implement different laws for differant kinds of information because currently the law treats all copywrites the same?

You obviously haven't though of the implications of software/data totalitarianism, you'd piss a lot of people off by telling them what they can release and what they can keep private. In the end Forcing the GPL would be more of an insult to humanity than any ELUA.

I'm losing out on nothing.

You don't know what you're missing if you refuse to use a piece of software just because it isn't free, for all you know it could be brilliant and better than any free software, oh well that's just your loss.

[skyman8081]

I updated my sig to be more offensive.

[Jenda]

I updated my sig to be more offensive.

Great. But failed - this one's funny. :-D

[piratePenguin]

I must say I will miss your GNU avatar. I hope you plan to return to it yet.

done.

SPICE isn't very user friendly

But it works. And once you master it (doesn't take very long), that's you sorted.

and it's not just simulation

Oh right.

It is if the author is relying on the source code for their wealth.

How is sharing source code equal to sharing wealth? Free software can be sold just the same way as non-free software.

Since when have you rented a house from the aforementioned?

Go figure :rolleyes:.

We're talking about software here, not renting accommodation.

It was an analogy. Sheezus.

I rest my case

Great!

What you're suggesting is forcing the GPL on everyone

Where in the fuck are you getting this from?

which is more than communism, it's totalitarianism

:rolleyes:

and how do you plan to inforce this?

I'll have anyone who gets in my way murdered and have them dumped in the river Liffey :rolleyes:.

Software oten contains other media like music and films so if a company releases a computer game do they have to licence the music and films under the GPL to? Do they just have to release the source code? Can they keep everything else under a triditional proprietary licence?

I'll have to discuss that with General Stallman and the rest of the council.

You don't know what you're missing if you refuse to use a piece of software just because it isn't free, for all you know it could be brilliant and better than any free software, oh well that's just your loss.

All the software I currently use is free software. Should I ditch Firefox for Internet Explorer and GNU/Linux for Windows? The GIMP for Photoshop, Inkscape for Freehand, GAIM for MSN Messenger/ICQ/Yahoo! Messsenger, and irssi for Gamers.IRC?
I've used all the software I just listed, and the software I use currently, I prefer.

[Aloone_Jonez]

done.
But it works. And once you master it (doesn't take very long), that's you sorted.

That's often the case but the staff where I work are far too busy to learn it.

How is sharing source code equal to sharing wealth? Free software can be sold just the same way as non-free software.

Yes, but it doesn't stop others from stealing your software or using it without paying for it, also once you GPL it becomes copywrighted by the free software foundation so technically it's not your software anymore.

Go figure :rolleyes:.
It was an analogy. Sheezus.

Alright, I'll use the same analogy, under the totalitarian policy you're describing you wouldn't be allowed to own the house in the first place let alone rent it to anyone.

Where in the fuck are you getting this from?

You keep saying "proprietary is the problem", so I'm assuming you mean the GPL is the solution, which would mean forcing the it on everyone - is this correct?

I'll have to discuss that with General Stallman and the rest of the council.

Exactly, it simply isn't  practical to force the GPL on everyone without scrapping all other copyright law, which on one extreme could mean even your holiday snaps are no longer your property anymore.

All the software I currently use is free software. Should I ditch Firefox for Internet Explorer and GNU/Linux for Windows? The GIMP for Photoshop, Inkscape for Freehand, GAIM for MSN Messenger/ICQ/Yahoo! Messsenger, and irssi for Gamers.IRC?

No, use what suits you best and if it's GPL then so be it.

I've used all the software I just listed, and the software I use currently, I prefer.

That's your choice and (I hope you've tried propietary alternatives as well), for example you might be fine using OpenOffice, instead of MS Office (I am too) but others might not because it lacks a grammar checker and decent formula editor.

The GPL system is great, I really like the idea software can be free in every possible way and it can be a communist paradise where everyone does their bit for the good of the community. I also support the idea that if you create a piece of software you have the freedom to do with it what you will, this includes not releasing the source, and only allowing people to use it if they agree to certain terms and conditions. GPL people often think too much about the rights of the users and neglect the rights of the creator(s) of software who should quite rightly have the final in their creation's fate.

[worker201]

Real computer users believe that open-source is a model that works, and it has proven to work better (over and over again) than any proprietary model.  By extension, real users know that all source will be opened eventually.  There WILL be a day in our future where the paid software designers at Adobe (for example) just can't compete with all the free designers and debuggers out there on the net working to make a raster graphics app that kicks ass and is open and free.  At that time, Photoshop and its proprietary license will be over.  We don't have to force anyone to open their source.  The economics of net-based development will force them to do it.  Proprietary software is all about economics - if they can't make back their money, the internal development cycle will end.  At that point, they will either move to an open source model, or die.

I seriously suggest you all read "The Cathedral and the Bazzaar" by ESR.  He explains it well, and offers the proof.  Why spend money on debuggers (who hate debugging) when you can get people who are love debugging for free?  ESR explains why Adobe and Microsoft like to spend money, and why Linus doesn't have to.  Really, it's a good article.

[piratePenguin]

That's often the case but the staff where I work are far too busy to learn it.

They've learned so much about electronics and they can't learn how to use a simple program...

Yes, but it doesn't stop others from stealing your software or using it without paying for it

What do you mean by "stealing"?
In what way does any specific non-free software licence stop people from using it without paying for it?

also once you GPL it becomes copywrighted by the free software foundation so technically it's not your software anymore.

WTF?
The licence itself is copyright by the FSF. Whatever you write is copywrite by you and licenced under whatever version of the GPL (assuming that's what you chose) you chose.

Alright, I'll use the same analogy, under the totalitarian policy you're describing you wouldn't be allowed to own the house in the first place let alone rent it to anyone.

What fucking "totalitarian policy" am I describing?

You keep saying "proprietary is the problem", so I'm assuming you mean the GPL is the solution, which would mean forcing the it on everyone - is this correct?

No, I never mentioned forcing anything on any-fucking-body.

I believe that non-free software is a problem, so I will avoid it, bash it and whatever, and support free software instead.

Just like if you believe Microsoft is a problem, you avoid it (well obviously you don't), bash it and whatever, and support the alternatives to Microsoft products. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN HANGING BILLY G AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO USES MICROSOFT PRODUCTS (and I know noone ever suggested that, but I never suggested the shit you're talking about either.)! Most likely, it would mean changing the law so Microsoft or any other big companies can't become so powerful or whatever.

Well in this case, I'm not talking about setting up a communist/totalitarian "policy" or system or whatever the fuck you're talking about. I'm just gonna keep doing my thing (avoiding and bashing non-free software and supporting free software) and hope that more people follow.

Exactly, it simply isn't practical to force the GPL on everyone without scrapping all other copywright law, which on one extreme could mean that even your holiday snaps are no longer your property anymore.

What the fuck are you on about?

BTW, I was just playing along when I mentioned "General Stallman" and all that.

No, use what suits you best and if it's GPL then so be it.

Don't say GPL when you mean free software, it makes no sense.

And like I said, I'm going to avoid non-free software just like anyone who doesn't like Microsoft might avoid Microsoft products.
The fact that all the free software is better for me than the non-free alternatives is just a bonus. I'd still be using Firefox even if Opera cost nothing to buy, had no banner ads and simply kicked the shit outta Firefox.
And (if/)when Firefox's market share and support diminishes (to Opera), the fact that I support it will make all the more difference.

That's your choice and (I hope you've tried the propietary alternatives as well)

I have. And in the future, I might accidentally try them and fall in love with them, but I won't ever use them full-time solong as I can help it.

for example you might be fine using OpenOffice, instead of MS Office (as I am too) but others might not because it lacks a grammar checker and decent formula editor.

I haven't ever forced GNU/Linux or OpenOffice.org or Firefox on anyone (I have educated some poeple on them and a few of them now use Firefox (by their own choice)), and I don't intend on it. I know noone personally who uses GNU/Linux full-time. I'm the only registered GNU/Linux user in my county, last I checked. I haven't invaded my neighbours, or anyone in my house (I've four older brothers who all have their own computers. All bar one use Windows XP (the other using Mac OS X on a powerbook)), and installed GNU/Linux on their computers or the like.

The GPL system is great

Do you actually mean GPL or free software?

I really like the idea that software can be free in every possible way and can be a communist paradise where everyone does their bit for the good of the community. I also support the idea that if you create a piece of software you have the freedom to do with it what you will, this includes not releasing the source, and only allowing people to use it if they agree to certain terms and conditions. GPL people often think too much about the rights of the users and neglect the rights of the creator(s) of software who should quite rightly have the final in their creation's fate.

And when they do decide "their creation's fate", and it's a big mess of restrictions, I believe that everybody should (by their own choice) avoid that software, like I do and will continue to do.

I seriously suggest you all read "The Cathedral and the Bazzaar" by ESR. He explains it well, and offers the proof. Why spend money on debuggers (who hate debugging) when you can get people who are love debugging for free? ESR explains why Adobe and Microsoft like to spend money, and why Linus doesn't have to. Really, it's a good article.

Will do. Even if I wasn't all-that impressed by one article I read by him (I think you can guess which one that was).

[worker201]

Will do. Even if I wasn't all-that impressed by one article I read by him (I think you can guess which one that was).

His "how to ask questions" article is kinda abrasive.  But trust me, ESR is a giant among men.  He's one of the guys that got me interested in Linux in the first place.

[solo]

Ehk, I haven't read this whole post but I already see untruths. People have said the GPL wasn't designed for the programmer, but it was! It was designed so that programmers had a way to share their work without people taking it and using it in closed programs. Because that's illegal, and I just as much as any GPL programmer would sue the shit out of someone if I found my code in a closed app. We get pissed, because they don't follow the rules we gave them to use our software. Just like Microsoft gets pissed when we pirate Windows XP (5 no 6 times each!).

[piratePenguin]

His "how to ask questions" article is kinda abrasive. But trust me, ESR is a giant among men. He's one of the guys that got me interested in Linux in the first place.

I watched that 'Revolution OS' film by him, it was pretty good. After watching it, I set out to read the cathedral and the bazaar, but it was longer than I expected.
Reading it now though.

People have said the GPL wasn't designed for the programmer, but it was! It was designed so that programmers had a way to share their work without people taking it and using it in closed programs. Because that's illegal, and I just as much as any GPL programmer would sue the shit out of someone if I found my code in a closed app. We get pissed, because they don't follow the rules we gave them to use our software. Just like Microsoft gets pissed when we pirate Windows XP (5 no 6 times each!).

You're probably talking about:

The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.

And you're right.

I guess what I should've said is "The GPL was designed for the benefit of the owners and the software (unlike the MS EULA and friends)".

[ksym]

And of the software's you mentioned , only SDL is licensed under the GPL - and it's actually the LGPL. The rest are released under BSD-like licenses.

If your primary goal is adoption of software, then the GPL is not really the best choice.

Yeah, I guess you are right.

Maybe GPL works better on the runtime-platform level. Like most GNU/Linux distributions are GPL or LGPL. On single projects, like Apache, GPL might be for the worse ...

[Aloone_Jonez]

They've learned so much about electronics and they can't learn how to use a simple program...

Of course we can but we'd rather pay some money and use Protel, we just draw the schematic into the editor, then it can be simulated and providing  we give it the correct design rules it can place and route the PCB for us.

What do you mean by "stealing"?

Other companies using the from it and profiting from it as a result.

In what way does any specific non-free software licence stop people from using it without paying for it?

It doesn't stop people from pirating it, but it means they can be forced to pay a penalty if they get caught.

WTF?
The licence itself is copyright by the FSF. Whatever you write is copywrite by you and licenced under whatever version of the GPL (assuming that's what you chose) you chose.

From the GPL

 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Am I misinterpreting this or does (1) not mean they take the copyright for the software? If so I'm sorry.

What fucking "totalitarian policy" am I describing?
No, I never mentioned forcing anything on any-fucking-body.

Good.

I believe that non-free software is a problem, so I will avoid it, bash it and whatever, and support free software instead.

That's fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

Just like if you believe Microsoft is a problem, you avoid it (well obviously you don't),

Yes, I do avoid MS software when ever it's practical.

bash it and whatever, and support the alternatives to Microsoft products.

Yes, I support OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird but this doesn't mean I won't be honest and admit some non-MS software has its disadvantages in some areas.

Don't say GPL when you mean free software, it makes no sense.

Alrighte you do have a point there.

The fact that all the free software is better for me than the non-free alternatives is just a bonus. I'd still be using Firefox even if Opera cost nothing to buy, had no banner ads and simply kicked the shit outta Firefox.

This is where you and I have our main differances and it's were you'd fall down if you ran a business or large organisation.

And in the future, I might accidentally try them and fall in love with them, but I won't ever use them full-time solong as I can help it.

I find it quite sad that you would let some hippy idealistic vision get in the way of using the software you truly love and suits all of your needs.

And when they do decide "their creation's fate", and it's a big mess of restrictions, I believe that everybody should (by their own choice) avoid that software, like I do and will continue to do.

I'd rather live in the real world and have full control of my code thank you.