Am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2005 08:59 schrieb Ralf S. Engelschall: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > In some ways the system can be seen as being more restrictive > > as what some commercial distributors of operating systems do > > (free and non-free). > > Restrictive? Hmmm. Everything which is required is a simple registration > with name and email address. For any really _serious_ user this is not > really some sort of a restriction. It is just fair that if someone gets > resources fully free of charge that he at least tells the giver who he > is. It is not just about what is "fair", it is also about how the user feels! Both must go together to be successful. The bad feeling to me technically comes out of that running instances on some occasions (I have yet to technically fully inspect) will "phone home" with my details. Many other operating system vendors, even with an automatic update system will not by default force you to do this; and where they do, it is a strong reason to go away from them for quite a few users. Having a company account# is fine and also having enough support-seat, but what in general the liberty needs to be kept to not have those machines be directly conncected and "phone" home. Note that there is a second bad feeling: I have seen feedback forms, registration as being first steps of suddenly making part of the service proprietary because the organistaion needs money. This makes me suspicious because there is a chance of not knowing the plans. It is different with vendors where I know upfront what services are there that I can rely on and for which do I need to pay. I have seen to many nice Free Software projects going proprietary. :( > Open Source software is not about downloading resources anonymously, > although we are used to this circumstance for most of the provided > resources. Open Source is about software freedom in the meaning of > non-discrimination of users and the possibility to review the source > code. BTW: This is why I prefer the term "Free Software" which is much older than "Open Source" and captures the freedom element a lot better. (Sorry, could not resist.) > For OpenPKG and its extremely liberal BSD-style distribution > license it is even a lot more, too... I would disagree on the general point here, too. A license with freedom protection can be very useful and providing more freedom. Of course licenses without this protection, like the modern BSD-style licenses, are very useful, too, though they are about the same freedom. (Could not resist again.) Back to more concrete point: What can be done? Maybe the registration needs and its reasons needs to be explained even better with a diagram on the webpage. I think that might or might not address some of the bad feeling I and others might have. Bernhard ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org User Communication List openpkg-users@openpkg.org
