gnu=borg - discuss

[skyman8081]

If you don't share everying, then you are HOARDING and STEALING important peices of code.  That if you just GPL'ed them, they would magically become 100000 times better.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Well I'm a satan incarnate because I've not GPL'd that old Connect 4 game I wrote in QBASIC many years ago. I really wish I'd GPL'd it as it would've become a super fast state of the art game with real time 3D graphics, be voice activated and be able to learn from it's mistakes too.

[piratePenguin]

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

That's competition.

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

And YOU

LOST.
Shame is right.

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

Well ain't thata bitch!

Think about what you just said. You might learn one of the many reasons so many people love (and hate) the GNU GPL.

Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.

Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.

You obviously have no idea of how big Protel is then read as big as Windows.

That BIG?! Whoa. Well, we'll see...

Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.

Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.

So it's alright for a company to make a profit from making films but it's wrong for them to profit from proprietary software.

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.

non-free softare! is this a typo or is it a change of heart?

Neither. WTF? :confused:

No steal my ideas, stupid.

And how are they gonna do that? Stupid.

How does it make them evil?

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.

Would you apply the same logic to music films and other art forms?

No. I've wasted enough time on this thread only to be mis-interpreted 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.

How does ohms law have any relation to copyrights, he discovered something you can't copyright a discovery can you?

I guess not.
But when you think about it, what he did wasn't all that different to writing a piece of software. You think, discover something, and write it down.
"Buy rights to Ohm's law" "Buy rights to a series of ones and zeros".

OK that is quite stupid. Forget it.

[piratePenguin]

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.

This is a conversation about free software versus non-free software. Not Windows verus GNU/Linux.

I don't agree with non-free software, and I won't use it so long as I can help it. Just like anyone who doesn't like Microsoft would do the same, switch non-free software for Microsoft.

I was a LOT like you when I was in your place.

I doubt it. But even if you were, the fact that you fucked up doesn't necessarily mean that it's inevitable that I will.

I  genuinely believed what RMS said, then I grew up.

You grew up?

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

That's because Microsoft and the Opera developers have alot of full-time developers.

Well I'm a satan incarnate because I've not GPL'd that old Connect 4 game I wrote in QBASIC many years ago. I really wish I'd GPL'd it as it would've become a super fast state of the art game with real time 3D graphics, be voice activated and be able to learn from it's mistakes too.

That'd be pretty sweet.

[worker201]

I don't agree with non-free software

What the fuck does that mean?  Personally, I don't agree with fish, Phish, or lawnmowers.  But they exist nonetheless.

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.

And let me tell you, Linus, RMS, ESR, Larry Wall, and all the others, are not poor.  They get plenty of money from their day jobs.  This whole Linux thing, if you boil it down to bare nothingness, is nothing more than a huge hobby, or kernel fanclub.  Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, one of the main reasons I started using Linux was anti-capitalistic.  A box of SuSE is only $30, after all.  Now that I have the experience, I can see the quality difference and appreciate what the developers are trying to do.  Of course somebody who uses Windows probably can't see that in the same way I do.  And that's fine, whatever.

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.

[DBX_5]

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.

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]

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.

...

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

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.

Don't be so pig ignorant, either answer my question or don't comment at all.

I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.

non-free softare! is this a typo or is it a change of heart?

As in "switch MS ALONG with non-free SW FOR FSW"

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.

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)

That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.

Not since Red Hat.

[Aloone_Jonez]

That's competition.
And YOU

LOST.

Shame is right.
Well ain't thata bitch!

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.

Think about what you just said. You might learn one of the many reasons so many people love (and hate) the GNU GPL.

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.

That BIG?! Whoa. Well, we'll see...

If you're that gooder programmer then you'd be better off working for them than trying to emulate them.

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.

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.

Neither. WTF? :confused:

It must've been a typo then:

Well that's what I'm doing, switch MS with non-free software.

Don't worry we all make these - even more so in these heated debates.

And how are they gonna do that? Stupid.

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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.

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.

But when you think about it, what he did wasn't all that different to writing a piece of software.

Well he might've been able to patent it, I don't know.

You think, discover something, and write it down.

Discovering something is differant to software - it's finding something out while writing software is design.

"Buy rights to Ohm's law" "Buy rights to a series of ones and zeros".

Well if you look at it like that it's the same as anything elese whether it be a book or a film. :rolleyes:

OK that is quite stupid. Forget it.

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.

[Aloone_Jonez]

...

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.

Exactly once public you have to share.

I don't think your question was comprehensible, nor relevant.

Alright I'll explain:

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?

When you "buy" some proprietary software from a shop you don't own it you're renting it, what's so bad about this?

how is using non-free software any worse than buying a DVD or CD?

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?

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.

I see your point but the same arguement is true with DVDs and CDs.

2)

That other type, which needs a better name, is GNU/GPL/etc stuff, which is not produced for sale.

Not since Red Hat.

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.

[solo]

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

The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project. You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.

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.

The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)

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

Funny you should mention Redhat

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

Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.

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

When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.

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

Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.

Oh yes it does if they have to pay

[Aloone_Jonez]

The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project.

I was refering to another company using my code and creating a competing product licencend under the GPL. If I hadn't GPL'd the code in the first place they'd have to start from srcatch, they wouldn't have the head start of haiving acess to my code.

You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.

I understand this, Sun have done this by releasing Star Office under a proprietary licence and OpenOffice under the GPL.

The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product

I've already mentioned this please read the last paragraph of my previous post.

as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)

So is some of the software in their distrobution proprietary too? Wow they're fucking evil!

Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.

The "business mistake" was releasing the source code thus allowing the competitor to develop their own version, even though it was shitty they made it sell more than I did because of thier stronger marketing policy.

When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.

Well I woudn't be in the situation I'm in if I'd kept the source secret in the first place.

Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.

I understand this Sun Star Office OpenOffice again.

However what if I didn't want to be like Sun, I've GPL'd my program, now I want to create a proprietary version, but there will still be the source code from the previous release scattered all over the Internet. I can't just order people to distroy their copies of the source code can I?

Wrong again. GPL does not require you to provide working binaries, it only requires you to provide source code. A lot of distributions make money by providing a good distro in binaries for sale but only providing individual source RPMs to fulfill the source requirements for the GPL.

Where did I say anything about binaries? People can compile it themselves. My point still remains valid, under the proprietary licence they had to pay me to use my software and under the GPL they don't owe me a penny.

Could I release the binaries under a proprietary licence? I should be able to do that if I own the copyright, but it'd only apply to the binaries themselves, so someone elese could just compile it and stick it on thier website so I still gain

[Jenda]

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.

For their own GAIN??? What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.

Count me out from this thread.

My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.

[Aloone_Jonez]

For their own GAIN???

I meant to make money.

What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.

In my opinion the GPL isn't as gooder licence for making a profit as a proprietary licence, and Adobe, Microsoft and Apple have proved this as they're all worth more than any Linux company.

Count me out from this thread.

I fear this thread will burst into flames in the end - the free software vs proprietary software debate always does at some point. Until then I'll stick to my point, I'm not trying to convince the people I'm disagreeing with, my motive is to prove a point to on lookers who are not actively involved and let them make up thier own minds.

My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.

In that respect I agree with this vision of everyone sharing everything, but we live in the real word where companies have to compete with each other and keep their ideas secret from each other in order to do so, and no they're not evil for doing so.

[Aloone_Jonez]

From, this post in the another thread.

Microsoft is gonna be gone, if not by the hands of us, then by the hands of Apple, who is only getting more powerful.

How would we be better of with Apple in a monopoly position, another company out to make money and doesn't just own the OS but also the hardware?

What I'm saying is Microsoft already made the critical mistake. They already gave us a way to get a piece of the dotnet cake. Even if they introduce new APIs (they are with Longhorn) we will still make an open version now that Microsoft gave us the base platform. These Longhorn Linux APIs don't have to be centralized: they can be optional and available when needed by a Longhorn .NET app is run on Linux.

Thank you, you've just explained for me why it's bad for most companies to release their code under the GPL, they've made the same business mistake as I have in the hypothetical senario I was talking about earlier on.