Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Hi Micky. If you're going to mention Linux and the FSF, it might be best if you were to call it GNU/Linux rather than Linux and explain why the FSF (and Stallman in particular) prefers GNU/Linux to simply Linux. (See What's in a Name? https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html, Linux and the GNU System https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html, and GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html.) Here are a few things about Linux that occur to me right off: 1. The most obvious point to make is that Linux is a Free operating system(That's free as in freedom, not free as in free beer), unlike the other major contenders: Windows and Mac OS-X. Linux is released under the GPL, the original Free Software license. 2. The essence of Free Software, as articulated by RMS (Richard M. Stallman) who invented the concept and founded the FSF, is the following (from his article What is free software? https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a nonfree or proprietary program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html. A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. NOTE: To those in the Drupal community who are used to programming in PHP, freedom #1 may not seem like a very big deal. That's because Drupal is written in PHP which is an interpreted language, not a compiled language, so you can't distribute a runnable version of a program without distributing the program's source code. But both for reasons of efficiency as well as for historical reasons, operating systems are written in languages that get compiled to machine code, so proprietary vendors can seize total control of how you use their software by distributing only binaries and not the source code. And they do! Proprietary software vendors generally force you to agree to a restrictive EULA (End User License Agreement) which prohibits even trying to figure out how the code works. Microsoft's EULA explicitly states the following (note that Apple's license is no better.): Recipient may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the Software, except and only to the extent that this limitation is expressly prohibited by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. 3. Since most non-programmers who know of the concept of collaboratively-developed software know the term Open Source, you really ought to familiarize yourself with Stallman's article Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. 4. Since GNU/Linux source code is studied by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, it's much harder to hide malware inside it. And since it's Free Software, if malware were found, anyone in the world would have the right to redistribute a version with the malware removed. On the other hand, the Windows source code can only be seen by a relatively small number of programmers who are either working for Microsoft or gagged by a restrictive contract before they're allowed to see the source code. So, if Microsoft's OS contains nasty code they don't want you to know about, they can silence anyone who might know enough to inform you. If it's reporting your every keystroke and mouse-click to the NSA, you'll never know. In the Apple world, the OS' license is approved as a free software license by the FSF, but Apple's GUI (Graphical User Interface) code is only distributed under a proprietary license. Since all human interaction with the computer must pass through the GUI, they too could be doing evil stuff with your keystrokes and mouse-clicks behind your back. [Note however that even having the source code is not an absolute guarantee that you can figure out
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: Tread lightly, being absolutist means you will convince no one and are merely singing to the choir. If you are fair and balance the facts, give credit where credit is due, open minded people will hear you. Yep. I mean, I have two very up-front reasons not to use Linux. The first is the state of desktop environments. For all of the choices available there are none that are as usable and as polished as Macintosh, and few that are substantially better than Windows 7. The second is the mechanisms the Linux kernel uses to dynamically enumerate devices at boot time are stupid. I don't care if that's how Linus wants it; they're stupid. They cause too many problems and have spawned too many incompatible and non-portable workarounds. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
A few years back, I wrote an article for O'Reilly about something I'd noticed starting in the 1980s. Unix (and later Linux) had grown in the direction of readable (i.e. ASCII) file formats, where MS-DOS had grown in the direction of unreadable formats. I think this is related to what you're talking about. And, based on my experiences working at DEC, I attribute some of this tendency to an accident of hardware design that was cause such pain for us software developers that we avoided more efficient hardware-oriented data formats, and that pushed us toward using ASCII. If you're interested, my article's How an Accident of Hardware Design Encouraged Open Source http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2007/02/22/open-formats-open-source.html. Mark Rosenthal On 2/11/2014 6:44 AM, John Abreau wrote: Not sure whether this would mean anything for a new user, but from the perspective of someone who started using UNIX (Linux's ancestor) long before Windows existed, I find that on Linux systems, I'm free to work with my data directly, whereas on Windows and MacOS it feels more like my data is locked up in file formats that I can only access through the straitjacket of the application that created the file. In other words, the Linux environment provides me with a rich toolkit for handling my data, and it's very easy to build simple scripts for tasks that I'll be repeating often, such as processing photos into my photo album or post-production editing of videos to prepare them for uploading to youtube. Whereas on Windows, and to a lesser extent on MacOS, I have to depend on various applications to handle my data for me, and if the application doesn't do what I need it to do, I have to wait for the application's developers to add my needs as a new feature in some future release. Either that, or change what I want to accomplish in order to accommodate the limitations of the application. Of course, like any toolkit with powerful capabilities, there's a learning curve that comes with developing the expertise that leads to mastering those capabilities. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Micky Metts mi...@drupalconnection.comwrote: I have a request for the group - I am speaking at the GLADcamp Drupal conference in Los Angeles next month and wish to have part of my talk cover the benefits of Linux. I have started a riseup.net pad here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/linux I would love it if anyone has some things to add that I may have overlooked. So far I plan to mention fsf.org and the groups on meetup. If you have any wisdom to add, please do share! Thanks for all of your help with this and with inspiring me to teach others how to install Linux locally. -- Michele Metts DrupalConnection.com - Social Networks - Websites for Entrepreneurs 617-877-1658 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
On 2/11/2014 7:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote: Trust in the transparency and benevolence of Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft is a slogan I don't foresee catching on anytime soon. Actually, I /can/ see it catching on - as a sarcastic slogan promoting Linux! Mark ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
MBR wrote: that anyway. But if she reads and understands those articles, she'll be much better prepared to answer questions and carry on knowledgeable conversations with people who might approach her after her talk. Just remember that the article in question, like the FSF itself, is rather one-sided. When RMS says Free Software he means free for users. Developers have few freedoms and many requirements under the FSF's definition of freedom. It's a big reason why Apache-style licensing has been outpacing GPL licensing. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
John Abreau wrote: More precisely, RMS says that he makes no distinction between users and developers, because developers are also users. He argues that limiting freedom to only a subset of users is divisive and antithetical to the concept of freedom. That's what RMS says. The anti-Tivoization clause of the GPLv3 says something quite different. It exists specifically to deny developers some of their freedoms to use and develop software and hardware. Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the right to exclusively make money from their work. The anti-TiVo clause in GPLv3 is an additional constraint, and the rarely seen Affero license further limits developers. (Basically, the Affero license is GPLv3 with the additional provision that if you make software available as a service you have to make the source code available, just as you would if you distributed source or binary code for use by others.) There are times when the rights of users and the rights of developers are in direct opposition, and it is impossible to make the situation better for one group without making it worse for the other. But the amount of good gained by one group can exceed the amount lost by the other, and all developers are also users so their losses on their own coding are counterbalanced by their gains from the work of others. Almost no code is the work of one person or even one company alone; any program of significance contains libraries and other code that come from others and is developed using tools created by others. On balance, free software makes the world a better place than it would be if all software were proprietary. More free software would make it even better. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: John Abreau wrote: More precisely, RMS says that he makes no distinction between users and developers, because developers are also users. He argues that limiting freedom to only a subset of users is divisive and antithetical to the concept of freedom. That's what RMS says. The anti-Tivoization clause of the GPLv3 says something quite different. It exists specifically to deny developers some of their freedoms to use and develop software and hardware. Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote: John Abreau wrote: Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The connotations of the word only in that sentence conflict with the fact that the group includes everybody, and thus using the word only in that sentence is .disingenuous. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix Email: abre...@gmail.com / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the right to exclusively make money from their work. Ahh, there in lies the lies that lairs lie about the GPL. The GPL does not deny any developer the right to make money from their work. Lies! It only denies a developer from using someone else's work as if it were their own. If I were to modify someone else's code, I should think I no right to modify it without permission. NOTHING forbids a developer making money from their own work. The GPL is only involved when a developer uses someone else's work as the basis for their own or as part of an aggregate product. The developer should not base their work on GPL code if they do not like the conditions by which they acquire it in the first place. I HATE this lie every time I see someone repeat it. Not liking someone else's license means you don't use their code. It does not forbid a developer from making money from their own work. The anti-TiVo clause in GPLv3 is an additional constraint, and the rarely seen Affero license further limits developers. (Basically, the Affero license is GPLv3 with the additional provision that if you make software available as a service you have to make the source code available, just as you would if you distributed source or binary code for use by others.) There are times when the rights of users and the rights of developers are in direct opposition, and it is impossible to make the situation better for one group without making it worse for the other. But the amount of good gained by one group can exceed the amount lost by the other, and all developers are also users so their losses on their own coding are counterbalanced by their gains from the work of others. Almost no code is the work of one person or even one company alone; any program of significance contains libraries and other code that come from others and is developed using tools created by others. On balance, free software makes the world a better place than it would be if all software were proprietary. More free software would make it even better. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: John Abreau wrote: More precisely, RMS says that he makes no distinction between users and developers, because developers are also users. He argues that limiting freedom to only a subset of users is divisive and antithetical to the concept of freedom. That's what RMS says. The anti-Tivoization clause of the GPLv3 says something quite different. It exists specifically to deny developers some of their freedoms to use and develop software and hardware. Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded. This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many Drupal people have entered Drupal through a non-traditional software development doorway and they do not have a background in software development - some are graphic designers and some are HTML and CSS experts, etc. that will probably learn some PHP due to their involvement in Drupal. I want to reach the people like myself - the non-programmer that understands most of why free software is important, but due to many reasons: lack of knowledge about GNU/Linux no retail linux stores no Linux helpdesk (it's a new era where help is in the forums and in your ' extended circles') low use of my local OS ( personally I just used it to get to my servers... which run Linux) not understanding how to run Linux locally (how easy it is and how user friendly) lack of accessibility to try Linux (didn't know about live cd etc..) Due to these reasons and a few more, I found it easier to just use Windows for years! Mea Culpa. Michele Metts DrupalConnection.com - Social Networks - Websites for Entrepreneurs 617-877-1658 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:43 PM, John Abreau abre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: John Abreau wrote: Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The connotations of the word only in that sentence conflict with the fact that the group includes everybody, and thus using the word only in that sentence is .disingenuous. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix Email: abre...@gmail.com / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
This discussion reminds me of that time a number of years ago when RMS crashed one of our BLU meetings to make exactly that point: when referring to Linux, he'd prefer that we call it the GNU/Linux system rather than just Linux. I've got a long enough history with this that I remember debating with RMS whether software engineers should draw salaries even before the GPL was invented, and I remember the battle between him, Unipress, and one of my long-ago coworkers about the right to make money off Emacs. It's true that RMS and the FSF changed the world of software as we know it, in a truly fundamental way. Getting the MacArthur Fellowship 30 years ago gave credibility not just to RMS but to the entire concept of open-sourcing, and not incidentally supplied seed capital to secure the FSF's place in the world. Then Linus came along in 1991, and the Apache software foundation, and Marc Andreeson, and many other luminaries. Back in the 1980s and 90s, the epicenter of open-source software very much included greater Boston. But I felt that epicenter shift rapidly westward after Bolt Beranek and Newman lost out to cisco Systems in the Internet backbone connectivity business, and today many if not most of the people involved in open-source software hail from the Bay Area rather than greater Boston. (I'm reminded today of one open-source coder who not long ago migrated the opposite direction: a fellow by the name of Kohsuke Kawaguchi is now on the payroll of Massachusetts saas provider Cloudbees... as you can imagine, I and my coworkers just spent the past hour cursing bugs in Jenkins. ;-) I guess I'm posting this to ask the Linux community not what happened 20 or 30 years ago, but rather: what have you done for me lately? I think if you go back to the first question as posed on the Subject line, why use Linux, the debates of the 1980s/1990s about who contributed what to the cause are truly immaterial. The question really is, has it come far enough to replace its rivals? In what situation would I use Linux vs. something else? For embedded systems like set-top boxes and Android tablets/mobile devices, it's clear: Linux has fully displaced most of its rivals. For cloud services provisioned on Amazon AWS, I can say the same thing. For desktop, I like it myself as a replacement for Windows, and have come close to replacing Windows as the primary household desktop for other users, but still--I wind up typing this message on my work MacBook and others at my house rely on Windows desktops (which I in turn have to fix/tweak when they break). As a user of cloud services, almost the only thing that matters is a good browser (e.g. Chrome) and the OS underneath it doesn't matter (unless you want to run flash, which Apple doesn't support). So all 3 major OS's still have a place in the world, as does FreeBSD, and the open-source community still hasn't won the battle of the desktop. That battle is increasingly irrelevant, as cloud-based apps are accelerating and are seemingly the wave of the future. (I'll resist the temptation to digress into comparisons of cloud services vs. timesharing services, this isn't American History class.) -rich ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded. This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many Drupal people have entered Drupal through a non-traditional software development doorway and they do not have a background in software development - some are graphic designers and some are HTML and CSS experts, etc. that will probably learn some PHP due to their involvement in Drupal. I want to reach the people like myself - the non-programmer that understands most of why free software is important, but due to many reasons: lack of knowledge about GNU/Linux no retail linux stores no Linux helpdesk (it's a new era where help is in the forums and in your ' extended circles') low use of my local OS ( personally I just used it to get to my servers... which run Linux) not understanding how to run Linux locally (how easy it is and how user friendly) lack of accessibility to try Linux (didn't know about live cd etc..) Due to these reasons and a few more, I found it easier to just use Windows for years! These aren't really the answers to the question you asked. You asked why which has more of a philosophical feel to it. What you should have asked is the more direct question[s], Should I use Linux for Drupal and Do you have any suggestions? Mea Culpa. Michele Metts DrupalConnection.com - Social Networks - Websites for Entrepreneurs 617-877-1658 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:43 PM, John Abreau abre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: John Abreau wrote: Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only wealthy landowners are allowed to vote. As if freedom only for users is any better. Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The connotations of the word only in that sentence conflict with the fact that the group includes everybody, and thus using the word only in that sentence is .disingenuous. -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix Email: abre...@gmail.com / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:38:39 -0500, Richard Pieri wrote: John Abreau wrote: Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The The issue isn't the use of the word only. It's the use of the words free and freedom. Like I wrote before, the FSF's definitions of free and freedom are weighted towards end users (as in users like me who are not themselves developers) and against developers (as in users like Tivo and Google who are primarily developers). The GPL has always favored end users over developers. The onus of supporting software freedom according the FSF's definition has always rested on developers with end users getting a free ride should they choose to take it. Actually, I'd say that if anything the GPL is weighted toward users-as-developers -- ensuring that users can be developers themselves. I disagree that the GPL is weighted against developers. It's weighted against *proprietary* developers, sure. But proprietary development is only one development model -- and not the only possible way to make money doing it, either. -- Robert Krawitz r...@alum.mit.edu MIT VI-3 1987 - Congrats MIT Engineers 5 straight men's hoops tourney Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- http://ProgFree.org Project lead for Gutenprint --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works. --Eric Crampton ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Robert Krawitz wrote: Actually, I'd say that if anything the GPL is weighted toward users-as-developers -- ensuring that users can be developers themselves. At the expense of the original developers. Try this on for size (this also addresses Mark's point and the other Mark's failure to read all the words). Say I write a POP3 library for GNU Emacs. Say that instead of signing over the rights to the FSF I instead decide to sell it under the GPL. You buy my library. The terms of the GPL require me to provide you with the source code, which I do. You then turn around and sell that same code on the open market. This is Mark's point: the GPL does not allow me to reserve exclusive sales rights. That would be more restrictive than the GPL itself and therefore is not permitted by the GPL. This is tangentially my point: you as a non-developer end user get to profit from my work with minimal or no effort of your own. It doesn't matter what you say. What matters is the terms of the license and the protections those terms afford. The terms of the GPL have always been heavily weighted against commercial developers of all sorts and not just the proprietary ones. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
This is turning into yet another copy of the same old tired argument that we'll never agree on. One definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results, and this argument certainly qualifies as such. I think it would be best if we drop it at this point. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote: Robert Krawitz wrote: Actually, I'd say that if anything the GPL is weighted toward users-as-developers -- ensuring that users can be developers themselves. At the expense of the original developers. Try this on for size (this also addresses Mark's point and the other Mark's failure to read all the words). Say I write a POP3 library for GNU Emacs. Say that instead of signing over the rights to the FSF I instead decide to sell it under the GPL. You buy my library. The terms of the GPL require me to provide you with the source code, which I do. You then turn around and sell that same code on the open market. This is Mark's point: the GPL does not allow me to reserve exclusive sales rights. That would be more restrictive than the GPL itself and therefore is not permitted by the GPL. This is tangentially my point: you as a non-developer end user get to profit from my work with minimal or no effort of your own. It doesn't matter what you say. What matters is the terms of the license and the protections those terms afford. The terms of the GPL have always been heavily weighted against commercial developers of all sorts and not just the proprietary ones. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux Unix Email: abre...@gmail.com / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Robert Krawitz wrote: Depending upon the goals of the original developers. Your arguments below appear to apply to *any* FOSS license, not the GPL specifically. With one exception, that I'll discuss at the bottom (and that exception is *not* the original developers at all). No, they don't. I leave it to the reader to actually examine various software licenses. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL, but they have the option to NOT develop for the open community and do their own closed source efforts. Many are not willing to do this and go open source. I know several developers that bemoan being 'required' to go open source, basically because they have not found a reliable method of monetizing their efforts. Yes, sell hardware, support and installation services, books, classes is all fine, but they are comparatively 'high touch' sources of income where the software licensing approach is much 'lower touch' and scales if you have a product the public 'must have'. If not developing for the GPL community using those resources, it can be more difficult to make money because the community can be more limited (if you use non-standard architecture, or don't provide the 'killer app', or are not one with deep pockets (like many hardware vendors or mega-software houses)). This argument has been discussed all during my career (and before, my time using computers started in 1970 and for pay in 1972 or 3). In our current society it appears PC to give away software, but somehow the software must be paid for to keep the developers in coffee, pizza, and to pay the rent, etc. Good developers are worth their weight in gold plated latinum. And a few of those are well compensated. Many aren't. But those that aren't still do what they must to get by. I moved from being a programmer and systems analyst to sysadmin (first as a mainframe systems programmer, then moved to small machines - like Sun, then Linux and Windows when I was forced to. - my dislike for Windows came from Bill Gates 'Open Letter to Computer Hobbyists', calling all of us thieves for all practical purposes. So M$ has never been high on my list. Yes, you can Google it and read a copy of that letter online several places.) Still GPL has done lots of good for MANY users, application developers, systems geeks, and users. Many developers (typically application or system developers) make good money using GPL software for customers. IMHO, GPL (in its many forms) is not the nirvana that many want us to believe, and there are still needs for proprietary software and development. But as time goes by it appears more and more are being developed on the GPL backbone. And I do expect the trend to continue. What could change it? Some deep pockets backing court cases to gut the GPL, or for some new 'licensing measure' that makes it unpopular with developers and users. But that is just my .02 pesos on the subject. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] Why use Linux?
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL, This is simply not true. If I develop my software and publish it under the GPL, I give away NONE of my freedoms. If I base my software on the work of others, then my work must align itself with the original project. Its very easy to ignore the work that comes before us. The GPL is nothing more than a mechanism for making sure that people stay honest. You write your code, you own it. If you take someone else's code, then you are building on their foundation and have to live with the constraints by which they made it available to you. Developers do not give up rights with the GPL, they simply are forced to decide. Developers decry the GPL because they don't want to use the license of they code that they use but have not written/own. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
