hi, could anybody explain me what differences the open source & the free software movements have? i mean both of them give the source code, they allow you to modify, redistribute. then why is this quarrel?
-- Registered Linux User #188850 Don't get mad, get Linux! --
Sometime Today, Harshal Patil assembled some asciibets to say:
could anybody explain me what differences the open source & the free software movements have? i mean both of them give the source code, they allow you to modify, redistribute. then why is this quarrel?
The difference is in what the name implies. According to Eric Raymond, the founder of the Open source movement, the term free software misleads people into believing that the software is free of cost, as you noticed today. He believes that open source better specifies what it means.
Stallman though, believes that open source does not say anything about whether one can modify or redistribute the source. Technically, open source only means that you can see the source.
The best option would be to name it in Hindi. Azad Software. I think Manish Jethani came up with something like this.
Philip
--- Philip S Tellis philip.tellis@iname.com wrote:
The best option would be to name it in Hindi. Azad Software. I think Manish Jethani came up with something like this.
Ya, it's been more than a year. Free as in Azaad. It's easier to explain to most Indians, really! Even French has different words for free beer and Free speech.
Manish
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
On Jul 17, 2001 at 22:04, Harshal Patil wrote:
could anybody explain me what differences the open source & thefree software movements have? i mean both of them give the source code, they allow you to modify, redistribute. then why is this quarrel?
It's in the details, and in the philosophical issues. Practically, there is no difference unless you want to make a legal case out of it; maybe not even then.
I am not a lawyer.
--- Harshal Patil harshal1234@sify.com wrote:
hi, could anybody explain me what differences the open source & the free software movements have? i mean both of them give the source code, they allow you to modify, redistribute. then why is this quarrel?
ok, i see that today's lecture by RMS has raised a few queries and also replies. i'd like to reply to the above post and also add my 2 cents. let me first start with a disclaimer.
THIS IS PURELY MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY OPINION. YMMV.
first lets look at your question. when you say FSF, i boldly assume what you really mean is GNU/GPL. FSF has several licences, the most important being GPL (as said by RMS today).
Open source says that the piece of code is yours to play with. do whatever the hell you want with it, redistribute it, modify it, nuke japan with it. simple and short and sweet.
GNU/GPL is all of the above, but goes a little further. It says whatever you do with the code, you give it away with the GPL license in tact. In short, you can modify it but cant restrict the modified code with your own non-disclosure contract or whatever the companies restrict propreitory code with. So theres kind of a binding that you cannot take away one's freedom. In other words, where the code goes, freedom goes along with it.
Now with that in place, i would like to put forth my views on RMS's philosophy.
I DONT COMPLETELY AGREE WITH IT! SIMPLE. And here's why...
RMS talks about freedom not only in the context of software, but freedom as a way of life. Freedom to be able to do what we want and not be restricted with licences and laws and whatever else not. And in the same breath, i hear him vehemently saying, requesting, pushing, forcing, psyching people into using only GNU/GPL'ed software. Now is HE giving people freedom to use what they want ? Is that giving people freedom to choose the kind of software they want ?
Besides, if there was one thing I hated, it was bashing MS. Well, i still feel Outlook Express rocks! but thats my opinion. Also my opinion is that its not cool to bash one to prove a point.
Freedom for me is when I can choose what I want. Not when I am presented with just one option and asked to choose !!
I love linux, so great i have been using it. I tried FreeBSD, loved it. Now im using that (too). I may shift to HURD, or OpenBSD or whatever i want. The point is, I exercise MY freedom to choose what I want.
According to RMS, debian is the true GNU/GPL distro, and none else. Well, he is right. but so what ?
The bottomline is, within RMS's framework of freedom, there is NO freedom.
What I did like is his commitment towards GNU/GPL. But then thats about his personal trait.
I say, use whatever you want. thats freedom.
If you do not agree to anything mentioned above, read my disclaimer, and deal !
cheerio, - sagar.
P.S: save your bouquets and brickbats to another occassion, unless its gonna enhance the quality of this thread !
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
On Wednesday 18 July 2001 03:47, Sagar wrote:
GNU/GPL is all of the above, but goes a little further. It says whatever you do with the code, you give it away with the GPL license in tact. In short, you can modify it but cant restrict the modified code with your own non-disclosure contract or whatever the companies restrict propreitory code with. So theres kind of a binding that you cannot take away one's freedom. In other words, where the code goes, freedom goes along with it.
Now with that in place, i would like to put forth my views on RMS's philosophy.
I DONT COMPLETELY AGREE WITH IT! SIMPLE. And here's why...
RMS talks about freedom not only in the context of software, but freedom as a way of life. Freedom to be able to do what we want and not be restricted with licences and laws and whatever else not. And in the same breath, i hear him vehemently saying, requesting, pushing, forcing, psyching people into using only GNU/GPL'ed software. Now is HE giving people freedom to use what they want ? Is that giving people freedom to choose the kind of software they want ?
Most important. What he is saying is that you do not have the choice to restrict other peoples freedom, having reaped the benefits. In short no exploitation.
Besides, if there was one thing I hated, it was bashing MS. Well, i still feel Outlook Express rocks! but thats my opinion. Also my opinion is that its not cool to bash one to prove a point.
Have you got socked in the face? Believe me it is indeed painful and requires you to react, usuallly with a bigger better sock. Uncivilised behaviour perhaps but quite justified and wholly essential to your well being. Outlook express etc. can you use it with Linux, freeBSD, Solaris. Why? The answer will immediately debunk your next statement.
Freedom for me is when I can choose what I want. Not when I am presented with just one option and asked to choose !!
According to RMS, debian is the true GNU/GPL distro, and none else. Well, he is right. but so what ?
The bottomline is, within RMS's framework of freedom, there is NO freedom.
Within this framework there is no freedom to take away the freedom due to others.
Further, the issues involved are much wider than computing. It is about freedom to use your Intellect. Licenses, patents, copyrights etc infringe upon the one capital that everyone is born with - Intellect. If scientific & social advancements (which made computing possible in the first place) were encumbered with patents and copyrights the vast majority of humanity would still be in the stoneage. Products and services succeed in the market not because of restrictions but because they enable you to achieve something easily. I wonder what would happen if you patented soap, ice cream & shoes and copyrighted sanskrit which is the parent language for most modern languages (well you could have sued the pants of M$).
Sagar wrote:
<a lot about his impressions on freedom>
Well, what do you guess, I agree with both - RMS and you!
What you are talking about is the freedom of choice, and the Free Software Movement is trying to promote the freedom of "use" (for lack of a better word) and it is just one way to establish the freedom of choice.
There are other ways too - like creating proprietary software that provide you with many options of doing something that you want to do. But that is possible only when the different softwares adhere to standards and promise to interoperate no matter what. But that doesn't seem to be happening very well, the basic reason being that all the companies and not just M$ are trying to lock people in on their way of doing things. By deliberately introducing incompatibilities, they restrict the freedom of choice.
This problem does not arise with free software, because here the user is king. The direction of software is not dictated by only a bunch of companies for whome the money is more important; instead it is controlled by the community at large. I always feel that the big companies are rarely involved in software development because they want to enhance the standard of living - they are here simply because it pays richly to be a software company, and they have a tendency to lose sight of the users' freedom, be it of any kind. But the free software movement does not have this hang-up.
i hear him vehemently saying, requesting, pushing, forcing, psyching people into using only GNU/GPL'ed software.
That's a strong accusation to make ... I didn't see any vehemence in his speech - he just keeps encouraging people to use GPL'ed software.
I think he explicitly told people to think about it and make their own choice. And then he said if they decided to follow GPL, the should be very committed to it and also make sure that they let everyone know about their choice.
Besides, if there was one thing I hated, it was bashing MS.
He didn't bash M$ just for the heck of it. He identified it as the immediate enemy. Again he explicitly mentioned that it was not just M$, it was the whole tendency of restricting use of software through license agreement.
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi There, THIS IS PURELY MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY OPINION. YMMV. (same disclaimer goes for me)
RMS talks about freedom not only in the context of software, but freedom as a way of life. Freedom to be
OK True -
same breath, i hear him vehemently saying, requesting, pushing, forcing, psyching people into using only GNU/GPL'ed software. Now is HE giving people freedom
True again - If we forget that everyone can have his own analysis about what RMS said, and how vehemently he said it - But we need to remember one FACT - Wotever RMS says - it is an individuals statement - though because of his public image, it may get magnified - it is much much lesser (of consequence) than the corporate force being imposed upon ppl by the firms manufacturing Proprietary S/W. RMS saying something in a public meet and asking ppl to leave something is different form a firm asking all of its' users, developers, and others concerned to remain mum... Worse is resorting to Legal measures to ensure that :)
but thats my opinion. Also my opinion is that its not cool to bash one to prove a point.
Agree with this... But one has to be providing examples to prove his point!!!
Freedom for me is when I can choose what I want. Not when I am presented with just one option and asked to choose !!
See, the point he wants to make is that when corporates resort to non-Disclosure agreements, trying to make things incompatible, trying to raise costs on the basis of patents and limit the reusability of code - they curb freedom - That Xerox example - And again - this proves he wasnt just MS bashing - He was non-free bashing - He even spoke against Suse - Xerox, Apple were also mentioned....
I say, use whatever you want. thats freedom.
That is whatwe need to do!!! Ensure that S/W remains interoperable - It shud not be that one S/W firm keeps its' stuff secret just to limit others from using it (the S/W) in a better manner. Bye, SP
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Using AVG antivirus Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/01
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
That is whatwe need to do!!! Ensure that S/W remains interoperable -It shud not be that one S/W firm keeps its' stuff secret just to limit others from using it (the S/W) in a better manner.
I pretty much agree with the general trend of this thread. Freedom == Good Thing (TM), Paying for software == Not so good (and so on and so forth)
One person asked the question "How do we make money out of free software?". RMS's answer was that there is no established recipe or business model that will make you money leveraging free software. I'm sure people are making some money out there, but it obviously isn't as much as the rest of the evil empire.
I make a living installing GNU/Linux and *BSD based mail and firewall boxen. I provide a service, people pay me. Now if by some divine intervention, my skills as a programmer were to get a really big boost and I was able to create software that was truly wonderful and useful, sure I'd like to give it away. GPL it even. But wait... I need to pay the phone bill, the rent, the electricity, the <insert favourite intoxicant> etc.
So I sell it. I'm sure I'd need some sort of license to release it. Realistically, it simply MUST have some restrictions on what the user can do with it. If he's able to legally just give it to another friend, I don't make money. So no rent, no phone, no power, no intoxicants. I choose to make a living providing a service, other choose to do it by selling software. Simplistic, yes, and yes, I understand that there are larger issues involved (e-patents, not being able to modify and distribute etc. etc.)
Microsoft and Adobe aren't the only software companies on the planet. Sure, they restrict your freedoms with their licenses, charge you exorbitantly etc., but I'm sure there are non-free software companies out there that do some decent bits of coding and sell it, without excessive restrictions in their licenses. I have definitely come across software that I would not mind paying for. There must be companies walking the middle path somewhere.
Another point, and it isn't necessarily here in any kind of sequence, is that IMHO, RMS's speech was political and social, much more than technical, or about GNU/Linux. He's an experienced hacker with roots in academia, seems to be morally upstanding, lives frugally, doesn't really want nice, shiny things and probably spends very little on wardrobe. About as much hermit-like one can be living in a modern, first world capitalistic country. Not too many people would be willing to make those sacrifices and even if they are willing, might not be in a position to do so.
RMS's philosophy is definitely perfect for one person - RMS. It works for him. He makes money. He's probably happy with life. Good Thing(TM).
The same philosophy doesn't exactly work for me. I'm sure there are others it doesn't work for. And incase you're wondering, I swing the BSD way these days.
<disclaimer> Mostly opinionated spewing, personal stuff. Realistic points of view invited. </diclaimer>
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
I make a living installing GNU/Linux and *BSD based mail and firewall
boxen.
I provide a service, people pay me. Now if by some divine intervention, my skills as a programmer were to get a really big boost and I was able to create software that was truly wonderful and useful, sure I'd like to give it away. GPL it even. But wait... I need to pay the phone bill, the rent, the electricity, the <insert favourite intoxicant> etc.
Wake up buddy, Red Hat makes money using Free software, Cygnus made money using free software. In fact, till the Microsoft came along even IBM, DEC and all the other major comp companies made money with free software.
So I sell it. I'm sure I'd need some sort of license to release it. Realistically, it simply MUST have some restrictions on what the user can
do
with it. If he's able to legally just give it to another friend, I don't make money. So no rent, no phone, no power, no intoxicants. I choose to
make
a living providing a service, other choose to do it by selling software.
RMS view does not prohibit you from making money selling software, even he (or rather the FSF) used to make money selling tapes of emacs etc, in the days before the Net. But the GPL simply forbids you from preventing others from reselling the software. Additionally, the GPL forces you to provide all necessary details that may be required by the customer to customize the software you provided to suit your needs. Is that too much to ask?
Simplistic, yes, and yes, I understand that there are larger issues
involved
(e-patents, not being able to modify and distribute etc. etc.)
Microsoft and Adobe aren't the only software companies on the planet.
Sure,
they restrict your freedoms with their licenses, charge you exorbitantly etc., but I'm sure there are non-free software companies out there that do some decent bits of coding and sell it, without excessive restrictions in their licenses. I have definitely come across software that I would not
mind
paying for. There must be companies walking the middle path somewhere.
I know from many companies like that, but for any one company like that there are 10 that behave like MS or Adobe. WTF, all DB companies now disallow the publishing of benchmarks on thier software. Among software companies, there is a continual race to reach the bottom of the ethical pit of this business. And because of apologists like you, they get away with it!
Another point, and it isn't necessarily here in any kind of sequence, is that IMHO, RMS's speech was political and social, much more than
technical,
or about GNU/Linux. He's an experienced hacker with roots in academia,
he has never been shy about the political nature of his movement. You want technical, go somewhere else, you want economic go to ESR, you want social, go to RMS.
Not too many people would be willing to make those sacrifices and even if they are willing, might not be in a position to do so.
He does not ask anyone to. He simply says that it is the duty of the software business to serve its customers and give them a fair deal. is that wrong to ask. RMS does not in the least mind people making billions as long as they are ethically made.
RMS's philosophy is definitely perfect for one person - RMS. It works for him. He makes money. He's probably happy with life. Good Thing(TM).
He makes money but uses it to advance the cause of the software programmer and customer. He does not spend it on himself. Please note that RMS is a better programmer than even Gosling, and Gosling is regarded as the maker of Java. If RMS wanted he could have made millions with far less effort. He chose not to, and think him for it, else, you would be busy paying a few hundred dollars per month to use the MSN network (the internet was based on free software, ok BSD software, still!), paying a few thousand dollars to use MS Windows and still be thanking MS and their likes for it!
The same philosophy doesn't exactly work for me. I'm sure there are others it doesn't work for. And incase you're wondering, I swing the BSD way
these
days.
Doesn't the BSD group feel a little cheesed off, after MS took thier TCP/IP code and without so much as a by-you-leave, used it for Windows and did not even bother to mention the fact anywere?
<disclaimer> Mostly opinionated spewing, personal stuff. Realistic points of view invited. </diclaimer>
sorry about the invectives, i read the disclaimer late, next time, put it on the top of the spiel, not at the end. Regards Pradeep
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Pradeep Vasudev wrote:
Please note that RMS is a better programmer than even Gosling, and Gosling is regarded as the maker of Java.
:) Do you consider yourself capable enough to judge who's a better programmer from amongst RMS and Gosling? :) :) :)
If RMS wanted he could have made millions with far less effort. He chose not to, and think him for it, else, you would
He could have made millions; I doubt whether it would've come with any less effort. Anyway, how do you know RMS hasn't already made millions?
Doesn't the BSD group feel a little cheesed off, after MS took thier TCP/IP code and without so much as a by-you-leave, used it for Windows and did not even bother to mention the fact anywere?
It's dere, it's dere! Run strings(1) over deir binaries!
Manish
On Wednesday 18 July 2001 19:57, Tushar Burman wrote:
----- Original Message -----
But wait... I need to pay the phone bill, the rent, the electricity, the LSD/Ecstasy etc.
So I sell it. I'm sure I'd need some sort of license to release it. Realistically, it simply MUST have some restrictions on what the user can do with it. If he's able to legally just give it to another friend, I don't make money.
You have the wrong business model. You are trying to sell a product to as many people as possible while simultaneously trying to prevent them from using it as they deem fit (which includes copying). One can assemble a motorbike with spares from the market - duly modified to kickass. There is a niche market for this. But if it does not kickass (or i prevent others from further customising) no body will buy it. Those who do not need the high performance will buy a standard model from abc & co. Why? cause it is cheaper than the one i assemble using spares - not because of fancy laws. All arguments regarding costs / economics put up by the software cos are a lot of hot air. In fact the automobile industry faces a whole lot of laws protecting the consumer and spends far more on their products. This is the exact opposite of the software industry. The same goes for any industry. You can buy a pc from an assembler or IBM. Would a law preventing people from buying any machine other than IBM be justified. A business built on artificially erected barriers designed to protect the minority is doomed to failure. As expertise grows in society premium goods aquire a commodity characteristics. Businesses then need customers to uniquely identify their products from those of competitors - BRANDING and the accompanying marketing baggage. Laws that prevent growth of and disbursement of knowledge within society so that only a few may benefit has no place in any society.
Not too many people would be willing to make those sacrifices and even if they are willing, might not be in a position to do so.
One need not be a hermit. But one need not be unprincipled either. Make your own value system and live by that.
Duplicating currency is another interesting industry having properties similiar to software and monopolised by the government. A responsible government does not need to print (create) and publish currency (software) as it can meet it's needs by judiciously utilising resources that enables users to create value. (called economic growth) Governments less responsible will tax (charge) arbitarily & print and publish when ever they need money, effectively diluting the worth of it's users. Govts do this under the guise of providing you great new services (.net) amongst other lofty ideals. In India and other countries with less responsible govt. we would be justified in duplicating money (in an attempt to reflect it's actual worth) but prevented by law which protects the government monopoly. So how do you protect the value of your money? By converting into a more stable and valuable currency say $ (GNU-Linux). But this is illegal. Why? as the people migrate to $ the Rs. will become more worthless and the $ more valuable. Who looses? The irresponsible government ofcourse. So govt. builds legal barriers and use the FERA (copyright) to nail the smart ones and call them smugglers, antinationals etc (viral, antiamerican etc.) and spreads FUD to con the ignorant. If the money is worthless nobody will use it, even the government. The government will now borrow $ (free BSD?) and sell it to you in Rs at a fat premium. At the same time they prevent you from borrowing (preventing OEMs from loading another OS) or converting (using your doc and xls files). The end result crashes, instability, suffering. Why? because of laws preventing freeflow of (intellectual) capital and equal rights.
The GPL tries to prevent the above state of affairs by allowing you the option of walking in the direction you please. You can migrate to any software. You can preserve the value of your work without paying fat premiums. You have access to the same resources as the fatcats. It prevents the fatcats from putting up barriers for others.
----- Original Message ----- From: "jtdyahoo" jtdesouza@yahoo.com To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right and other OT
You have the wrong business model. You are trying to sell a product to as many people as possible while simultaneously trying to prevent them from using it as they deem fit (which includes copying).
Yes, but this is the model that would achieve the end - making the most money. Is there a software business model that would make decent money and still allow the user to do what he wishes with the software? Frankly, I'd put my money in MS stock as opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like flamebait, but only to those who don't know me already.
One can assemble a motorbike with spares from the market - duly modified to kickass. There is a niche market for this. But if it does not kickass (or i prevent others from further customising) no body will buy it. Those who do not need the high performance will buy a standard model from abc & co. Why? cause it is cheaper than the one i assemble using spares - not because of fancy laws. All arguments regarding costs / economics put up by the software cos are a lot of hot air.
Ok, now I'm a bit confused. Which motorcycle relates to what model of the software business? I'm assuming most commercial software licenses prevent the modification of the programs as a whole - even if you own the software and modify it for your own use - this I definitely don't agree with.
The same goes for any industry. You can buy a pc from an assembler or IBM. Would a law preventing people from buying any machine other than IBM be justified.
How does this relate to the software industry? If I buy MS Office, does the EULA prevent me from buying and installing StarOffice?
A business built on artificially erected barriers designed to protect the minority is doomed to failure.
Agreed, provided there is really no value-addition happening. If a software company produces a product that has little or no competition, that isn't a barrier at all. They can sell it as they wish to and we can choose not to use it if it doesn't suit our philosophy(ies).
As expertise grows in society premium goods aquire a commodity characteristics. Businesses then need customers to uniquely identify their products from those of competitors - BRANDING and the accompanying marketing baggage. Laws that prevent growth of and disbursement of knowledge within society so that only a few may benefit has no place in any society.
Agreed. However, again taking the most done-to-death example, I don't think MS filled the tender for "Heal the world, make it a better place" and even if they did, I think they would be looked upon with a degree of suspicion.
One need not be a hermit. But one need not be unprincipled either. Make your own value system and live by that.
I agree totally. There must be a middle path.
government monopoly. So how do you protect the value of your money? By converting into a more stable and valuable currency say $ (GNU-Linux). But this is illegal. Why? as the people migrate to $ the Rs. will become more worthless and the $ more valuable. Who looses? The irresponsible government ofcourse. So govt. builds legal barriers and use the FERA (copyright) to nail the smart ones
A most unique explanation :)
How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted? There are no software licenses that will prevent you from NOT using the software.
The GPL tries to prevent the above state of affairs by allowing you the option of walking in the direction you please. You can migrate to any software. You can preserve the value of your work without paying fat premiums. You have access to the same resources as the fatcats. It prevents the fatcats from putting up barriers for others.
It gives you the option. You had the freedom NOT to use proprietary software anyway, regardless of GNU / GPL. I don't think it prevents the fatcats from doing anything. They can spread FUD about it and thats about it. I don't think any state is about to enact a law making free software illegal.
My bottom line:
We can choose NOT to use proprietary software. It's like a hunger strike, except thanks to free software, we don't have to go hungry. Now back to my original question: If software is free, how does one make money out of software? Business models invited :)
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
On Friday 20 July 2001 12:56, Tushar Burman wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "jtdyahoo" jtdesouza@yahoo.com To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right and other OT
You have the wrong business model.
Yes, but this is the model that would achieve the end - making the most money. Is there a software business model that would make decent money and still allow the user to do what he wishes with the software? Frankly, I'd put my money in MS stock as opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like flamebait, but only to those who don't know me already.
Which is the main bone of contention. Are the rights as ebodied in the gpl more important than the right of a business to survive. I think not. Business have to be built keeping this fundamental point in mind.
Ok, now I'm a bit confused. Which motorcycle relates to what model of the software business? I'm assuming most commercial software licenses prevent the modification of the programs as a whole - even if you own the software and modify it for your own use - this I definitely don't agree with.
A standard mobike is a standard software package, a customised mobike is a customised software package. The prices are related to the rawmaterial, labour, and other inputs and are more or less similiar for similiar models. In contrast software prices have absolutely no corelation to their production costs. You can copy a mobike but it is not cost effective - no fancy laws here. You cant copy the software due to coyright laws - not because of economics.
Agreed, provided there is really no value-addition happening. If a software company produces a product that has little or no competition, that isn't a barrier at all. They can sell it as they wish to and we can choose not to use it if it doesn't suit our philosophy(ies).
As long as they do not prevent you from using any or all parts as you please.
In the case of an OS the API is what is important. When I buy Windoze (read as most properitory software) do I get a copy of the API?. Nope that is a seperate product. How come? What do i do if i want to write a program? Oh dear but APIs are the family jewels and who cares what you want to do, (billgates accent here) "It would be very dangerous for the Company and it's shareholders to expose the family jewels to others. How would we continue to milk you of your last penny with our d*** in your hands?"
As expertise grows in society premium goods aquire a commodity characteristics. Businesses then need customers to uniquely identify their products from those of competitors - BRANDING and the accompanying marketing baggage. Laws that prevent growth of and disbursement of knowledge within society so that only a few may benefit has no place in any society.
Agreed. However, again taking the most done-to-death example, I don't think MS filled the tender for "Heal the world, make it a better place" and even if they did, I think they would be looked upon with a degree of suspicion.
The copyright and patent laws effectively prevent use of your intellect for betterment. That is much more insidious than not doing something (M$, being the favoured whipping horse, is used here). DMCA, Adobe, MP3, GIF the list is very long.
government monopoly. So how do you protect the value of your money? By converting into a more stable and valuable currency say $ (GNU-Linux). But this is illegal. Why? as the people migrate to $ the Rs. will become more worthless and the $ more valuable. Who looses? The irresponsible government ofcourse. So govt. builds legal barriers and use the FERA (copyright) to nail the smart ones
A most unique explanation :)
How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted? There are no software licenses that will prevent you from NOT using the software.
The reverse engineering of APIs and programs is illiegal (AFAIK). My data and inputs (and that of most other people) converted to some unknown format (without the knowledge of the vast majority) cannot be used. Why? cause the tools for doing this cannot be made. That is the ridiculous convolution, subterfuge and unethical practice being used by M$. You realise this well after the cancer has spread. My government example was to draw attention to this particular issue. Can you switch over to GNU yes but at considerable cost to the vast majority. How many of us switched OS because of these unethical practices. At least I was in for a rude shock about the etheical issues when I started using GLinux.
It gives you the option. You had the freedom NOT to use proprietary software anyway, regardless of GNU / GPL. I don't think it prevents the fatcats from doing anything. They can spread FUD about it and thats about it. I don't think any state is about to enact a law making free software illegal.
If body of public data is in a properitory format, it has become unusable without explicitly agreeing to become unethical. This is a sort of corruption that is worse than passing a law. BTW is the pdf format gpl.
My bottom line:
We can choose NOT to use proprietary software. It's like a hunger strike, except thanks to free software, we don't have to go hungry. Now back to my original question: If software is free, how does one make money out of software? Business models invited :)
Who wants to be an ethical millionaire?;-)
----- Original Message ----- From: "jtdyahoo" jtdesouza@yahoo.com
with the software? Frankly, I'd put my money in MS stock as opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like flamebait, but only to those who don't know me already.
Which is the main bone of contention. Are the rights as ebodied in the gpl more important than the right of a business to survive. I think not. Business have to be built keeping this fundamental point in mind.
Agreed, probably an element of the "middle path" companies.
A standard mobike is a standard software package, a customised mobike is a customised software package. The prices are related to the rawmaterial, labour, and other inputs and are more or less similiar for similiar models. In contrast software prices have absolutely no corelation to their production costs. You can copy a mobike but it is not cost effective - no fancy laws here. You cant copy the software due to coyright laws - not because of economics.
Copying a bike I assume would be making one exactly like it, in performance, looks, whatever, and branding it differently. If it were to be identical and also named the same, then it would be a knock-off, like fake Levis. I think the software companies also look at copying without paying as fake levis, and why shouldn't they? I agree about one thing though - cost of production of software is a one-time cost. Every copy sold beyond a certain number is pure profit for the company with reference to that particular product.
competition, that isn't a barrier at all. They can sell it as they wish to and we can choose not to use it if it doesn't suit our philosophy(ies).
As long as they do not prevent you from using any or all parts as you please.
A little slack in the licensing perhaps?
Oh dear but APIs are the family jewels and who cares what you want to do, (billgates accent here) "It would be very dangerous for the Company and it's shareholders to expose the family jewels to others. How would we continue to milk you of your last penny with our d*** in your hands?"
Ok, that's OS specific, and kinda veering from the subject - licensing, business models etc. This is a whole new discussion :)
The copyright and patent laws effectively prevent use of your intellect for betterment. That is much more insidious than not doing something (M$, being the favoured whipping horse, is used here). DMCA, Adobe, MP3, GIF the list is very long.
All listed patents not Good Things(TM). Patents is probably a larger issue here, since it applies to software and motorcycles too! The guy who "invented" the yellow smiley face that says "Have a nice day" made only $45 from it. I know I'd like a bit of money if I created something that graced the T-Shirts of millions. I guess he should have patented it. Don't go overboard on this one, it's an off-the-cuff example.
How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted? There are no software licenses that will prevent you from NOT using the software.
The reverse engineering of APIs and programs is illiegal (AFAIK).
Yes, but we're still free to choose GNU/Linux and other free OSes.
If body of public data is in a properitory format, it has become unusable without explicitly agreeing to become unethical. This is a sort of corruption that is worse than passing a law. BTW is the pdf format gpl.
This seems reasonable. The GIF fiasco was definitely quite ridiculous. I know I wouldn't like to find out that HTML has been patented. Maybe there need to be more guidlines on patents relating to data such as GIF, PDF and others.
Who wants to be an ethical millionaire?;-)
Ooohh... ooohhhh.. (waving frantically)
How? And apart from the usual suspects in the commercial software world, would you say most software companies use unethical licensing? If you're going to answer this question with RMS's ethics as a frame of reference, don't. I'm really not that ethical.
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Sometime yesterday, Tushar Burman wrote:
Now back to my original question: If software is free, how does one make money out of software? Business models invited :)
Go to ESR's page - http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr - and jump to the writings section. Look at CatB and related stuff. Read ``Voices from the Open Source Revolution'', it's there on the O'Reilly Web site.
That should give you some idea.
Manish
Manish wrote:
Go to ESR's page - http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr - and jump to the writings section. Look at CatB and related stuff. Read ``Voices from the Open Source Revolution'', it's there on the O'Reilly Web site.
You missed out "The Magin Cauldron" by ESR. It was specifically written to answer the question about how to make money from the Open Source Software model.
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Sometime yesterday, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
Manish wrote:
Go to ESR's page - http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr - and jump to the writings section. Look at CatB and related stuff. Read ``Voices from the Open Source Revolution'', it's there on the O'Reilly Web site.
You missed out "The Magin Cauldron" by ESR. It was specifically written to answer the question about how to make money from the Open Source Software model.
I'm sorry, it's been a long time since I read ESR's writings. I thought ``The Magin Cauldron'' was a part of CatB. At least there's a CatB suite of papers that includes the main CatB and related stuff.
Manish
----- Original Message ----- From: "Manish Jethani" cruisecoder@yahoo.com
You missed out "The Magin Cauldron" by ESR. It was specifically written to answer the question about how to make money from the Open Source Software model.
I'm sorry, it's been a long time since I read ESR's writings. I thought ``The Magin Cauldron'' was a part of CatB. At least there's a CatB suite of papers that includes the main CatB and related stuff.
Since there is "other OT" in the subject anyway, I also recommend ESR's "Sex Tips for Geeks". It doesn't seem to be linked from his writings page, but it's at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/sextips
I think I have achieved the outer limits of OT-ness. :)
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Exactly my thoughts just one question What is the middle path ? or if that is too big which i think it is Name some companies which follow it.
Cheers Aarjav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Aarjav Trivedi aarjavt@yahoo.com Subject: [ILUG-BOM] AGREE_TOTALLY@tusharburman and the middle path
Exactly my thoughts just one question What is the middle path ? or if that is too big which i think it is Name some companies which follow it.
i think the middle path would be to target commercial enterprises as your revenue source, while keeping individuals/developers in the 'free-zone' Then again, you're fostering possible competition - who knows which of those developers may start his own firm based on ur product..!!
there are already some companies/developers who allow free individual use of their software, while restricting companies from doing so. one interesting example is jason hunter - if you want to use any of his java code personally - you can, but if a company wants to use it, they'd have to buy a copy of his book for every developer on the project team!
regards, kishor
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aarjav Trivedi" aarjavt@yahoo.com
Exactly my thoughts just one question What is the middle path ? or if that is too big which i think it is Name some companies which follow it.
I think Kishor has answered the question acceptably. It's one option. I don't know what companies follow a "middle path" and what exactly that is. I would like to know, because I don't see business models in the open source/free software world being as money-making as commercial software businesses.
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
On Saturday 21 July 2001 00:17, Linuxers wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aarjav Trivedi" aarjavt@yahoo.com
Exactly my thoughts just one question What is the middle path ? or if that is too big which i think it is Name some companies which follow it.
The real issue is not the amount of money or profit you make but wether you encroach upon others rights. Do not encroach on others rights and make all the money you would ever want.
There is no middle path. If you agree with the fact that IP should be unencumbered then it would be unethical for you to encumber your IP which in any case is built on the knowledge of many others.
What would you define as personal. If I use your product in my office (i do not sell your product to anybody) for improving my GNU Billbasher and sell it, is it commercial, and how would you cost your contribution. Remeber it was my Billbasher and my effort in improving it. And my friend loves your stuff as he can bash MTNL/MSEB/the-guy-next-door and takes a free copy from me. Now what?. Trying to build a business on restrictions is not workable.
I think Kishor has answered the question acceptably. It's one option. I don't know what companies follow a "middle path" and what exactly that is. I would like to know, because I don't see business models in the open source/free software world being as money-making as commercial software businesses.
You would require heavy capital investment or be a niche player. Use capital to build your brand image. If you brand it well the "ignorant" majority will buy your GNU Excel. Or produce niche products. Eg. couple hardware and software. The user could write his own software and engineer his own hardware, but it would be such a economic pain that he would choose not to. Of course other technically capable guys would copy it. But you will not be sleeping (like premier automobiles) while others are copying it. You will be converting and upgrading your product to GNU-Net-slasher. And if the competition is improving it you will benefit since it is gpld. If the competition does not publish their derivate works as per the gpl, wait until they have made money, then sue the pants off them and live happily ever after in Hawaii.
----- Original Message ----- From: "jtdyahoo" jtdesouza@yahoo.com
There is no middle path. If you agree with the fact that IP should be unencumbered then it would be unethical for you to encumber your IP which in any case is built on the knowledge of many others.
Then this would apply to all media - paper, video, whatever.
what exactly that is. I would like to know, because I don't see business models in the open source/free software world being as money-making as commercial software businesses.
You would require heavy capital investment or be a niche player. Use capital to build your brand image. If you brand it well the "ignorant" majority will buy your GNU Excel.
No they won't, because we can't sell GNU Excel. GPL, remember?
GNU-Net-slasher. And if the competition is improving it you will benefit since it is gpld. If the competition does not publish their derivate works as per the gpl, wait until they have made money, then sue the pants off them and live happily ever after in Hawaii.
And inherit the ill-gotten gains of the non-gpl'ing scum? An ethical issue here ;)
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Sometime Today, Tushar Burman assembled some asciibets to say:
Use capital to build your brand image. If you brand it well the "ignorant" majority will buy your GNU Excel.
No they won't, because we can't sell GNU Excel. GPL, remember?
We can. GPL does not prohibit sale. It only requires that the source accompany any sale.
Philip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip S Tellis" philip.tellis@iname.com
No they won't, because we can't sell GNU Excel. GPL, remember?
We can. GPL does not prohibit sale. It only requires that the source accompany any sale.
Interesting. I misunderstood then. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
I think the big question here is of Intellectual Property. Taking Microsoft as an example only (and not targeting them specifically), the belief is that MS Word should not be redistributed by anyone other than Microsoft Licencees. The reasoning being that they have put a lot of intellectual work into it and they should be compensated for it. That is true. People should be compensated for their ideas - if those ideas are revolutionary. The ideas in Word, and almost all commercial software are by no means revolutionary.
When DOOM first came out, it was revolutionary. The amazing graphics on a 386 really `kicked ass', as the expression goes. They had every right to keep the source closed for as long as they did. ID Software realised something that most other developers don't. Soon enough, other developers figured out how to write games like DOOM, and then Carmac and Abrash wrote so many books. ID decided to open source doom (or was it Quake) at that time. I think they first started by giving away level editors free.
All game companies give away level/map editors today, but how many have opened their source?
NOTE: I use open source and not free software here.
Philip
Sometime today, Philip S Tellis wrote:
People should be compensated for their ideas - if those ideas are revolutionary. The ideas in Word, and almost all commercial software are by no means revolutionary.
The question is - who decides whether something is revolutionary or not? I honestly feel these dicussions about IP, freedom, etc. are useless beyond some extent. Like RMS told someone from the audience - ``... in that case, we simply do not agree with each other... [period]''.
Manish
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tushar Burman wrote:
I pretty much agree with the general trend of this thread. Freedom == Good Thing (TM), Paying for software == Not so good (and so on and so
Paying for s/w == Not so good. Who said? That's not why I use GNU/Linux and that's not why I want to develop s/w for the platform!
Manish
----- Original Message ----- From: "Manish Jethani" cruisecoder@yahoo.com
thread. Freedom == Good Thing (TM), Paying for software == Not so good (and so on and so
Paying for s/w == Not so good. Who said? That's not why I use GNU/Linux and that's not why I want to develop s/w for the platform!
I said that, but I derive that from within the confines of the GPL. If the GPL said all that it does, plus allowed one to sell binary-only copies, it would be pretty stupid, since no one would bother paying, right?
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Sometime today, Tushar Burman wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Manish Jethani" cruisecoder@yahoo.com
thread. Freedom == Good Thing (TM), Paying for software == Not so good (and so on and so
Paying for s/w == Not so good. Who said? That's not why I use GNU/Linux and that's not why I want to
I said that, but I derive that from within the confines of the GPL. If the GPL said all that it does, plus allowed one to sell binary-only copies, it would be pretty stupid, since no one would bother paying, right?
I don't get the link, really. The GPL doesn't say anywhere that having to pay for software is "not so good". All it says is that the user shouldn't be charged anything extra for the source code to the software being sold. And BTW, I just _paid_ for my 2-CD RedHat 6.2 from FreeOS, on Thursday.
So you can sell "binary-only" software, and you can give the source code if the user asks. Most users won't even bother to ask for the source, because few people have the time to fix bugs for you.
Manish
----- Original Message ----- From: "Manish Jethani" cruisecoder@yahoo.com
I don't get the link, really. The GPL doesn't say anywhere that having to pay for software is "not so good". All it says is that the user shouldn't be charged anything extra for the source code to the software being sold. And BTW, I just _paid_ for my 2-CD RedHat 6.2 from FreeOS, on Thursday.
So you can sell "binary-only" software, and you can give the source code if the user asks. Most users won't even bother to ask for the source, because few people have the time to fix bugs for you.
So I take it one is allowed to use GPLed software to create derivative works, release that source under GPL as well, and at the same time allowed to sell compiled binaries on CD? Stupid I know, but is this allowed within the GPL?
Yes, I know that GNU/Linux distributors sell their wares, but until now I assumed the money was being charged for the printed manuals and whatever non-GPL additions they made to it. It might be interesting to check out the licenses on the non-GPLed elements of some distributions.
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Sometime yesterday, Tushar Burman wrote:
So I take it one is allowed to use GPLed software to create derivative works, release that source under GPL as well, and at the same time allowed to sell compiled binaries on CD? Stupid I know, but is this allowed within the GPL?
You can sell GPL'ed s/w or derived work (auto-GPL'ed). When you sell such s/w, you are really selling it with the source. But most people don't want the source, so you can _distribute_ only the binaries, and make the sources available via FTP.
So I just bought this 2-CD kit from FreeOS - CD #1 reads "Red Hat 6.2 Install" - CD #2 reads "Red Hat 6.2 Source". I could have chosen to take only CD #1 and perhaps get a small discount (not sure at all about this). If I am charged a little extra for CD #2, it's for the CD itself, and not for the content (the Source). I might be wrong on this.
Regarding derivative works, you have to make the source to the entire derivative work available - not just the original work on which your derivative work is based.
Yes, I know that GNU/Linux distributors sell their wares, but until now I assumed the money was being charged for the printed manuals and whatever non-GPL additions they made to it.
If that were the case, one would never be able to make money out of Free software. Because the FSF doesn't like the idea of bundling some non-Free s/w with GNU/Linux. And remember - the manuals are also Free manuals (FDL), so by your (incorrect) assumption one can't even charge for Free manuals.
You can make a living by selling Free Software and Documentation.
Manish
----- Original Message ----- From: "Manish Jethani" cruisecoder@yahoo.com
If that were the case, one would never be able to make money out of Free software. Because the FSF doesn't like the idea of bundling some non-Free s/w with GNU/Linux. And remember - the manuals are also Free manuals (FDL), so by your (incorrect) assumption one can't even charge for Free manuals.
You can make a living by selling Free Software and Documentation.
Looks like the "middle path" already exists :)
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Sometime Today, Tushar Burman assembled some asciibets to say:
I said that, but I derive that from within the confines of the GPL. If the GPL said all that it does, plus allowed one to sell binary-only copies, it would be pretty stupid, since no one would bother paying, right?
Why? You could sell your source - at no extra charge. For example, I could decide that my package costs Rs.3000/- with or without the source.
If you want only the source, you pay Rs.3000/- If you want only the binary, you pay Rs.3000/- If you want both, you still pay only Rs.3000/-
If you have any one, you are entitled to get the other free of cost.
I still make Rs.3000/- for every copy that I sell, regardless of whether I sell source or binary or both.
The GPL allows this through the `no extra charge' clause.
Philip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip S Tellis" philip.tellis@iname.com
I still make Rs.3000/- for every copy that I sell, regardless of whether I sell source or binary or both.
The GPL allows this through the `no extra charge' clause.
Fair enough, methinks. So all the GNU/Linux distributors follow this model?
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---
Harshal Patil wrote:
i mean both of them give the source code, they allow you to modify,redistribute. then why is this quarrel?
As RMS said in his lecture at TIFR, they only emphasize the practical advantages of this kind of software while RMS is interested in the freedom of the users. It's basically a difference in the reach of the philosophy involved - free software has much higher aims than just producing reliable software with the help of community review.
So, maybe when push comes to shove, and it's time to fight the commercial world in real situations, open source people might decide to back out, since for them open source is just one good way of doing things; they don't care about the freedom involved. But the free software movement will continue, since that exactly is their true vision.
You can get more information about the OSS Movement from their website http://www.opensource.org
SameerDS.
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Harshal Patil harshal1234@sify.com wrote:
could anybody explain me what differences theopen source & the free software movements have?
Were you sleeping during RMS's lecture? I believe you were there!
The Open Source Movement is more practical. They don't do much to push the idea of freedom. They are more interested in getting done with the jobs at hand.
Open Source includes more than just the GNU GPL way of licencing. It includes the BSD licence, for example. You can get a list of supported licences from their Web site.
Manish
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? For regular News updates go to http://in.news.yahoo.com
-
Aarjav Trivedi -
ambarish pathak -
Haig Earl -
Harshal Patil -
jtdyahoo -
Kishor Bhagwat -
Kompalli SuryaPrakash -
Manish Jethani -
Philip S Tellis -
Pradeep Vasudev -
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe -
Satya -
Tushar Burman