[snips]
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:14:58 -0500, George Barca wrote:
> Bad choice of words. What I meant was that the only way the give it all
> away free system works is if everyone is doing it. Look at free software
> for example.
> Some person sits at home nights and weekends writing a CD burning
> program and then gives away the source for others to use. Now Dell comes
> along and packages it as part of pre-installed Linux on a system and
> makes a profit.
> I personally think the person is an idiot and if the program was good
> enough he should protect it and sell it commercially. However if
> everyone was just using the program and giving it away, like the author
> did, then it wouldn't matter. The problem arises when some make money
> off the work of others.
Why is he an idiot, and why is someone else making money off it a problem?
You need to stop and realize that people write software for essentially
two reasons. One of those is to get a reward - fame, cash, what have
you. The other is simply to solve a problem, or accomplish some task, or
simply do so better than existing options.
Suppose I write, as you suggest, a better CD burning program (better than
K3B? Yeah, right!) The question becomes *why* did I write it? If I
wrote it for money, then chances are I wouldn't be distributing it as an
open source project. If I just wanted a CD burning app which did
something existing apps didn't, then I already *have* exactly what I
wanted out of the project, and I *don't* have the headaches of tech
support, sales, marketing, yadda yadda yadda. I have *exactly* what I
set out to get, and if anyone else can make use of it, why not let them?
Now let's suppose they do this and make money off it, say by bundling it
in a commercial media production distro. Is this a problem? Do I care?
No, not as long as they're adhering to the licensing terms, namely, if
they're building apps incorporating my code, they have to provide the
subsequent sources. Beyond that, I don't care, let 'em make money off it
if they can; I already got out of it exactly what I wanted to.
Your analysis of the situation seems to only focus on one possibility,
namely, doing things for profit. This, of course, completely fails to
grasp everything from hobbies to the drive some folks have to tinker and
improve things, not for commercial gain, but simply for the satisfaction
of making things better. Frankly, it would be a sad world indeed if
nobody did anything other than for commercial motives.
>>> One thing I find disturbing about the Linux/OSS community is that
>>> their seems to be a sub-group of activists that for some odd reason
>>> feel they are entitled to everything for free.
>>
>>Which sub-group of activists are you referring to ?
>
> People who can't understand that patents and copyrights and other forms
> of protection exist for a reason and that reason is to ensure that the
> work that was put into the product is paid for in some fashion.
This presumes that the person who did the initial work _wants_ payment
for it, and is legally entitled to it. Neither are necessarily true in
all cases. Again, you focus _only_ on commercialization, ignoring
hobbies, entertainment, personal challenge, drive to tinker and similar
motivations, none of which need be commercial.
That said, it's still not clear to which group you're referring, as I am
unaware of anyone who isn't clear on why we have copyrights and patents
and the like. That said, there are some things which shouldn't be
patentable or copyrightable (and historically haven't been), and there
are some things which could have been, but the author/developer/inventor/
discoverer/whatever chose to release them to the public.
If there is any bitching involved on the free software side, it tends to
be about three things: folks building closed-source products on FOSS
codebases, in violation of licenses, folks building closed-source
applications with opaque file formats, thus effectively entrapping user
data, and folks who persistently ignore (or, worse, implement
incorrectly) extant standards for communications and the like, thus
making it difficult or impossible to interconnect things which should be
trivial to connect.
Or, in other words, if you're going to use open code to build a closed
project, don't; if you're going to create an opaque file format to try to
trap users into a perpetual upgrade cycle, don't; and if you're not smart
enough to use standard protocols and the like and get 'em right, hire
someone who *can* do it right.
>>> In general the common denominator with these people is that they have
>>> done zero to contribute and often are the first to cry foul when their
>>> insignificant work may be compromised.
>>
>>Who for instance ?
>
> Nobody in particular but if you look at Linux blogs and so forth you
> will find these freedom fighters who are often using the very software
> they loath by day and advocating the use of Linux and free software by
> night. Of course they are entitled to give their work away if they wish.
Ofttimes what one uses during the day is dictated by one's work
environment. At the moment, I'm running (AFAIK) the only Linux desktop
in my office; I can get away with this simply because I'm one of the most
tech savvy people here and I don't need hand-holding from tech support
(hell, generally I *am* tech support. Gah.) Most folks, they use
whatever's handed to them, which may well be Windows, and no, sorry,
you're not allowed to run something else.
>>> It seems to me that the OSS community in general is chock full of
>>> bitter people who expect others to give their works away but yet won't
>>> give their own works away.
>>
>>Maybe, but the GPL community is not.
>>
>>> As an example, how many people here use or program Windows by day and
>>> advocate Linux by night?
>>
>>I can't see how that is relevant. Many here are forced to use Windows in
>>their day jobs, they have no choice.
>
> True but when you read about it in a Linux advocacy group it kind of
> sours the message in my opinion.
Quite the contrary.
Over the Xmas season, I picked up a new laptop for me and a new netbook
for the wife. Mine came with Vista, hers with XP (despite being quite a
handy little machine, it's nowhere near powerful enough to run Vista.)
She's been running Ubuntu on the desktop since before I met her. Now,
she's using XP. Guess what? She *hates* it. Loathes it. It frustrates
her endlessly.
It is, in fact, often the very fact one _does_ run Windows occasionally
(or even daily) that lets one experience, again and again and again, just
how limited and limiting it really is, lets one appreciate just how
freeing Linux really is by comparison.
Someone who has to work with Windows by day and who works with Linux
other times, by choice, will soon realize (barring a few odd cases), just
how much of a straight jacket Windows imposes, just how locked in to a
particular design mindset one is, not because the machine isn't capable
of doing more, but because the OS is designed, from the outset, to put
the user in a neat little box and ensure he can never get out.
>>I'll never be interested in your code if it's not GPL or Linux.
>
> And as a Linux advocate, that is how it should be!
Depdends. I've worked on commercial, closed-source apps and I may do so
again. In those cases, if you have closed-source source code which is
useful and relevant and has acceptable licensing, why not use it?
On the other hand, if I'm working on open source projects, and your code
reflects your apparent mindset of "Show me the money", then no, thanks,
I'll pass on your code, even if it means I have to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
