MS-DOS Date

[Aloone_Jonez]

No, GNU shouldn't welcome non-free software. They did it with the LGPL, but now I'm kinda thinking that they didn't do if because of this, but they did it because very quickly somone would've made another C library that would alow non-free software to link to, more people would use it, and perhaps, GNU would have to eventually too.

The GPL wouldn't stop people from compiling proprietary software for Linux anyway, I could dynamically link my proprietary code to a GPL library and this wouldn't violate the licence because my program wouldn't actually contain any of the code.

People need at least a small bit of money (or a large bit of money), to pay for whatever they need (quite a confusing term).

Most people only earn enough for themselves and maybe their family (and the government). If they had to give a "vast majority" of it to charity (that does, I think, qualify as sharing), they would be at a tremendous loss (depending on how much they earn and how much they share, they could be unable to pay rent and buy food.).

However, for some people, sharing a vast majority of what they earn wouldn't be such a danger (e.g. Bill Gates).

You're only mentioning a big fat money grabing company here, what about the small proprietary software developer who's writing a small database application for a small company? They're only earning not earning a fat cat sallery and neither are they taking over the entire industry, how are they evil?

That might be true, but I can't really see this ever happening.

Well it does in the hardware industry and even in the software industry when it comes to things other than Office software and operating systems, I can name many diffreant drawing programs all competing with each other there's, Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw, Micrografix Draw, Inkscape and Openoffice Draw. all of which co-exist happily without any trouble.

Microsoft isn't the first software company with a monopoly, and they might not be the last either.

I can't think of any other company, at first I was going to suggest Adobe but their format's open and they do have many significant competitiion.

Having read that (the rest of the post), I'm still not convinced.

Well I didn't hope to convince you I just wanted you to look at things from another perspective.

A web-browser is a very important tool. If Opera allowd it, I would say that alot (probably most) of GNU/Linux distributions would ship with  the non-free Opera web-browser.

Yes they would and no doubt they'd also ship Firefox too, most Linux distributions come with three or so pieces of software capable of performing similar functions.

Firefox would have less users and developers,

That's competition for you.

and in the future when new technologies are invented for the web,

That's interesting you're now talking about inventions which leads nicely on to innovation something that Mozilla Firofox isn't in fact it's no more innovitive than Internet Explorer, all its features are coppied from elsewhere, it's only popular because it's free.

it'll be increasingly difficult to survive supporting only free software.

There are very few completely free GNU/Linux distributions out there (but that depends on what you mean by "completely free GNU/Linux distributions"). Most come with Java, and other less-significant non-free software.

I can see your point here, your main fear that proprietary  software could become an essential evil in your otherwize clean free operating system, you've mentiond Java, but what would you have done if Sun hadn't ported Java? Would you GNU lot have gone about the traditional Linux approach of bashing togeather an inferiour half-baked only semmi-working alternative? You could say "hey I know it's shit but at least it's totally free" would this be really worth the trouble when it'd just put more roadblocks in front of people who want to use your operating system?

I'd also like to ask you, you seem to be very happy with your situation at the moment, why do you think this will/could change?

I don't think explitically allowing non-free software on GNU will further GNU's cause (freedom), but I'd like to think otherwise.

I know I've made this point before, but how would doing something that would potentially increase the use of GNU Linux which is free software reduce people's freedom in general? Increasing Linux's userbase will also encourage the development of free soiftware which would be great.

In what way do I seem to be blaming them?

Sorry, I suppose that was a bad choice of words, my point is you are being selfish by not careing for other people who hve other needs than your own.

I know my situation is pretty damn good. I know some other people's isn't so good. I don't know how important it is to them that they don't support non-free software. But I can narrow it down a small bit to: most people don't give a fuck. And IMO that's partly the reason that non-free everything and other (even slight) evils (or non-ideals) are so common in this world.

That's true your opinion only represents a small minority, so why do you want to make everyone else suffer because of what you believe is right? Why should I and many other people have to indure Windows just because a very small minority of people don't want vendors who produce the software we use to develop Linux versions of their products? So what even if you believe it might make life slightly harder for yourself (and I do doubt this) what about everyone else surely they are just as important if not even more so.

[Orethrius]

You know, I this thread has a lot of Fuckidycocktards.

 Just one that I can see.  

Having said that, I long for the days when people could agree to disagree, particularly when neither party is going to convince the other that their particular viewpoint qualifies as absolute truth.

[worker201]

Aloone_Jonez is wrong.
PiratePenguin is wrong.

Worker201 is right.
(hehe, worker201 is drinking!)

[piratePenguin]

The GPL wouldn't stop people from compiling proprietary software for Linux anyway, I could dynamically link my proprietary code to a GPL library and this wouldn't violate the licence

No you can't, actually.

You're only mentioning a big fat money grabing company here, what about the small proprietary software developer who's writing a small database application for a small company? They're only earning not earning a fat cat sallery and neither are they taking over the entire industry, how are they evil?

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?

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.

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.

Well it does in the hardware industry and even in the software industry when it comes to things other than Office software and operating systems, I can name many diffreant drawing programs all competing with each other there's, Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw, Micrografix Draw, Inkscape and Openoffice Draw. all of which co-exist happily without any trouble.

How well do Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw and Micrografix (whom I've never heard of) Draw read eachothers file formats?

I can't think of any other company, at first I was going to suggest Adobe but their format's open and they do have many significant competitiion.

There doesn't need to be any other company yet. Microsoft won't be gone for a long long time, most likely.

Yes they would and no doubt they'd also ship Firefox too, most Linux distributions come with three or so pieces of software capable of performing similar functions.

True.

That's competition for you.

If Opera was free, we could have two browsers of near-equal brilliance.

That's sharing for you.

That's interesting you're now talking about inventions which leads nicely on to innovation something that Mozilla Firofox isn't in fact it's no more innovitive than Internet Explorer, all its features are coppied from elsewhere

Netscape was the most innovative web-browser to date. Everyone is copying it.

I can see your point here, your main fear that proprietary  software could become an essential evil in your otherwize clean free operating system, you've mentiond Java, but what would you have done if Sun hadn't ported Java? Would you GNU lot have gone about the traditional Linux approach of bashing togeather an inferiour half-baked only semmi-working alternative? You could say "hey I know it's shit but at least it's totally free" would this be really worth the trouble when it'd just put more roadblocks in front of people who want to use your operating system?

Err, no. gcj

If fact, if Sun never ported Java to GNU/Linux, I'd say gcj would probably have never been started.
There's no real need for an alternative to Java (as a language).

I'd also like to ask you, you seem to be very happy with your situation at the moment, why do you think this will/could change?

How couldn't it? There's non-free software everywhere. It significantly out numbers free software.

I've already answered this question with the Opera/Firefox bit.
But that's by no means the only way the situation for me could change.

I know I've made this point before, but how would doing something that would potentially increase the use of GNU Linux which is free software reduce people's freedom in general?

Well that's not all there is to it. Especially if people are switching to GNU/Linux just because of the non-free software.

Sorry, I suppose that was a bad choice of words, my point is you are being selfish by not careing for other people who hve other needs than your own.

Then in what way should I be caring for them?

That's true your opinion only represents a small minority, so why do you want to make everyone else suffer because of what you believe is right? Why should I and many other people have to indure Windows just because a very small minority of people don't want vendors who produce the software we use to develop Linux versions of their products? So what even if you believe it might make life slightly harder for yourself (and I do doubt this) what about everyone else surely they are just as important if not even more so.

You would all be able to use GNU/Linux at your will.


After reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html (again), I partly forgive GNU for inventing the LGPL.

[skyman8081]

What about the freedom to keep code to yourself?

You seem to be advocating the forced sharing of code, something I just can't do.

Information may 'want' to be free, but it often doesn't need to be.

Since your so adamant about sharing, why don't you share your social security number with us.

[piratePenguin]

You seem to be advocating the forced sharing of code

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.

Since your so adamant about sharing, why don't you share your social security number with us.

Don't even know what it means :p

[Aloone_Jonez]

No you can't, actually.

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?

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?

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.

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.

You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.

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.

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.  

How well do Adobe Illustrator, Correl Draw and Micrografix (whom I've never heard of) Draw read eachothers file formats?

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.

There doesn't need to be any other company yet. Microsoft won't be gone for a long long time, most likely.

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.

If Opera was free, we could have two browsers of near-equal brilliance.

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.

Netscape was the most innovative web-browser to date.

Netscape was the real pioneer of the web back in the early 90's however nowadays Opera is far more innovitave.

Err, no. gcj

But it's still following a Java a proprietary platform

If fact, if Sun never ported Java to GNU/Linux, I'd say gcj would probably have never been started.

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.

I've already answered this question with the Opera/Firefox bit.

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.

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.

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.

Then in what way should I be caring for them?

Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?

You would all be able to use GNU/Linux at your will.

No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.

After reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html (again), I partly forgive GNU for inventing the LGPL.

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]

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?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

Yes they could, and I have never disputed this, but how is not sharing code anymore immoral than sharing money

Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.

You tell that to Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.

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.

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.

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.

oh no you're going to flame me becase the later are M$ formats!

Actually I wasn't.

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 would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.

And, those people should be bitching to Sun.

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.

Ofcourse I would.

Alright, I'll turn this around then, why should they care for people who only use their OS to avoid proprietary software?

I'm not looking for love :p.

No, my will is to use Linux but I can't because it won't run the software I need.

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.

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.

Evident where?

I quote again:

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.

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

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

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.

Because most people don't earn enough money to share without huge consequences. If they did, then I'd agree with you.

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.

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.

That's companies for you - out for their own gain rather than contributing to the greater good.

They don't have to licence their software under the GPL in order for it to be free.

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.

If they're selling it to only one customer, they can keep the code until that customer buys it.

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.

There would be no Java trap. OpenOffice.org might not be using Java.

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:

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.

And, those people should be bitching to Sun.

Normally I'd agree with you but if GNU Linux didn't allow proprietary software then I would directly blame the free software foundation.

I'm not looking for love :p.

Don't worry I love you 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.

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.

Evident where?

By the way it's worded:

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.

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.

Do you agree that non-free is the way things shouldn't be?

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.

[piratePenguin]

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.

You can make money from free software - lots of people and companies do it.

If Sun weren't allowed to release Java on Linux then they wouldn't have been allowed Star Office

Star Office would still have existed, and they might well have released a free office suite. They could possibly have made Star Office free software, just so they could release it for GNU/Linux.

Anything could've happened, and it proves nothing.

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 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.

Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?

I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!

[skyman8081]

Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?

I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!

No, that's just you pulling a strawman out of your ass.

[Aloone_Jonez]

You can make money from free software - lots of people and companies do it.

Where did I say that?
If you read my post again I said it depends on your source of revenue, if it's purely from the software itself then an open source licence probably isn't for you but if it's purly from the services and support you're providing from it then it might be right up your street.

Star Office would still have existed, and they might well have released a free office suite. They could possibly have made Star Office free software, just so they could release it for GNU/Linux.

It's possible I suppose but there again so are lots of things.

The main point is kicking proprietary software off GNU/Linux won't gain it any new users nor will it encourage people to develop innovitve new software for it, so I only can draw the conclusion that (apart from a very small minority who would only be pleased by this decision only on the gounds that they believe they might feel forced to use non-free software), the community as a whole will far be worse off without it.

Anything could've happened, and it proves nothing.

Neither does your response.

Are you suggesting that non-free software is inherently better than free software?

I didn't mean to imply this, all I was doing was highlighting areas where free software lacks or has completely missed altogether.

Notice how there is a great selection of games released under proprierary licences yet there are few free ones? an the same goes for engineering software.

I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence for that!

I wasn't suggesting that but can you provide any strong evidence to prove otherwise?

I can't, all I can do is provide aguements to suggest why open source is supposed to be better but there again there is also no real hard evidence to back up these claims.

[Orethrius]

No, that's just you pulling a strawman out of your ass.

Actually, given the respective speakers and their polarised opinions, the ONLY two statements that make ANY sense right there are either "FOSS is better than non-FOSS," or "non-FOSS is better than FOSS." Quid erat demonstratum, no "strawman" is to be had here.  Die dulci freure. :p

[skyman8081]

You know, having such a big stick up my ass, it does get sore after a while.