Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
gnu=borg - discuss
DBX_5:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---W
So sorry to be offtopic - this thread is really for Aloone_Jonez and Pirate Penguin to sling insults and try to outquote each other. I apologize for getting in the way.
--- End quote ---
priceless. you get approval.
Kintaro:
Being a commie, I don't really think anything should be unfree. But then again I have to live in the real world at the same time, hence living with it. Oh well, lifes a slut. Yea piratePenguin will realise this one day as well.
Jenda:
--- Quote from: copyright thief ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The thing is, IMO, that rewards should only come for commodities, and services, both of which require labor. I do not consider SW a commodity. If you're a programmer, you should, and still can using the GPL, recieve your cash as:
1)wage - in the case that you are employed (long-term) by a company that pays you to develop specific SW for them. Case Linus Torvalds, OSDevLabs. The company gains their $$$ from 2), 3), 4) and 5).
2)fees for tailor-ordered SW - if you develop SW for people with specific needs on a pay-per-developed-program basis. My sister's husband made a ton of cash that a company payed him TO develop a database system to suit their needs.
3)sales - nice-and-colourful media containing your SW, documentation and other, unrelated merchandise.
4)services - installation, support, registering to a network, a periodic update service (i.e. antivirus SW), etc.
5)donations
The actual usage of software doesn't cause you any more work - and therefore doesn't entitle you to a greater reward.
Now IF you choose GPL, as so many people have already done, you ensure that your program has a future: the more successful it gets, the more people will be willing to contribute. If you're mega-successful, some people might even pay you to develop your baby full time (Linus).
--- End quote ---
But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
--- End quote ---
...
--- Quote ---Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
--- End quote ---
Not true. You can keep any modifications private and not share them, or use them on a closed network. As soon as you go public, you have to share.
--- Quote ---Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.
--- End quote ---
I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.
--- Quote ---non-free softare! is this a typo or is it a change of heart?
--- End quote ---
As in "switch MS ALONG with non-free SW FOR FSW"
--- Quote ---How about for just a moment we assume that there are 2 types of computer programs out there. Commodity programs and generaladvancementofcomputerscience programs. Commodity programs are no different than cars or forks - the creator sells them in order to recapture the investment in production. If you want to use commodity software, you pay cash and agree to their license. Assuming that you buy the whole capitalism/technocracy thing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale. I don't know what it's produced for, but it usually has something to do with ego, community, and practicality. The only reason there is even a license is to protect the code from being stolen by commodity software writers.
--- End quote ---
WTF???
1) They are NOT the same as material commodities. The auther does not lose ANYTHING from state "you do not use" to state "you use", as they would with cars etc.. They lose cash when you decide from "to buy" to "not to buy". "to use"+"not to buy" exists in both cases (FLOSS+ProprietarySW), in one case it is piracy, in the other it is legal.
2)
--- Quote ---That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.
--- End quote ---
Not since Red Hat.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---That's competition.
And YOU
LOST.
Shame is right.
Well ain't thata bitch!
--- End quote ---
Well there you go, the GPL isn't suitable for good honest and hard working people who want to keep their hardwork to themselves and prevent other people from hijacking it for their own gain. The GPL is more suited to people who aren't bothered about making money, often they do it for a hobby, all the want to do is create software and this is why lot's of freesoftware is good. I'd also say that proprietary software can be better too as making money is a very big insentive to create good code, companies are often very pickey about what gets into their code and they can afford better programmers too.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Think about what you just said. You might learn one of the many reasons so many people love (and hate) the GNU GPL.
--- End quote ---
The GPL may benifit the greater good more but it doesn't make people rich. Doing something for the community is very un-selfish and is great but doing something for yourself isn't evil, it's just human nature - looking after number one.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---That BIG?! Whoa. Well, we'll see...
--- End quote ---
If you're that gooder programmer then you'd be better off working for them than trying to emulate them.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---WHAT
THE
FFFFUCK!
We're not talking about profits or wealth or communism or totalitarian or some other crap. We're (at least I am) talking about LICENSES.
--- End quote ---
I didn't mention any of the above in my previous post, I was in fact talking about licences as you've stated above. I was asking why you think it's evil for a company to copright their software and release it under restricted conditions and how you don't think it's evil if someone writes a book and releases it under the similar conditions.
The GPL is communism as I've already explained and if you forced it upon everyone then it would become totalitarianism and I do appreciate you don't want to do the latter.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Neither. WTF? :confused:
--- End quote ---
It must've been a typo then:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- Well that's what I'm doing, switch MS with non-free software.
--- End quote ---
Don't worry we all make these - even more so in these heated debates. :D
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---And how are they gonna do that? Stupid.
--- End quote ---
Alright I'll spell it out for you, when you write some software the code is the idea it's your decision whether you share it or not and you're not evil if you choose not to.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Because the licenses they use don't fit the free software definition as written by GNU, because they restrict the end-user in alot of evil ways.
--- End quote ---
How is it evil to stop them from copying it without your permission?
What's evil about making them pay a fee per user?
How is keeping the code secrete is evil?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---No. I've wasted enough time on this thread only to be mis-interpreted[/quot]
In future if you feel I've misinterpreted something then please rephase it rather than making silly statements like "WTF" or "What's that got to do with anything?"
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- or to have other bullshit like COMMUNISM, TOTALITARIAN POLICY and all sorts of other bullcrap brought up, and I dunno where the FUCK it comes from.
I guess not.
--- End quote ---
You obviously don't understand the philosophy behind communism and totalitarianism, I've tried to explain it, try reading up on the subject a bit more.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But when you think about it, what he did wasn't all that different to writing a piece of software.
--- End quote ---
Well he might've been able to patent it, I don't know.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin --- You think, discover something, and write it down.
--- End quote ---
Discovering something is differant to software - it's finding something out while writing software is design.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---"Buy rights to Ohm's law" "Buy rights to a series of ones and zeros".
--- End quote ---
Well if you look at it like that it's the same as anything elese whether it be a book or a film. :rolleyes:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---OK that is quite stupid. Forget it.
--- End quote ---
Yes I agree and you said it not me.
I rest my case, there's nothing evil about proprietary, software, it's no more evil than copyrighting a book or film and restricting its distribution or designing a car or TV and keeping the designs to yourself. I like the idea of sharing ideas, art, code and designs but if people choose not to, it doesn't make them evil.
--- End quote ---
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Jenda ---...
Not true. You can keep any modifications private and not share them, or use them on a closed network.As soon as you go public, you HAVE to share.
--- End quote ---
Exactly once public you have to share.
--- Quote from: Jenda ---I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.
--- End quote ---
Alright I'll explain:
--- Quote from: Jenda ---Like only allowing them to use the piece of software because you've payed for it, what's so bad about that? What's wrong with renting something?
--- End quote ---
When you "buy" some proprietary software from a shop you don't own it you're renting it, what's so bad about this?
--- Quote from: me ---how is using non-free software any worse than buying a DVD or CD?
--- End quote ---
The same applies here with a CD or DVD, why is buying the right to use software any worse than buying the right to listen to a CD or watch a DVD?
--- Quote from: Jenda ---WTF???
1) They are NOT the same as material commodities. The auther does not lose ANYTHING from state "you do not use" to state "you use", as they would with cars etc.. They lose cash when you decide from "to buy" to "not to buy". "to use"+"not to buy" exists in both cases (FLOSS+ProprietarySW), in one case it is piracy, in the other it is legal.
--- End quote ---
I see your point but the same arguement is true with DVDs and CDs.
--- Quote from: Jenda ---2)
--- Quote ---That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.
--- End quote ---
Not since Red Hat.
--- End quote ---
I also see your point here but, yes Redhat have made money from GPL software but they make more money from support rather than the software its self, it's not really the software they're selling but their support of it. I agree, in some cases it's a good idea for companies to not rely on profitting from the software these companies are aiming thier products at businesses rather than the home user for that there's Fedora Core which is Redhat's way of getting free beta testing.
Anyway whether the GPL allows money or not is not the main point, it's that non-free software isn't evil.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version