-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pablo Angulo wrote:
> I don't agree with that. It is the developer's choice to release their > free software under MIT, LGPL, GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses. Right, agreed. > In your line, > LGPL or MIT are always preferable to GPL, I have never said that. > but that's only the case if > you only care about having the maximum of users([1]). Well, I do care about having users. What is the point of releasing a piece of software if nobody uses it? > The issue with free software is that there is a whole lot of it. You > take pains to port the linux kernel and gcc compiler to your machine, > and all of a sudden there are tons of software immediately available. > They cannot re-implement it all. No, but they do not need it all neither. There were routers and servers before Linux kernel and gcc, and still are, remember? It is not like the world will collapse without them. It is merely cheaper and convenient, but if you put sufficient legal obstacles in the way, the vendors will jump ship and go elsewhere. That's the way it is, unfortunately. > They are realistic (type 'apt-cache search .' for a proof), Sorry, size of a particular repository is not a proof. Specifically not the Debian one - how much of that software is actually used and maintained? > but they > are willing to make small sacrifices to have more free software. > > I'd say it is a strategic decision to decide whether to make your > hardware open or not. There are other benefits from open hardware for > the vendor, like a more involved community. Absolutely. Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating locked-down hardware. More often than not it is a royal PITA for both the hw developer, software developer and the end user, not to mention the support issues. I merely tried to play devil's advocate because I do develop hardware sometimes and know that many software people are not aware of some of the problems. > Also, there are very special > purposes which call for specific hardware, but it is way cheaper to rely > on something existing (and popular) than building the device from > scratch ([2]). That's not always the case - if the re-use saddles you with legal obligations or maintenance issues, you could be screwed, regardless of saving the development costs. Also, when speaking about hardware, it is easy to stick e.g. a PC104 board running Windows or Linux into something like hand dryer to save development costs, but is it a right solution technically? Building a controller using a micro and a few switches is cheaper, simpler and more reliable in the end. Your argument is an over-generalization. Before you tell me that nobody would do this, well, see here: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Hand-Dryer-Crashed.aspx > An open device would be a better choice then. Stallman's > strategy is: put a lot of free software within their reach, but only if > they make the device open, and that way more hardware will be open. > True: some vendors will opt for closed software because of this, but we > better have some open hardware than a lot of closed hardware. I think > open hardware allows for creative uses of technology, for both big and > small companies, so it is an objective worth a small sacrifice. I am not arguing with this, the issue isn't whether we want or not open hardware. We (as software developers) may want whatever we want, but finally it is the market that decides, not the ideology. Ideology is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH1Q77n11XseNj94gRAivJAKCDXm/ytLiokzcRSXy5opxsfPV08ACfeH0D quJplTdQLtrBxKP1EGSWhBo= =KPwr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
