gnu=borg - discuss

[piratePenguin]

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

If they infringe the licence, then you can sue them. And if the don't, you'll just have to do better.

From the GPL


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

The FSF/GNU don't own Linux. Linus Torvalds and a whole load of other people own Linux.

That's only part of the preamble anyhow.
It is quite confusing. The FSF/GNU don't (can't?) copyright your software. Maybe it's there because they do copyright their software and the GPL was written for their software.
Or maybe it's because e.g. whenever I read linux/COPYING, and I read "we protect your rights by..." it's as if the Linux people are talking to the end-user.

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.

If the software that suits all my needs happens to be owned by a bunch of assholes who are only interested in making money and try to restrict me in every way imaginable, I'll develop an alternative (and generally there always are good alternatives to use/develop).

If I was to start supporting a non-free product, like anyone who dislikes Microsoft would support Microsoft, I/you would be supporting something that even myself/youself see as evil. So.....

"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and
  decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it
  means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system       with
  his or her whole soul."     -Mahatma Gandhi

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

Hm?
The thing is, you always would have full control of your code regardless of how many other people there are out there like me.

[piratePenguin]

Like most GNU/Linux distributions are GPL or LGPL.

A distribution is just a set of packages which use alot of different licences.

On single projects, like Apache, GPL might be for the worse ...

Linux is a single project, and it's licenced under the GPL.
The Apache licence is alot like the GPL.

[Jenda]

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).
...

[Aloone_Jonez]

If they infringe the licence, then you can sue them.

That's the same if they any infringe any other licence agrement.

And if the don't, you'll just have to do better.

What the fuck?
Suppose I write a program and decide to sell it for

[Kintaro]

Yeah, they can take your code and follow the GPL, that is the whole bloody point of the GPL. It is there to protect code and more programmers than just yourself. It is there to protect the community. If a bigger cometitor decided to use some GPL code and release it again under the GPL it is perfectly within their right and done often. Because it isn't about competition, it is about sharing. It is the exact opposite.

[Jenda]

how is using non-free software any worse than buying a DVD or CD? Film and record companies make a lot of money too you know.

There is no alternative, besides piracy. This could be called art, and that's different from SW.

[Kintaro]

There is no alternative, besides piracy. This could be called art, and that's different from SW.

Personally I think art should be free (as in freedom) as well, as do a lot of people. That is why there are Creative Commons licences and Indie musicians that use them for example. However for things that are expensive to produce like motion pictures, it can be questionable. However if people in the movie industry were not shallow and selfish they could easily pull off a free movie. In fact it has been done, Micheal Moore gave people permission to pirate Farhenhiet 9/11.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Some people would call software art.

I don't see anything wrong with people writing software and not wanting to share it, I earn money and I don't share most of it. I don't see any difference in writing software in order to make money and not sharing either the money or the software.

This seems verry silly, someone releases a film and I suspect most of here won't have a problem with paying to see it at the cinma, but if a piece of non-free software released you're like OMG non-free software this is evil!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Personally I think art should be free (as in freedom) as well, as do a lot of people. That is why there are Creative Commons licences and Indie musicians that use them for example. However for things that are expensive to produce like motion pictures, it can be questionable. However if people in the movie industry were not shallow and selfish they could easily pull off a free movie. In fact it has been done, Micheal Moore gave people permission to pirate Farhenhiet 9/11.

That's an interesting concept, my point of view is just because someone doesn't want their creation to be free it doesn't make them evil.

[piratePenguin]

That's the same if they any infringe any other licence agrement.

Exactly.

Suppose I write a program and decide to sell it for

[piratePenguin]

That's an interesting concept, my point of view is just because someone doesn't want their creation to be free it doesn't make them evil.

I think that it does.

Imagine if non-free was all the go whenever that Ohm dude and friends were about.
Wouldn't it just be brilliant!

[Kintaro]

Productivly open models are better than closed models.

Also, think of it that this is not your planet and that it is our planet and respect that and you will understand the importance of sharing is far greater than you seem to imagine.

[Aloone_Jonez]

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).

But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.

And yes more money needs to be made than just enough to cover the packaging and programmers, more is needed to be invested to get more programmers on the job and you can choose the programmers and since you've made more money you can aford better coders too.

Why that would be absolutely wonderful! More choice for the users! More competition!

Brilliant, shame about loosing all your customers to Redhat, too bad.

Don't think so. But that's not a bad thing (it is, of course, if you can't write shit. Or compete.).
"proposed", what?

Version of the program, suppose your next version is better than Redhat's but theirs sells more because thier marketing strategy is better.

Nope. You might aswel develop Redhat's version, if it's any better.

Too bad if it's shitt, anyway if you can't beat them then join them.

And most of the time, Redhat and the like (also any programmers) don't make their own version (fork) of the software, they just develop it and submit changes to the maintainers (you).

Now that would be fair but you've got no garantie that they're going to do this.

He doesn't own it and it is not likely that any single entity ever will.
If he owned it all, he could licence future versions under another licence. But linux-2.6.12.5 will forever be licenced under the GNU GPL.

Sorry, I forgot Linux isn't entirely his work.

:eek:

Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.

WTF has this got to do with their wages FFS? This is getting annoying. Using a non-free licence doesn't make your wages any fatter.

Oh yes it does if they have to pay

[skyman8081]

piratePenguin, when you grow up, and get out of high school.

Maybe then you will see that not every solution works for the same person.  And that people hate blind crusading.

I was a LOT like you when I was in your place.  I  genuinely believed what RMS said, then I grew up.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Productivly open models are better than closed models.

That isn't always the case, Opera has more features than FireFox, MS Office has a grammar checker Ooo has none.

Also, think of it that this is not your planet and that it is our planet and respect that and you will understand the importance of sharing is far greater than you seem to imagine.

Sharing is very important and I encourage it, but I fail to understand how not wishing to share everything makes you evil.