gnu=borg - discuss

[DBX_5]

sorry but I appearantly have wrecked this thread.

[toadlife]

If you don't like the direction a certain software package is heading, you can take it and do whatever you want with it, on your own terms.

I assume, by "on your own terms", you mean "by the terms of the General Public License", right?

[piratePenguin]

I assume, by "on your own terms", you mean "by the terms of the General Public License", right?

If your own terms don't comply with the GPL, then, then, then...









What's wrong with the GPL?

[Aloone_Jonez]

It makes it harder to make money as it doesn't protect your code and algorithms from the competition and there's no way of forcing people to pay to use your software. I can think of plenty of pieces of software that wouln'd be as good if they'd been released under the GPL and I certainly wouldn't  relese a GPL program if I wanted to make serious money.

[ksym]

What's wrong with the GPL?

Nothing wrong specifically ...

It is just that technological superiority in computer software businesses must be protected by distributing software as binaries. Otherwise anybody can copy the code, and make a competing product.

And since most software businesses make money by selling closed-source binary software distributions, then GPL won't stand a chance in the enterprise ...

The only way GPL can be used in the enterprise is with the de-facto technologies, like HTML/XHTML clients/servers (Apache), OpenGL (mesa, SDL), X-window system (X.org, XFree86) ...

These de-facto software technologies have been OPENLY STANDARDIZED, and so one can implement a conforming application as open source project.

But still most closed source apps like Microsoft Office, Corel products, Adobe products, Macromedia Flash ... they all depend on their proprietary formats and the apps that run/create them. Unless all their relevant protocols and fileformats are TOTALLY standardized in the open, no really good GPL software can be created to compete with their products. And so they can make money by selling software ...

[piratePenguin]

It makes it harder to make money as it doesn't protect your code and algorithms from the competition and there's no way of forcing people to pay to use your software.

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

I can think of plenty of pieces of software that wouln'd be as good if they'd been released under the GPL

I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.
If the kernel went to shit, then some software company could fork it and improve it, and then they'd be the primary developers and they'd make some money.

and I certainly wouldn't relese a GPL program if I wanted to make serious money.

Well there's people that write software with the aim of making money, and others that write software with the am of making some good software. If you're in the former, then the GPL might not be the best choice unless you're a brilliant programmer, but it's not an impossible choice either.

Nothing wrong specifically ...

Good!

It is just that technological superiority in computer software businesses must be protected by distributing software as binaries. Otherwise anybody can copy the code, and make a competing product.

And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.

And since most software businesses make money by selling closed-source binary software distributions, then GPL won't stand a chance in the enterprise ...

So be it!

But still most closed source apps like Microsoft Office, Corel products, Adobe products, Macromedia Flash ... they all depend on their proprietary formats and the apps that run/create them. Unless all their relevant protocols and fileformats are TOTALLY standardized in the open, no really good GPL software can be created to compete with their products. And so they can make money by selling software ...

Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.

And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.

[Aloone_Jonez]

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

And that's why it's not very popular.

I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.

This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.

Good!
And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.

I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.

Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.

And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.

OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.

How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?
Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.

Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.

[piratePenguin]

This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.

I was talking about if _all_ software was free (as in freedom) software.

I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.

Didn't Ubuntu get ten million something off Conanonical? Although I got no idea if they'll ever get a penny back hehe.

OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.

Doesn't have to. The GIMP beats XPaint on features. But some people still use XPaint.
It just has to be better software for the particular users needs/wants.

How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?

No idea.

Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.

All the better. It's not a third party plugin, it's provided by default. The GIMP has native CMYK support, and I can disable it with the click of a checkbox. Excellent!
The fact that it's a plugin isn't a bad thing.

Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.

Right.

Why are we talking about free_software_product versus non_free_software_product anyhow? This is GPL (general. public. LICENCE.) versus the world. I was more expecting some actual bad points about the GPL licence, not GPL software.

EDIT: And I was also hoping for GPL versus the BSD licence rather than GPL versus insult_to_humanity_and_development non-free licence (eg. MS EULA).

[Aloone_Jonez]

As far as the licence is concerned it's not a majour factor in my choice of software. I look more at value for money, i.e. features (whether it'll do want I want) and how easy it is to learn before I even look at the licence - even more so if I were running a business and in which case I'd also consider support. I don't know why the fuck people get so hung up on licence as it's such a insignificant thing in the scheme of things.

[piratePenguin]

Whenever I'm chosing software, non-free software is out of the question. Why? Because, I believe that non-free sofware is an insult_to_humanity_and_development. "I wrote X. I own X. You will give me Y in return for X. You are not allowd to modify X in any way. You must not distribute X in anyway. . I wrote X. I own you." (couldn't resist that last sentence) Just read the damn MS EULA. There's no way I can reproduce it making it somehow look more insulting.

Free software, on the other hand, is the right way to go.
EDIT: after that, when I'm chosing software, I give no crap if it's BSD-licenced or GPL licenced or LGPL-licenced. But when I'm writing code, it's GPL GPL GPL GPL, unless I'm contributing to another free-software project using a different free software licence.

I don't know why the fuck people get so hung up on licence as it's such a insignificant thing in the scheme of things.

...

[Aloone_Jonez]

Whenever I'm chosing software, non-free software is out of the question. Why? Because, I believe that non-free sofware is an insult_to_humanity_and_development. "I wrote X. I own X. You will give me Y in return for X. You are not allowd to modify X in any way. You must not distribute X in anyway. .

The software creator is providing you with software for a fee. How is it suck an insult to humanity that someone provides a service to you in return for something?

What would be an insult to humanity is if people couldn't create software and receive something in return for it. :rolleyes:

I wrote X. I own you." (couldn't resist that last sentence) Just read the damn MS EULA. There's no way I can reproduce it making it somehow look more insulting.

Right, now you're making sense, there's should be more laws in place to restrict the conditions software vendors can place on their users but what you're suggesting goes to the other extreme - communism. :rolleyes:

Free software, on the other hand, is the right way to go.
EDIT: after that, when I'm chosing software, I give no crap if it's BSD-licenced or GPL licenced or LGPL-licenced. But when I'm writing code, it's GPL GPL GPL GPL, unless I'm contributing to another free-software project using a different free software licence.
...

So if you owned a business and you had a choice bewteen two pieces of software, one is free but will only serve half your needs and the other is perfect for you but costs

[piratePenguin]

The software creator is providing you with software for a fee. How is it suck an insult to humanity that someone provides a service to you in return for something?

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to everything but that.
Quite a difference.

What would be an insult to humanity is if people couldn't create software and receive something in return for it. :rolleyes:

Right, now you're making sense, there's should be more laws in place to restrict the conditions software vendors can place on their users but what you're suggesting goes to the other extreme - communism. :rolleyes:

You misinterpreted what I said.

So if you owned a business and you had a choice bewteen two pieces of software, one is free but will only serve half your needs and the other is perfect for you but costs

[Aloone_Jonez]

Read my post again PROPERLY ffs :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What were you trying to say then?

"It's wrong for a company to write a piece of software and for them to keep the source to themselves and impose certain restrictions on how people are allowed to use the binary.

All software should be free, and companies should have release the source code, and people can do what the like with it providing they adhere to the GPL, BSD or whatever."

My point about you not being very good at making money is true if you would use some inferior freesoftware over some better although much more expensive propietry sofware. This would indicate you have no idea about getting value for money and to make money you need an idea of what value for money is.

My point of view is if you write a piece of software you can do what the fuck you like with it (get used to it) providing you own all of the code. If you want you can release it under the GPL (which is communism although by your own choice) if you like or if you want to make serious money you can keep your trade secrets.

The biggest problem with Microsoft is not the ELUA (altough if doesn't help things) it's the lack of competition. This debate is silly really since you're the user you can choose what software you use and sure you should look at the licence but it shouldn't be the final deturmining factor in your choice, value for money should be.

[piratePenguin]

What were you trying to say then?

"It's wrong for a company to write a piece of software and for them to keep the source to themselves and impose certain restrictions on how people are allowed to use the binary.

Exactly. Except I said that it's an insult to humanity etc.

All software should be free, and companies should have release the source code, and people can do what the like with it providing they adhere to the GPL, BSD or whatever."

Now that you added in yourself, but. Good.

My point about you not being very good at making money is true if you would use some inferior freesoftware over some better although much more expensive propietry sofware. This would indicate you have no idea about getting value for money and tomake money you need an idea of what value for money is.

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?

My point of view is if you write a piece of software you can do what the fuck you like with it (get used to it) providing you own all of the code. If you want you can release it under the GPL (which is communism although by your own choice) if you like or if you want tomake serious money you can keep your trade secrets.

Elaborate on the GPL == communism bit please.

The biggest problem with Microsoft is not the ELUA (altough if doesn't help things) it's the lack of competition.

The EULA as an example of a non-free software licence. And non-free software is a big problem.

If you rented a one bedroom appartment (for one person only), and before renting it you had to agree that only you could step inside it... Alot of people would see this as a problem. EDIT: Why they don't realise similar problems with non-free software, I don't understand. The licences clearly state "You must not allow anyone else to use this software. Blahblahblah.".

This debate is silly really since you're the user you can choose what software you use

In that case, there is no problem with Microsoft whatsoever.

and sure you should look at the licence but it shouldn't be the final deturmining factor in your choice, value for money should be.

That's your opinion. I believe otherwise.

[toadlife]

The only way GPL can be used in the enterprise is with the de-facto technologies, like HTML/XHTML clients/servers (Apache), OpenGL (mesa, SDL), X-window system (X.org, XFree86)

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.