Untitled
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dlc Apr 21, 2006 8:15 AM EDT |
Something small: play nicely with FOSS installed on the customer's computer. Something big: rewrite Windows top down to be as securable as UNIX. |
| Libervis Apr 21, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
I agree that if they would consistently start making certain changes that would suggest they are truly changing even if those changes don't include releasing their software as Free Software, it would be a positive thing and would at least justify opening a dialog with them. However I wouldn't exactly be their supporter unless they release their software as Free Software. I principally cannot support anything proprietary and wont. Software under usual proprietary terms is unacceptable and harmful and is exactly one of the core elements that build a monopoly (every proprietary software license is essentially a mini monopoly already). So, while I would agree to support a dialog with them if they start making true changes I wouldn't agree to actually becoming their supporter until they go all the way to releasing their software in a way that respects users freedom. After I would engage in a dialog, I would try to explain why this freedom is important and even why could respecting it benefit them as well. Thank you Daniel |
| Teron Apr 21, 2006 10:25 AM EDT |
I wouldn't say supporting Opera is harmful. The company innovates, uses patents solely for defence, has a community that the developers take part in as well (AFAIK), and supports open standards. How can supporting such a vendor be harmful? It may be less benefical than supporting the Mozilla/KDE projects, but I'd hardly class it as harmful. Supporting IE is harmful. |
| Libervis Apr 21, 2006 12:55 PM EDT |
Well, maybe Opera operates as a good company today and that certainly makes them at least trustworthy. But what if it would suddenly start getting big taking over fourth of maybe even half of the market? How would it act then? Actually it doesn't have to take over significant portions of the market to go bad with the change of management or anything like that. And when it does, the fact that their software was proprietary makes it impossible for a dissatisfied community to fork it off legally. They're either forced to use it as it is or abandon it (which to those who are hooked may not be the easiest thing to do). The point is that it is not you, the user, who has control. It is them. The fact that they are good to you right now doesn't change the fact that they are in control and that you merely have to trust that they wont abuse this control. That could in a way justify "harmful". I just believe user should be in control, which is what Free Software always ensures and proprietary software always opposes. Thank you Daniel |
| dcparris Apr 21, 2006 1:09 PM EDT |
Side note: I only mentioned Opera because they compete with MSIE. Otherwise, I have little or no use for the browser or the company, since the browser is not FOSS. |
| Teron Apr 22, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
I see having control over your own project as a thing people have a right to do. It's also the producer's choice whether to open the code or listen to their users. Personally, I can't give a damn if the product is developed by a FOSS project or a good proprietary company such as Opera. If a FOSS project or such an app goes the wrong way for me, I'll simply search for an alternative. And nowadays, with FOSS projects sprouting like mushrooms and small proprietary vendors who are actually nice to their users, I'm certain to have that alternative. It's the likes of M$ that drive me nuts, and why I'm working on a switch to other OSes. M$es ethics just disgust me. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 22, 2006 11:08 AM EDT |
Opera is a first-rate web browser. I used to use it the most, though now I mostly use Konqueror. I can't fall in love with Firefox because the darned thing annoys me to no end (a rant for another day) but it's good that it's luring users away from the aptly-named aiieeee. Which brings me to my question: if Microsoft were a loathesome, evil company with good products, instead of shoddy insecure products, then what would we do? I think it would be harder to interest people in alternatives in that case. |
| jimf Apr 22, 2006 11:26 AM EDT |
If their were an equivalent product, I would still prefer to use the FOSS version. Although I strongly support FOSS, I also recognize that there is a place for proprietary if it is issued without deception, and, if the company behaves in an ethical manner. I believe that Opera is doing this, and I prefer it to anything else (I agree that firefox is a pita). tuxchick asks: Quoting:if Microsoft were a loathesome, evil company with good products, instead of shoddy insecure products, then what would we do? It wouldn't make a difference to me... I'd still reject the product. But, I agree that many would be much more likely to use it. |
| tuxtom Apr 22, 2006 3:35 PM EDT |
I use Opera daily, and have been for almost eight years...this post is being written in Opera. I agree with Tuxchick: Firefox annoys me to no end, as well. It is an open source IE. All the keyboard shortcuts are IE. Opera is innovative, and has been LONG before Firefox hit the market. I don't choose to use software strictly based on whether or not it is FOSS. That is being "cheap" or fanatical. I use software based on how good it is for what I want to do with it, and I balance that with what I am able to pay, which is why I LOVE Linux. FOSS is great, but SOMETIMES it makes a lot more sense to pay for a license and actually get to work rather than compromising and wasting a lot of effort pursuing a philosophy. Quickbooks, for example. There is nothing in the FOSS world that even comes close. Sure, there are projects out there, but nothing even comes close. I am getting burnt out on the cause...not because I don't believe in it or want it to die, but life is too short to be worrying about software licensing all day. What I really want is FOSG. I'll buy the car, but I want it to run on Free & Open Source Gasoline. I'll jump on that bandwagon any day. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
I don't think "better software" is more important than users freedom (putting users in control of their computing instead of the software proprietor). That's however what you guys seem to be saying above, which is in my opinion unfortunate. Developers choosing to use proprietary licensing of their software is not an excercise of freedom of choice, as so many seem to be misled to believe. It is instead an excercise of power that has been given to them by the current copyright law. In the case when they choose proprietary licensing they are imposing their power over their users, their little own software monopoly over their users (because user has to pay for every single copy he makes to share with others and has to count only on one entity for any fixes or changes he wishes to make to the software he uses). I think that is unethical. Freedom is larger than this percieved "freedom of choice" that actually includes the choice of taking away the very freedom. |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
Libervis - Not to say anything, but the GPL (and the BSD license, for that matter) are also exercises of power based on the copyright law. The only principled difference is that you happen to like the way the GPL exercises that power. Personally, I love free software. At the same time, I have Acrobat Reader, Flash Player, and the nVidia graphics driver on my computer. Freedom may be larger than freedom of choice, but real freedom incorporates freedom of choice. To do otherwise becomes "my way or the highway", and that ain't freedom at all. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
dinotrac:Quoting:Not to say anything, but the GPL (and the BSD license, for that matter) are also exercises of power based on the copyright law. The only principled difference is that you happen to like the way the GPL exercises that power. I don't think so. In fact it is just the opposite. While proprietary licensing means excercising power *over* users, Free Software licensing is excercising power *TO* those users; giving them the freedom (that the copyright law would otherwise take from them by default). GPL is designed to oppose the unfair kind of power that the copyright law gives to software makers, by nullifying it. Quoting:Freedom may be larger than freedom of choice, but real freedom incorporates freedom of choice. To do otherwise becomes "my way or the highway", and that ain't freedom at all. Freedom should reciprocate. It is about right to do whatever you want as long as it does not hurt another's right to do what they want. As long as you start giving yourself more rights than you should, anothers' rights are being taken away. This is exactly what proprietary licensing is. It is the abuse of copyright law granted power to give yourself as the software developer more rights at the expense of the rights of your user. This just isn't right, and you can see that it just isn't the "my way or the highway" kind of thing at all. It is in fact more of a "my way as long as it doesn't hurt your way" kind of thing. Proprietary software is imposition of "my way" over "your way". Thank you Daniel |
| jimf Apr 23, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
Danijel wrote:
Quoting:Proprietary software is imposition of "my way" over "your way". Well, yes it is, and you have a perfect right to reject it, but that doesn't mean it may not be providing a legitimate and honest service. Proprietary software in itself is not the 'great evil'. If issued without deception, and, if the company behaves in an ethical manner, then, proprietary software is a sometimes acceptable solution. Again, you have the 'choice' to turn it down. Sorry, but I'm in agreement with dino on this one. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 2:41 PM EDT |
Jimf: Legitimate and honest service doesn't mean that the terms under which software is being provided to you are ethical, that they aren't leaving this "legitimate and honest" company with too much control over the software you use when you choose to use their software. The thing is that these unethical terms allow for a disbalance that CAN and DOES often turn the proprietor company into a dishonest one like Microsoft. When their software is proprietary, certain checks just aren't kept on them. They are already getting away with stealing your freedom. Why wouldn't they get away with more than that? (And indeed, some legislations today pushed exactly by the corporations that have realized they could get away with more, are being introduced and excercised, like the software patents law for one). Quoting:Proprietary software in itself is not the 'great evil'. No, the terms under which it is distributed can be unethical, unfair, breaking the balance of rights and therefore indeed evil. Quoting:If issued without deception, and, if the company behaves in an ethical manner, then, proprietary software is a sometimes acceptable solution. Hey, company doesn't in fact behave in an ethical manner if they distribute their software under unethical terms. I'm not accusing all proprietary software companies of being necessarily evil here though, because many of them aren't even aware that they are doing something wrong. They are simply going by the trend that they see can bring them alot of money. They don't necessarily know at what cost do they get this money. So, I don't think those people and companies who simply don't know are evil people. They don't need to be to do bad things. However, they should be educated about these ethical implications and urged to change their licensing. Pointing to the practical benefits of doing so (improved security due to peer review, community support, etc.) can be beneficial in persuading them as well, in addition to ethics arguments. Quoting:Again, you have the 'choice' to turn it down. Not all do. The reason why not everyone does is because our societies allowed proprietary software in the first place. As previously mentioned, proprietary licensed software are mini monopolies. Growing marketshare in a given market for a given program leaves less and less room for real choice. If it was Free Software, then people in this market would have the real choice. As soon as they become disatisfied with the options they have, they'd create options by forking a Free Software project. RedHat holds a great share of server market for example, but do they come even near to a monopoly, a state where people don't have choice? No, in fact, you even have RHEL lookalikes in CentOS and White Box Linux - choices created by the people. Proprietary software leads to less choice. Free Software leads to more choice. |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2006 2:41 PM EDT |
libervis -Quoting:I don't think so. In fact it is just the opposite. Yes, and Frosted Flakes are part of this nutritious breakfast. You can say whatever you like, but that don't make it so. The GPL is firmly grounded in copyright law -- it is copyright that gives it teeth. Why do you think FSF lawyers are able to secure compliance, ahem, from people who start out by failing to comply? They exercise the power granted to them under the law. As to proprietary software being an imposition of my way over your way, that would be the case only if you were forced to use it. Fortunately, you are free to use whatever you want, as am I. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 3:20 PM EDT |
dinotrac:Quoting:You can say whatever you like, but that don't make it so. I didn't just say it. I have provided an argument (even if you don't agree with it). Quoting:The GPL is firmly grounded in copyright law -- it is copyright that gives it teeth. Why do you think FSF lawyers are able to secure compliance, ahem, from people who start out by failing to comply? They exercise the power granted to them under the law. They do, but not to impose that power over users, but to empower users, to give them and protect their freedom. It is very different from using the copyright power to impose it over someone. But that's what I already said in an argument you seem to have just omitted. Quoting:As to proprietary software being an imposition of my way over your way, that would be the case only if you were forced to use it. Fortunately, you are free to use whatever you want, as am I. Not always, as I've already tried to explain in my previous post. Even when you do have a choice between two proprietary programs what you are choosing is among your masters for a particular computing task, instead of you being the master over your computer. I don't call having a master that disrespects your freedom, being free, no matter who you choose to be your master. |
| jimf Apr 23, 2006 3:42 PM EDT |
"having a master"??? Give me a break Danijel. You can still reject the software if it doesn't perform, or if you feel that the company or individual producing it is acting badly. I believe that people should release software under GPL, but saying that they 'have to' is really going over the line. Enforced freedom??? Now that's a' Master'. Real freedom is when individuals have that choice... GPL, or not... good, bad, or indifferent. |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
Libervis -Quoting:I don't call having a master that disrespects your freedom, being free, no matter who you choose to be your master. Don't go contradicting yourself. It seems that, if you had your way, you would deprive everyone of the freedom to choose proprietary software. Quoting:I have provided an argument (even if you don't agree with it) You did no such thing. You made an assertion unsupported by facts. Worse than that, you ignore facts that, if you really believe the things that you say you believe, you should know. Stallman and Eben Moglen themselves will tell you that the legitimacy of the GPL is based on the coercive power of copyright law. If, in fact, you actually understood some of your own rants against grants to the public domain, you would know that, without the coercive power to enforce specific behaviors, the GPL would be the same thing as the public domain. Spin it all you want. What is is. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 3:55 PM EDT |
I didn't say anything about "enforced freedom". I am just saying proprietary licensing is wrong, that's all. You can do it if you will and the next guy can do it, but that wont make it right. If anyone has been offensive in that way then it was the proprietary software industry, not the Free Software movement. It is proprietary software corporations that push things like DRM and actively try to undermine Free Software. By merely saying that proprietary software is wrong and enforcing a license that allows you to distribute software in an ethical way, we aren't attacking anyone's ability to release software under unethical terms. When I say that freedom of choice doesn't ethically include choosing proprietary licensing because it is rather an imposition of power, I am just trying to break the guise of "freedom of choice" appearing to justify choosing proprietary licensing as ethically right. When you supposedly excercise freedom of choice to kill freedom, should what you excercised really be called freedom at all? |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2006 3:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:When you supposedly excercise freedom of choice to kill freedom, should what you excercised really be called freedom at all? Where did I put those Frosted Flakes? |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 4:00 PM EDT |
Dinotrac:Quoting:Stallman and Eben Moglen themselves will tell you that the legitimacy of the GPL is based on the coercive power of copyright law. Well, I'm saying that GPL uses that power in a different way than proprietary licenses. Instead of taking away rights, it gives and preserves rights. The coercive power you are talking about here is used in an opposite way than with proprietary licenses. I don't know if I can make it more clear than that. |
| jimf Apr 23, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
dino, Watch it! I believe that Frosted Flakes are proprietary. |
| Libervis Apr 23, 2006 4:17 PM EDT |
Nice arguments guys! :P (I think you put those Frosted Flakes overthere Dino) ;) |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2006 4:42 PM EDT |
Libervis - Thanks, and Tony the T thanks you, too. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 23, 2006 5:08 PM EDT |
Man, this is sickening. I'm going to take my Captain Crunch and go find a good flamefest somewheres. |
| dcparris Apr 23, 2006 8:38 PM EDT |
To me, it is unethical to tell someone that they are not allowed to fix the software that runs on their hardware. If that means they need access to the source code, so be it. If I choose a proprietary license that prohibits access to the source code, I am effectively forcing users to be dependent upon me. And God help them if I wrote the program. ;-) I also find it unethical, even if not illegal, to ask someone to not share - whether it be donuts or a computer program. As RMS recently was quoted saying something along the lines of teaching people not to share sending the wrong message. Although prostitution was legal when I visited Nevada as a Marine, I did not go hire a prostitute, as I consider such behavior immoral. That our current system allows programs to be licensed under proprietary terms does not necessarily say much about whether doing so is moral, immoral, or even amoral. Thus, I licensed "Penguin in the Pew" under a Creative Commons license. How about them Apple Jacks? |
| Libervis Apr 24, 2006 3:13 AM EDT |
Thank you DCParris. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2006 3:41 AM EDT |
Hey Rev -- The lovely thing about freedom is this: You and Libervis are absolutely entitled to your opinions. More than that, you are free to act on them. Better still, you can tell the world in an effort to convince others. I can't stop you. It is your right. The other lovely thing is that I'm free to disagree. I'm free to love free software just as much as you do. I'm also free to use proprietary software where it suits my needs. And to see shades of grey. Each of the proprietary software programs in my list is free as in gratis. Nobody keeps me from sharing it. For that matter, in the case of Acrobat Reader, free alternatives exist. At any rate, you can't stop me any more than I can stop you. And that's a good thing. Harrumphing in my direction is, of course, perfectly acceptable. |
| jdixon Apr 24, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
> Harrumphing in my direction is, of course, perfectly acceptable. Completely wasted, of course, but perfectly acceptable. :) > At any rate, you can't stop me any more than I can stop you. And that's a good thing. Agreed. Freedom is a wonderful thing. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2006 6:35 AM EDT |
>Completely wasted, of course, but perfectly acceptable. :) If it makes you feel better, isn't that worth something? At least a little bit? ;0) |
| dcparris Apr 24, 2006 6:50 AM EDT |
Yes, freedom is a wonderful thing. :-) |
| Libervis Apr 24, 2006 6:01 PM EDT |
Absolutely. One of the freedoms I've always advocated is freedom to disagree, usually at the end of the discussion when I realize no change of convictions are gonna occur at either side any time soon, naturally. ;) |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2006 6:16 PM EDT |
>usually at the end of the discussion when I realize no change of convictions I think that's one of the strong points of a genuine working democracy. Convictions should not be something you change like socks, nor should you expect that of others. So...when it works, people talk, they argue -- even heatedly. They find out where they agree, where they don't. Maybe they learn enough about each other to have real respect without agreement. And then...they find some compromise that doesn't quite thrill anyone, but most folks can live with -- guided by those convictions that don't easily change. I view it a bit like DNA. When it's working and people are talking instead of just pointing fingers and calling names, the diversity of viewpoints makes for stronger and more robust societies. You, of course, are free to agree -- or not. ;0) |
| dcparris Apr 24, 2006 7:12 PM EDT |
That is what I love most about LXer. Even though some of our discussion get pretty hot pretty quick, it seems like we usually work out our differences and continue to respect each other. Now that's cool! |
| jimf Apr 24, 2006 8:10 PM EDT |
I think that's called 'Adult'... |
| tuxchick2 Apr 24, 2006 9:08 PM EDT |
I think that's called 'Adult'... Or it's the beneficial influence of sugary cereals? Proof that they are a crucial part of a healthy meal. Not just breakfast, mind you, any meal. Or all of them. |
| jimf Apr 24, 2006 9:33 PM EDT |
Lol tuxchick, next you''ll be touting poptarts as the answer to world peace :) |
| dcparris Apr 25, 2006 12:14 AM EDT |
C'mon people now, everybody get together and eat a poptart now... Apologies to Peter, Paul, and Mary :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!