All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
MS-DOS Date
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: skyman8081 ---You seem to be advocating the forced sharing of code
--- End quote ---
On GNU.
EDIT: Forced isn't the right word.
I'm advocating: GNU shouldn't go out of your way to make non-free developers welcome.
--- Quote from: skyman8081 ---Since your so adamant about sharing, why don't you share your social security number with us.
--- End quote ---
Don't even know what it means :p
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---No you can't, actually.
--- End quote ---
I can understand how statically linking you program with a GNU library conflicts with the licence because parts of it actuall become part of the closed source application, but if it's dynamically linke the library remains a separate entity, how does this conflict the the GNU licence?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---There are many, many people and companies that share all the source code that they own.
Do you think it's likely that many people could possibly share a vast majority of their wealth?
--- End quote ---
Yes they could, and I have never disputed this, but how is not sharing code anymore immoral than sharing money, in my opinion the latter is far more evil. Money can potentially do far more good in the world and code it can proved people with food and water and then luxeries like computers, when code can only benifit people who are already well off enough toafford the latter.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Because I do think (and many agree) that it's likely that many companies could share all their software and not be at a great loss.
--- End quote ---
You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Said database company, how would they lose out by makeing their software free? Especially if they're only makeing it for a single company - they can sell the source code to them (and to anyone else if they wish) and then offer whatever services to them.
--- End quote ---
If they licence their code under the GPL the company buying it no longer has anympetitive advantage over their competitors since the code is now free they can all dip their fingers in and because of this it would no longer be worth buying code from them. You've mentionded services but they only generate a small amount of revinue compared to the software licences.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---How well do Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw and Micrografix (whom I've never heard of) Draw read eachothers file formats?
--- End quote ---
Just thought of another - Serif draw.
They don't, but they they can all both save and open in either or both of the two main standared vector fromats (.sgv and .wmf/.emf) oh no you're going to flame me becase the later are M$ formats! but they're open enough to allow bany programs to use them so it's not that bad.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---There doesn't need to be any other company yet. Microsoft won't be gone for a long long time, most likely.
--- End quote ---
My personal opinion is that Microsoft will stop growing when people finall realise that there new products have little advantage over their older ones, even then people won't find alternatives like Linux they'll just keep using Windows.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---
If Opera was free, we could have two browsers of near-equal brilliance.
--- End quote ---
I'd like to think the same but I doubt this, people are far more likely to drop Firefox and use Opera. I doulbt code sharing would happen, for example I remember a while a go reading complaints about Draw lacking anti-alising on the OpenOffice forum I don't know why this is the case since thaey could have easily borrowed some of the code from Inkscape or the Gimp.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Netscape was the most innovative web-browser to date.
--- End quote ---
Netscape was the real pioneer of the web back in the early 90's however nowadays Opera is far more innovitave.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Err, no. gcj
--- End quote ---
But it's still following a Java a proprietary platform
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If fact, if Sun never ported Java to GNU/Linux, I'd say gcj would probably have never been started.
--- End quote ---
Why do you think this?
People would still bicth about Linux not having Java and say they won't use it for that very reason.
There's no real need for an alternative to Java (as a language).
How couldn't it? There's non-free software everywhere. It significantly out numbers free software.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I've already answered this question with the Opera/Firefox bit.
--- End quote ---
So have I you'll always have a choice between the two, unless Opera goes open source in which case you probably wouldn't care anyway in fact you might even be happy.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But that's by no means the only way the situation for me could change.
Well that's not all there is to it. Especially if people are switching to GNU/Linux just because of the non-free software.
--- End quote ---
I made a piece of software I'd rather people used it because they believe it's superiour to all of the alternatives and it suits their needs the most rathter than just because it's free.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Then in what way should I be caring for them?
--- End quote ---
Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---You would all be able to use GNU/Linux at your will.
--- End quote ---
No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---After reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html (again), I partly forgive GNU for inventing the LGPL.
--- End quote ---
Good, this article raises some good points and I can agree with most of it, the only thing I disagree with is their "we hate proprietary software" ethos.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I can understand how statically linking you program with a GNU library conflicts with the licence because parts of it actuall become part of the closed source application, but if it's dynamically linke the library remains a separate entity, how does this conflict the the GNU licence?
--- End quote ---
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Yes they could, and I have never disputed this, but how is not sharing code anymore immoral than sharing money
--- End quote ---
Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.
--- End quote ---
Apple already have made quite a few useful bits of Mac OS X free software, and now they're being implemented in many GNU/Linux distributions (and Windows and FreeBSD and Mac OS X too) (e.g. bonjour -> howl).
But still, Apple have benefitted far more from free software (in the form of FreeBSD) than we've benefitted from them, IMO.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---If they licence their code under the GPL the company buying it no longer has anympetitive advantage over their competitors since the code is now free they can all dip their fingers in and because of this it would no longer be worth buying code from them. You've mentionded services but they only generate a small amount of revinue compared to the software licences.
--- End quote ---
They don't have to licence their software under the GPL in order for it to be free.
If they're selling it to only one customer, they can keep the code until that customer buys it.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---oh no you're going to flame me becase the later are M$ formats!
--- End quote ---
Actually I wasn't.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Why do you think this?
People would still bicth about Linux not having Java and say they won't use it for that very reason.
--- End quote ---
There would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.
And, those people should be bitching to Sun.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---So have I you'll always have a choice between the two, unless Opera goes open source in which case you probably wouldn't care anyway in fact you might even be happy.
--- End quote ---
Ofcourse I would.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?
--- End quote ---
I'm not looking for love :p.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.
--- End quote ---
Wrong.
Your will is to use GNU/Linux but you can't because the software that dictates what operating system you use hasn't been ported to GNU/Linux.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Good, this article raises some good points and I can agree with most of it, the only thing I disagree with is their "we hate proprietary software" ethos.
--- End quote ---
Evident where?
I quote again:
--- Quote from: me ---We have a choice: free or non-free.
I chose free, for two main reasons: free is the way things should be, and, non-free is the way things shouldn't be.
--- End quote ---
Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?
worker201:
btw, a social security number is an identification code given to each American citizen. They can be used to catalog and classify all kinds of neat information in diverse databases, thus controlling our lives with an SQL query.
Mine is 223345589
but not in that order.
Aloone_Jonez:
I apologise for my last post, is wasn't up to my usual standard just look at some of those typos, I'm feel really embarrassed. :o
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
--- End quote ---
I'm very impressed that they've though about dynamic linking, I find it very interesting how a proprietary program can violate the GPL even though it doesn't contain one line of GPL'd code, I wonder what the lawyers will make of this one! :eek: I suppose at the end of the day if you hold the copyright for something then you can dictate how it's used as after all it's your property so if you create a library that you don't want proprietary programs to use then you can forbid them from doing so.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.
--- End quote ---
I can see your point but there again nearly everyone in the developed world earns significantly more than they need to survive, I bet you that if everyone gave up their most expensive luxury then there'd be more than enough revenue generated to lift the rest of world from poverty.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Apple already have made quite a few useful bits of Mac OS X free software, and now they're being implemented in many GNU/Linux distributions (and Windows and FreeBSD and Mac OS X too) (e.g. bonjour -> howl).
But still, Apple have benefitted far more from free software (in the form of FreeBSD) than we've benefitted from them, IMO.
--- End quote ---
That's companies for you - out for their own gain rather than contributing to the greater good.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---They don't have to licence their software under the GPL in order for it to be free.
--- End quote ---
That's true Opera is free and it isn't under GPL! :p Don't worry I do know what you mean, they're the LGPL and BSD licences.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If they're selling it to only one customer, they can keep the code until that customer buys it.
--- End quote ---
My point still remains valid, if you want to sell your software purely for its commodity value then the the (L)GPL/BSD licences aren't for you but they are suited to developers or are not profit driven or who gain revenue by selling their support and services, in fact some developers just want thier code to be used, in which case they use the BSD licence.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---There would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.
--- End quote ---
If Sun weren't allowed to release Java on Linux then they wouldn't have been allowed Star Office so OpenOffice would have never existed in the first place! This proves a point I made a while back here, just look at the final paragraph:
--- Quote from: me ---Simple, because proprietary developers will start to develop and improve Linux versions of their Windows products and if this happens Linux will become more attractive to people migrating away from Windows. Hopefully these companies will then start to invest money in Linux too, who knows they could even share some of their code too. Look at sun for example, Star Office was proprietary for years until they released OpenOffice, Opera is now free as in beer, who knows one day it might become truly free as well.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---And, those people should be bitching to Sun.
--- End quote ---
Normally I'd agree with you but if GNU Linux didn't allow proprietary software then I would directly blame the free software foundation.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I'm not looking for love :p.
--- End quote ---
Don't worry I love you piratePenguin. ;)
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Wrong.
Your will is to use GNU/Linux but you can't because the software that dictates what operating system you use hasn't been ported to GNU/Linux.
--- End quote ---
Correct, and people who hold the opinion that all non-free software is evil and should be banned from the Linux platform don't provide the developers any encouragement to port their software to Linux.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Evident where?
--- End quote ---
By the way it's worded:
--- Quote ---Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.
--- End quote ---
They haven't directly said that they "hate proprietary software" but they repeatedly imply they're in direct competition with it; by doing this they're putting across their point that non-free software is their enemy.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?
--- End quote ---
Well, Yes & No.
Firstly yes because I like free stuff and we'd be free from monopolys like Microsoft, I could elaborate more but I feel there is no need to as no doubt you are all aware of this side of the argument.
Then no, because I feel that free software lacks in some areas, (mainly games specialist engineering software and a word processor with a grammar checker) and no I don't feel all of these are due to the fact that proprietary software has made room for it. I'm not convinced that open source generates more innovate software or better quality either, yes I'm aware of all the arguments for this and I respect them but I don't buy into them.
Over all free software is a very good thing and a market dominated by it would be a definitely be ideal just as long as it doesn't crush the inventiveness of some proprietary developers. Proprietary software should and will always have its place namely in neich markets and games where sources of revenue like services and support are unavailable.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version