Linux.com

"Free software does not mean "gratis"; "

What the hell was the LGPL created for then? Try telling the people around Gnome that proprietary development should not be free.

#

Yeah, I know, it's a bummer. I get the feeling that RMS kind of regrets the creation of LGPL.

#

Here is what <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html" TITLE="gnu.org">Richard Stallman says</a gnu.org> about the LGPL:

"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."

In other words, if the functions provided by your library are unique, then if you use the GPL for your library, any developers who want to use it will be forced to also GPL their software (which is what RMS wants).

But if there is a proprietary alternative that provides the same functions as your library, then using the GPL for your library will only cause developers to switch to the proprietary alternative. In that case, using the GPL will only encourage the success of the alternative proprietary library. Thus, when there is a proprietary alternative for your library, you are better off using the LGPL, to encourage developers to use your Open Source library.

An example of this would be the Qt library. Since it is available under both the GPL and a proprietary license, developers who do not want to use the GPL for their own software will simply use the proprietary version of Qt. That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt. But Linux and the Open Source community would be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

#

> But Linux and the Open Source community would
> be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

Proprietary software developers opposed to Free Software are better off if Qt was LGPL'd. The Free Software community would be worse off because TrollTech would no longer be able to fund the development of this fine piece of Free Software.

Your desire for popularity seems to have blurred your vision.

#

An example of this would be the Qt library. Since it is available under both the GPL and a proprietary license, developers who do not want to use the GPL for their own software will simply use the proprietary version of Qt. That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt. But Linux and the Open Source community would be better off if Qt was LGPL'd.

Crap. The LGPL is certainly useful in that there are occasions when proprietary and free software need to work, link and communicate together. However, it has become a total and utter excuse for some individuals to claim that proprietary software development is free. There is your FUD. Proprietary software development is not free under any circumstances, and anyone who believes otherwise is a total idiot. There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.

That's good for Trolltech, since it gives them a stable of locked-in developers who are dependent on the proprietary-licensed Qt.

Locked-in developers. Yer. You don't understand Qt development licenses at all. Using Qt for proprietary development allows developers to publish under a proprietary license of their choice, or a more public license such as the QPL. Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.

The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all. Almost certainly not is the answer, and unfortunately it will be a means for Microsoft to do some FUD, if they feel the need. I hate to sound like RMS, but the GPL and proprietary software licenses absolutely need to be kept separate in a development sense, and we should use the LGPL on the occasions when we need proprietary licensed and free software to work together. There you have a case for developing genuine free software, and creating a proprietary software business model rolled into one. It's called Qt. How ironic is that? Must be quite a raw nerve for many people out there.

People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief. The fact that a company like Trolltech has been kind enough to accomodate and embrace free software licenses is astonishing enough, and a welcome step forward.

This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust). The fact that Ximian is now being shepherded by Novell won't cut any ice with Novell's accountants I'm afraid, and certainly not when they realise they can outsource most of their in-house Ximian development into the community. Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.

#

> There is no business model available to fund more improvements into a toolkit, like Qt, which can be used to develop even better and more GPL'd software; and proprietary software for those who need it.

What are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.

Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?

> Since the developers themselves choose whether to use the GPL, QPL, free or open source licenses or a proprietary license of their choice that they can pay for, I'd really love to know how they are locked-in.

You're right. Developers who have based their software on proprietary Qt can escape their lock-in by GPL'ing their software.

Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.

So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.

But you berate other people for preferring the LGPL for Qt because it would cause Trolltech to lose income.

Your argument is contradictory and hypocritical.

> The LGPL creates a total dead-end in terms of funding and comeback in terms of future development, and it is by no means certain that any software developer out in the real-world will trust this way of working at all.

I see. So you're saying that we should just give up this whole Open Source thing, because it's a dead-end.

You would have us give up Linux, give up Apache, give up Mozilla, give up Gnome, give up GTK, give up PHP, give up Red Hat, give up Debian, and so on, because they're all pure Open Source and can't possibly survive "out in the real-world."

Well, thank you for being so honest about it.

I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source. They are only pretending to be in order to gain promotion. As you are saying, Trolltech makes their money by selling proprietary software, i.e. the proprietary version of Qt.

> People who expect companies like Trolltech to LGPL their software and say "Hey, we don't care. We're gonna give this away for free and you can develop all the proprietary software you like" and put themselves out of business shows naivety beyond belief.

Nobody said Trolltech is expected to LGPL their software.

On the contrary, I expect Trolltech to carry on as they are, as a seller of proprietary software.

And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme, even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.

I can't help what Trolltech does, and I'm not talking to Trolltech at all.

Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers.

And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.

> This is not FUD, and companies like Ximian are going to find this out in the starkest possible way. Why do you think companies like Helix, Eazel and an independent Ximian have either went bust or had to be bought out by larger companies? (In fact, they've still gone bust).

And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.

You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?

Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.

> Guess who has the workable business model there? Yep, you guessed right, although I don't expect you to admit it.

On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product, then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.

Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).

So Trolltech can continue to follow their business model of giving away GPL'd Qt, and selling proprietary Qt.

But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.

#

It's not a conspiracy. Trolltech refuses to let you make profits from them unless you pay them or do the Right Thing(tm) and release your source code under the GPL.

Why do you have a problem with that?

#

What are you talking about? The business model that is central to Open Source (shared development effort) has been explained many times. And Linux is proof that it works.

Linux is different. Linus licensed the Linux kernel via the GPL, not because of pseudo free software political reasons as some people might think, but because he wanted a cycle of comeback on kernel development so that it would snowball. BSD is a license that works for many people, but as Linus has pointed out it means that commercial entities can simply take it and give nothing back - nothing is free. Licensing under the GPL is the best thing Linus did with Linux. Linus is the guy that makes Linux work, and I shudder to think what things would be like without him. It is not a business model for selling software, but creating software that people really want and need to invest in. This uncategorically works, very well and is something you don't understand, despite it being explained many times.

Why do you Trolltech supporters use arguments that come straight from the Microsoft FUD book? Is there a connection between Trolltech and Microsoft?

Oh, the Microsoft FUD. Well I suppose it had to happen. You think this because you haven't understood what I have written, but I didn't expect anyone to really.

Yet the rest of your post is saying that developers can't make money if they Open Source their software.

You open source something and make money from related support services etc. for software where it is just unreasonable to charge license fees, or where it opens up more business opportunities if you open the source, although you could argue you are licensing a service. That is up to the customer to decide. However, it is impossible thus far to make a critical mass of money from services and support alone (just ask Red Hat), particularly if you are involved in development. Is it a service or a product or both? This is where many free and open source peoples' business understanding falls by the way side completely. The UserLinux mailing list is a good place to start on this.

So you're saying that proprietary developers are not locked in to Qt, because they always have the option of giving up their income.

Why shouldn't they give up their income for proprietary software as Qt does, or their right to keep their source code secret as the Linux kernel does? Both are totally workable models and can be chosen depending on what works best for people. Nothing is free in either case, you just pay in the way that works best for you. Pretending that proprietary software can be developed on a widespread basis for free is just stupid, and completely breaks the two working business models. We will get to a point where proprietary software can be developed for free however, but when we do people will simply do their own development by telling their computers what they want to do. We will cease to need software development or even technical services and support companies and cease to need open source projects and initiatives like UserLinux - but there will still be communities of course. This is a long, long, long, long way off in the future.

And as a seller of proprietary software, I expect Trolltech to continue to push their GPL+proprietary lock-in scheme,

Qt is not a lock-in scheme at all. I have already explained the licensing of Qt. Qt would be a lock-in play if I could only get Qt to work with stuff written with Qt - as Microsoft does with Windows. This is simply not the case. Qt can use and work with software published under many different licenses, whether proprietary or open source or free. The LGPL facilitates this proprietary and free software linking and working together - which is what the LGPL should be used for.

even to the point of paying people to post in Linux forums.

Well I wish I did!! You can think that if you want.

I take your post as an indication that Trolltech isn't really a supporter of Open Source.

What, you mean licensing Qt under the GPL and forming the Free Qt foundation that completely ensures the integrity and future of Qt, whatever may happen, and putting in place legally binding contracts to ensure this is the case? Yer, you're right. Trolltech are terrible supporters of Open Source compared to Novell or Sun who think they're going to own the community. Have Sun done this with Java or Novell with any of their core software? Sun could take a leaf out of Trolltech's book regarding Java, but they won't.

Instead, I am talking to other Linux users and developers. And I am telling them that they will be better off using LGPL'd libraries (such as GTK, PHP, the Mozilla XPToolkit, and so on) to do their development.

Well, you need to start talking to people in the business world. Many of these tools are good enough for open source projects, but they are simply not good enough in the commercial world. The only one that really is is PHP, but that is web development.

And yet Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Nautilus, Mono, PHP, GTK, The Gimp, OpenOffice, and countless other Open Source projects continue to not only survive, but to outstrip Microsoft in speed of development, and quality.

Linux, Apache and Open Office are commercial and community backed projects. They are genuine successes in their own right, but in terms of all of the VBA-like office applications developed, Open Office has yet to prove itself. True, but I'm sure it will. Mozilla is a community backed project, but they had software based on what was a commercial product from Netscape. Nautilus had several million dollars of venture capital pumped into it with no return on investment at all, and depending on who you talk to it is either good or not good enough. Mono, GTK and The Gimp are good for what they are intended for, but commercially they pale into insignificance against Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt (and Qt is a heck of a lot more than a graphical toolkit), Borland, Rational, Adobe Photoshop etc. This is simply a business reality I'm afraid, and free software needs to fund itself better to make sure we can compete with all of the above. Mono will be a disaster simply because it will be seen by software development shops as a way of taking their Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET compiled runtimes and running them on Linux. It will not be seen as an alternative. When it doesn't work they won't use it, and Microsoft is very adept at making sure alternatives technically don't work with their software.

You really don't have any faith in Open Source, do you?

Yes I do. But it must work.

Perhaps you should go and do some reading, and come back when you can understand how all of those Open Source projects continue to thrive. You should be able to answer, for example, what value was returned when IBM, Sun, AOL, and others contributed to the development of Mozilla and Apache.

I doubt whether AOL contributes to much these days. I think you should do some reading and find out that all of these projects are not equal, and in the successful ones, nothing is completely free.

On the contrary, I fully admit that Trolltech's business model of 1) giving something away for free to promote their product,

Contradiction here. Trolltech and the people who use Qt, like at KDE, do not pretend that proprietary software is free.

then 2) making money by selling proprietary software, is a fully workable business model. After all, Microsoft has used that model for years.

So Microsoft has open sourced its development tools, GPL'd them, and initiated a Free Win32 or Free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET foundation and put in legal contracts to ensure the integrity of Microsoft development tools as free software. All I can say is wow! There is a fundamental difference here. Microsoft gives software away to lock people in, or to get into markets they are not in. Novell and Ximian are pretending that prorietary software development is free, presumably to lock you into Novell services, software stack and support. Sun sees it as a way of trying desperately to beat Microsoft, get people to buy Sun software and servers, but with no clear vision.

Nice comparison<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).

Unfortunately, that model requires me, as a developer and user, to accept being locked-in to a proprietary platform (Qt in this case, if I use or develop proprietary Qt-based software).

As I have explained above, Qt does not lock you in. Go away and learn about what Qt is first. And you're going to have to pay a license for proprietary software you are going to develop, potentially sell and use as a business opportunity? Poor you!!

But, as a developer and a user, I will look elsewhere, and concentrate on using only Open Source tools. GTK+ and the Mozilla XPToolkit, for example, are both high quality LGPL'd development tools, and are both progressing nicely.

For open source development yes. For serious commercial development you're on a hiding to nothing. GTK+ and the Mozilla Toolkit are so far away from being as full-featured as development tools such as MS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Qt, Borland tools, Rational tools etc. it is unbelievable.

Software development tools are an entirely different kettle of fish, simply because that is the fulcrum where software actually gets developed. Mixing free and proprietary software in the manner that many are doing with the LGPL is very silly. This is not what the LGPL was logically designed for, which is what my original point was about.

#

"Free software does not mean 'gratis';" can be read as "Free software does not HAVE to be 'gratis';" If you don't mind giving your source code away, you still have the LGPL option without giving up your intellectual property. Its very handy, but I think Stallman regrets the LGPL. He changed the acronym to mean "lesser" GPL rather than the original "library" GPL.

#

No, it means that free software does not mean gratis.

#

The LGPL (and other non-copylefts used by the FSF) are there for pragmatic reasons. Sometimes they are needed in order to compete for mindshare with an existing library, and sometimes the beefit by expected contributions to the library that come back from developers of proprietary software outweight the loss of initiative to create a free version of the program to solve the problems solved by the proprietary software.

It is not clear that Sun would have switched from CDE to Gnome if it hadn't been for the LGPL, and Sun has contributed a lot to Gnome.

#

"It is not clear that Sun would have switched from CDE to Gnome if it hadn't been for the LGPL, and Sun has contributed a lot to Gnome."

The reasons for Sun using Gnome probably have more to do with the fact that the technical people at Sun are more comfortable with C and object-oriented C rather than C++ or anything else the rest of the world uses.

#

> The reasons for Sun using Gnome probably have more to do with the fact that the technical people at Sun are more comfortable with C and object-oriented C rather than C++ or anything else the rest of the world uses.

Nonsense. Sun also contributed to Mozilla, which is written in C++.

Sun had to choose Gnome because of Qt's GPL+proprietary licensing strategy.

If Sun had selected KDE, then Sun's desktop would be based on the Qt library, and the Qt Object Model.

And in that case, Sun would have had to tell developers that, in order to write proprietary retail applications for Sun's Java Desktop, for Linux or Solaris, they would have to pay over $1000 (per developer) to another company, namely, Trolltech.

And Sun would also have to say to those developers that Sun is not in control of their desktop's development APIs or Object Model. Again, those developers would have to talk to Trolltech in order to develop for the Solaris desktop.

Does that sound like a situation that would be acceptable to Sun?

#

Is it acceptable that Sun and other 3rd party developers can pollute GNU/Linux with their closed proprietary applications? I think that is an insult to the community. At least with KDE if someone wants to go the proprietary path they are forced to pay a toll as such. All software should be free.

#

Nonsense. Sun also contributed to Mozilla, which is written in C++.

Mozilla was perceived as the popular browser - so they supported it.

If Sun had selected KDE, then Sun's desktop would be based on the Qt library, and the Qt Object Model.

Yer. And?

And in that case, Sun would have had to tell developers that, in order to write proprietary retail applications for Sun's Java Desktop, for Linux or Solaris, they would have to pay over $1000 (per developer) to another company, namely, Trolltech.

Companies do deals, cross-license etc. all the time. This situation would be more acceptable to most corporations. This does not affect KDE because it is free software.

And Sun would also have to say to those developers that Sun is not in control of their desktop's development APIs or Object Model. Again, those developers would have to talk to Trolltech in order to develop for the Solaris desktop.

Qt is different from KDE - Qt is just the base toolkit used. Sun would contribute to KDE as with any other community project and KDE technology belongs to KDE, not Trolltech. KDE is up and running under Solaris - why would they need to talk to Trolltech?

Does that sound like a situation that would be acceptable to Sun?

The situation I have just described would be more acceptable to most corporates, but I suppose Microsoft's rivals continue to buy the FUD.

#

I'd be very surprised if such a strategic move as choice of desktop was done by engineers.

If I was a manager at Sun my requirements to a desktop would be 1) third party developers should be able to develop applications with no royality or license restrictions, 2) development should not be controled by a third party (Sun should at least be able to fork as a last resort), and 3) there should be a momentum behind the desktop.

KDE would be an option, but it would require that Sun negotiated a permanent license With Troll Tech that a) covered all their users (i.e. allowed royalty free development and distribution of proprietary KDE application for Sun machines) and b) allowed Sun to fork Qt under this license. Such a license could probably be negotiated, but it would be exepensive both in money and time.

For Gnome these strategic problems were non-existent, so it was chosen even though it might have been technically inferior at the time.

#

I was not paying attention in the early days, but I think I got the impression from reading, that the LGPL was a pragmatic decision to help jump start things.

A Nony Mouse

#

I am working with Open Source Software and Ms Windows Software as well and I think a Software engineer I should be aware in every technology and not just Support Open Source or non-Open source.

I think that first of all we should consider what “open source” is and if we don’t have a definition for this we should find one. What I am asking you here is to think what you imaging that most people think that Open Source is. Is it a Free software meaning that you don’t have to pay foe it? Is it just “Open” meaning you have access to the source code but you pay for it?

Let’s say that it is a just Open and you have to pay match less to have it that a non-open software. Then what about the copyrights. why something I give it to the open source community can someone use it to gain money with out pain? On the other hand why not be a Public Knowledge the way a “browser” works or the “drivers works”. Mathematics is under GPL meaning that everyone have the rights to use them free why not the source code of a “browser”?

The answer to all this has 3 step:
1. The problem of the “scaling of use”.
2. The problem of the Money.
3. The definition of what the software is.

1. Let’s think about books. The books is the best container of Knowledge humanity have created so far.
a. Should you pay to get a book and its content ?YES
b. Is the Knowledge that they contain under GPL? Yes you can write a book using other book(but you can re produce exactly the same book)

2. Let think about Hardware.
a. Should you pay to buy a VLSI Cheap?Yes
b. Are intel,Amd, Motorola obliged to show you How they great it? NO
c. Are under GPL? Lets see
i. The Technology is while the Cheap is not
ii. Cheap could be “open” some times to universities but if you are a Company you should pay for it. (Very Reasonable I think)
d. You don’t know if in the hardware has the ability to give to others your Privet data but you still buy it?YES(I don’t trust them but have no choice)

3. This is the hard one.
a. Is software a Machine? Yes it is (that’s the way we develop it like a VM)
b. Is software a spiritual product? Yes it is
c. Is it art? yes it is look at OpenGL
d. Is it maths ? yes it is -> so it is under GPL
e. …

What I am saying here is that Freedom is to give you Software Product however you want such as free, open, non-open, Shareware e.t.c. Secondly If a hole system is used form almost all the people then its source code MAST be under general Knowledge. We have the right to know how it works in every detail so it can be possible to check if it “respects” the human Privacy.

Finally, I think Open source is great because it proves that Human thought and creation there is no need to be under a Huge Companies Handling. Secondly it proves that there is need the Knowledge to be under Public License but NOT the PRODUCT of the knowledge too. Finally, It is important to consider the scaling. Telephone is a need and the Telephone service mast be “Open source” so it will be secure and accessible(low cost) to everyone. On the other hand you should pay to have the right to call your friend and talk to him/her for a hour . (Attention to this) You Have to DEMAND to have the right NOT PAY to call at police or a hospital.

So we have to pay to Pay a Electronic game(maybe with lower cast but we have too). We have to pay to have a Office Suite for your Job but not for your home. We Should DEMAND to have an Open Source OS. We should not demand The Os to be Totally free but you Have to Demand to be very Cheap meaning accessible to everyone. All the extras is up to the Producer it will supply to us open, free, or shareware. Don’t forget If something is a Academic Product We have to Demand to be Under GPL and free if it is the creation of a Company then we have to Demand to be under GPL only if it will be the “only solution”.

#

I support Richard Stallman. Who ever thinks that freedom is an easy thing to get is wrong. Drivers should be free. Libs should be free. Although I can envision that there are also specialised programes that are not GPL Free Software.

We need to be very carefull that the community wil not skwander the little bid of freedom that we got.

Richard Stallman can be a pain in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but he is correct. We need to go on and explain why the digital world should be formost free and not lock away behind big corps. who want you.

The freedom that software can give is truly democratic and is the dream we all have.

#

at Thinknerd.de:

http://www.thinknerd.de/?q=node/view/174

#

Mr Stallman asks the question, "What does it mean to run free software?". Each person or organization who chooses an open source OS, application or other tool over a proprietary one chooses to do so for a their own reasons. In this article Stallman discusses why he chose this path but he is arguing that each person or organization should make the choice for the same reasons he did, with the same motivation.

Stallman asserts that "non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits coopoeration and community." This is certainly overstating the importance of software's influence on each person's ability to cooperate and experience community. And I assert that this is where the open source movement fails.

While open source software promotes cooperation and community for the developers involved in its creation, it doesn't attempt to build community by creating more user friendly tools.

The general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code, most of the users of computers can't do any thing with the code any way. Open source project managers and developers need to better consider their end users. End users are not always other programmers, some are teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, grandparents.

Usability for the community at large must go beyond RPMs and a GUI that mimics Windows. Usability must extend into high quality instructional programs that provide the information at the user's fingertips. Job aids and other electronic performance support tools that address the needs of the non-developer community will do more to foster cooperation and community between the developers and their users.

Organizations like the FSF and SEUL need to consider how to partner include Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and change mangement experts into their projects. After all what good is any application free or not without a high probability of end user acceptance.

#

> general popluation doesn't care about the right to see the source code

It's not important that Joe has the source, the point is that *everyone* has the source. If a company inserted a back door into a Free Software program, someone in the community will spot it and remove it. And for this reason, Free Software is very unlikely to have back doors in the first place.

> he is arguing that each person or organization should
> make the choice for the same reasons he did

He doesn't make this arguement. He argues that we should encourage people to value freedom. You've simply changed his message into one that is easier to argue against.

#

It is very important that the code is available for developers to protect against the back doors. But Joe doesnt know the dangers of back doors and doesn't really care about licensing issues.

Joe wants an easy to use computer that is reliable. And when he has a problem he wants to know where to go to solve it.

While you are right that Stallman argues we should encourage people to value freedom, he does seem to me to assert that because he started this thing for that reason we should all fall inline.

I'm not arguing against Stallman, but I am asserting that there are other reasons to use open source tools. I started using open source tools because I believe that there are tools that should be free (operating systems and communication tools for example) and because I can't agree to MS licensing agreements but I dont believe every applicaiton should necessarily be free. And I do believe that each organization or individual has the right to choose free or non-free in the distribution of their tools. Even the tools written for a free OS.

Isn't the idea that everything must be free somewhat antisocial in that it alienates those who choose to protect their intellectual capital?

That being said, don't read into this that I hold the idea of intellectual capital too highly. While I'm still working to clarify some aspects of my philosophy here, I do believe that intellectual property litigation has hurt society.

What if the inventor of the wheel had tried to protect his intellectual capital?

However, I do believe that each individual or organization has the right to decide how to best distribute their work product. Stallman doesn't discount the right but he does suggest that the open source community should only support those who value freedom.

Users seek freedom for many reasons, all of those reasons shed light on the needs and philosophies of the community, contributing to the whole.

#

"Joe wants an easy to use computer that is reliable."

and for Joe, it has been seen that development and bug fixing can be more active and faster with open source software. Joe is better off.

"And when he has a problem he wants to know where to go to solve it."

While most opensource software doesn't have a glaring "Need Help ? Call 1-800-FIX-APACHE" or whatever...many support channels exist for opensource software, in most cases more so (and cheaper) than proprietary software.

#

First of all I think its important to realize that Stallman has just defined clearly the difference between the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. If you don't realize that there is a difference you miss the point of this article. For the OSM it may indeed be important to "keep the end user in mind" etc... But for the FSM if the code isn't free they will not accept it regardless of how polished it looks. I'm more inclined to line myself up with the OSM but I'm glad the FSM is there. And while I do fine RMS to be a pita often, I thank God he exists.

#

My comments above reflect my thoughts on both FS and OSS, they apply equally in my context.

#

Stallman started the free software community for reasons he thought were good, indeed compelling. part of what he's spent the years since on has been formulating arguments for his reasons and his doings, and he's arrived at arguments he feels are good and convincing. he's not trying to say we should all step in line with his reasons just because they're his; he's trying to present those arguments and explain his reasons, because he feels his explanations are good enough to be convincing. he may or may not be doing a good job of communication and evangelising in this attempt, but he's definitely not asking us to agree with him "just because".

oh, and he would indeed be most upset at your conflating free software with open source. *you* may think they're effectively equivalent, but *he* has an argument - which he feels is good and convincing - for just how and why the difference matters. he doesn't try to tell the open source community what to value and what not to; but he *does* try to argue for why the _free software_ community should put greater value on some things than on others, and for why we should join them in so doing.

#

I think you are confusing popularity with usefulness. I want Gnu/Linux to be useful, I could care less if its used. And, by useful, I mean useful to people like me, a developer, what does it matter if some end-user can figure it out, what are they going to contribute, except for a bunch of non-bug bug reports, or some crazy idea about how my software should have been written. I don't work for these users, they don't pay me to write OSS. So forgive me if I am not interested in making a training video for them.

Why should developers care about end users? If a developer's software works for this developer then, job done, in my opinion.

End users have no right to expect that the software be changed to make it easier for them. The developers are generally doing this work for free, on their own time. Users can suggest changes, but if the developers don't agree then too bad.

And besides, software isn't bad just because it can't be used by everyone, some times its better because its not saddled with all of the bloat associated with making it "easy to use".

Adding GUI's and other bloatware just takes the developer away from meaningful enhancements and introduces more bugs and greater maintenance overhead.

I, for one, am more than happy with the current state of the GNU/Linux OS, I find it far easier to use than other, GUI riddled, propritary OS's. I find it far easier to edit a single text file than to hunt through a stack of menus looking for an elusive check box.

Feel free to disagree with me, feel free to add GUI's to my code, just don't expect me to do it for you.

#

You probably need to distinguish between two kinds of end users, those who use the software at work, and those who use it at home.

The first group *does* (or should) care about access to the source, and are able to do something about making it more accessible. They pay developers to do so, either through their employer who want to increase productivity, or through trade organizations. And this is not hypotetical, it is a multi-billion dollar industry where companies like IBM are paid to adjust the software to the need of the individual companies. In the case of IBM, an increasing fraction of the software they support are free, even if it isn't yet on the desktop. Sun, on the other hand, is already doing a lot to make the free desktop more usable, through OpenOffice and HCI improvements to Gnome.

I don't see how free software does much for the non technical home users though, except that they can reuse the free office tools at home. For problems that are specific for home users, they will either have to be able to use nerd-software, or go for proprietary solutions.

#

Based on this response and other comments regarding Stallman's article, it would seem that the community of developers involved in free and/or open source software do not want to create a tool that competes with MS for the home market.

This brings up a few questions:

1 -- why the complaints about RH's supporting only enterprise RH now?

2 -- why the whining about FUD?

3 -- why all the words around trying to defeat MS?

4 -- if the developers in the free/os movement don't want to support end users in the home market, then how can defeating MS be good for society?

#

I doubt you will find many of the more serious developers talking about "defeating MS", especially in the home market. Defeating MS was never a primary motivation for us.

Most of the money is in the corporate market, which mean most of us will get free sofware jobs. For the same reason, Microsoft will definitely not be happy "owning" the home market. They probably wouldn't even own that for long, as people prefer using the same software at home as at work, and it would be cheap enough for someone to create end-user versions for the little non-game, non-office software that exists, based on similar nerd-user software. The motivation could be publicity.

Entertainment software is the only area where free software may be unable to provide adequate end-user solutions. I hear Microsoft has some pretty good games.

#

>Defeating MS was never a primary motivation for us.

Simply a pleasant side effect.

#

"I don't see how free software does much for the non technical home users though, except that they can reuse the free office tools at home."

the vast majority of opensource developers are people who develop on their personal workstations, not in corporate development environments. if anything, free software is produced more by individuals working on non-production machines running at home than at work.

#

I do think the vast majority of the free software people use are written by professionals, who are paid to do so. Some of this software is directed towards corporate non-technical end-users.

It is true that lots of people write free software intended for home use, but they are rarely pied to do so. Thus, they write for their peers, not for the non-technical end user.

#

I still disagree. Taking a look at the developer's mailing lists for apache, postgresql, linux, any of the BSDs....it would appear that most of them are working at organizations where their job's focus is not to support the project at hand. And in those cases, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that their respective companies are allowing any major development done on their own servers...thus, I'd still say that most of development occurs on workstations.

The lucky ones *do* get paid...like folks at IBM, HP, and SGI...to support and develop on F/OSS projects, but I don't think that they are in the majority at all.

#

The most active developers (measured in commits) in the projects you mention tend to be the ones who has it as their main job, not surprisingly.

However, lots of additional contributions come from people who has a lot of flexibility on how they achieve their main job, and use that flexibility to help develop on the tools they use in their main job.

All the projects you mentioned are tools that are mostly used profesionally. If you work for a web hotel, contributing to apache comes naturally. Even if your job description is keeping the hotel running smoothly rather than developing software.

It is not worth much (being self-selected and all), but the <A HREF="http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/" TITLE="infonomics.nl">FLOSS survey</a infonomics.nl> has approximately half the respondants being paid for their free software work.

#

You make some very good points. As a developer who prides himself on ability to communicate with "real people," l hope free/open sw can open up.

#

nope, I was with you there for a minute, but then you blew it with this:

>The general popluation doesn't care about the right >to see the source code, most of the users of >computers can't do any thing with the code any way. >Open source project managers and developers need to >better consider their end users. End users are not >always other programmers, some are teachers, >doctors, lawyers, engineers, housewives, >grandparents

back to the drawing board for you ! You don't get it !. If Freedom doesn't come before 'end users', the all is for naught. That's how we all got beholden to MS in the first place ! Nope, you don't get it at all yet...

#

The GNU General Public License encumbers Open Source Software with a schizoid and sociopathic personality disorder that renders it unable to work well with others, while blaming every other software producer for its failures. This is actually a side effect of a self-preservationist mentality that is a requirement for a business like Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors, but is unncessary baggage for a movement that should be aiming to provide users with a less hostile computing experience. The GPL was created to protect the software freedom of users by ensuring that the source code was always available and freely distributable, however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software. Instead, it actually hinders the freedom of those users by forcing them to endure less than usable software for the sake of adhering to Richard Stallman's constant redefinition of freedom, which is forced cooperation rather than true freedom defended by its beneficiaries. As a result of these personality flaws, most open source software remains less than usable, garnering only the support of companies seeking self-preservation, when it should be willing and able to cooperate with the companies that are actually able to benefit projects with user interface research, as well as software and hardware support that is not constantly having to be reverse-engineered.

Who would benefit from a less socially bankrupt license? You. If you're a developer, you can stop chasing after less than open, yet de facto standards and cooperatate with software vendors that may not agree with your development strategy to create software that makes your software usable, predictable, reliable and interoperable for the people who really matter --- your users, who are your customers. You may sacrifice getting credit for your work as it is used in proprietary software, but if your goal is an ego stroke, your customers will suffer. If' you're a user, you will be able know that just because you switch to an open source platform, doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice your usablity on the RMS altar. If you're a computer manufacturer, you will know that you can sell a package with your computer that includes a mixture of open source and proprietary software -- depending on what works best for your customers, instead of having to compromise their experience for the sake of an anti-social political movement. And, if you're a GPL zealot, you can still install just open source software at all cost -- even if it causes you to be less productive and unable to work with others who don't share your beliefs.

#

Here, here!

#

"Here, here!"

Where?

The verbose rant you seem to support (albeit with misspelt encouragement) attempts to sound pragmatic and masquerades as "good business sense", but in the hyperbole it blatantly misses Stallman's point, misrepresents the terms of various GNU licences, ignores valid and workable Free Software business practices, and panders to the various monopolising commercial interests that motivated Stallman in the first place.

In short: lots of big words for some pretty small-minded thoughts.

#

If people could take others' open source work without any restrictions, or modify others' work and not share the results then there would likely be less progress.

#

Except for leeches who like to take other peoples work and make money out of it without contributing back in any way. This way they see progress in their bankaccounts. They have a type of software available for them.. it's called proprietary and can mostly be bought from Microsoft. But since that negates the first point.....

#

OK. 'Fess up. Which of the McBrides posted this?

#

If you think carefully of what you wrote, you'll realise that you aren't complaining about GPL, but about restrictive licensing in general (which fits to basically all closed source).

Although I don't agree with Stallman on "nonfree" being immoral, the practical implications of GPL go far beyond this. It forcibly makes development less costly, for which you pay with having to give up "proprietarity". So it's a trade, just as any other license.

Why is such an extreme measure necessary you ask? Because current copyright law is fucked up with respect to software. Copyright means the author is granted a temporary monopoly. However, the profitable product cycle period of software (in a free market) is far less than what law foresees (75+ years), it is much closer to 3 years, which makes it in fact a permanent monopoly. This is a very bad thing (TM) from economic point of view, because monopoly is always bad. So GPL takes the opposite extreme -> never a monopoly.

If copyright law said that after 3 years of first distribution software including source becomes public domain, GPL would become obsolete (except perhaps for Stallman<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)), and both open source and closed source producers would be able to do whatever they want, including making money from licensing.

MfG shurdeek

#

Well said! I think you have cut straight to the heart of the matter.

Although RMS always says that it is good to make money from software too, the GPL does make that difficult to actually achieve. The best solution I was ever able to think of would be to introduce a time lag, giving the creators of the software a chance to profit, but I never had the insight to realise this was actually the fault of copyright itself.

#

Is it immoral to charge money for copies of something that costs you essentially nothing to produce? I think so.

If I could buy a hammer that was useful to me and it cost me essentially nothing to make copies of it, it would be immoral to not give away those copies.

Think about it! What kind of world would you rather live in? One where someone would give you the hammer that cost them nothing, or one where you'd have to pay for it? The former is substantially more free and promotes community and goodwill among people. That's the basis of Stallman's view. Copying bits costs essentially nothing, so not giving them away is a will to power and tyrrany. Giving them away is liberty, equality and fraternity (and just plain how people in the real world interact with each other when there's no BS of power between them).

Personally, I'm glad that people fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy today. In many places around the world and in our recent cultural past, people live under the heel of a tyrant who uses violence and the threat of violence to keep in place a system where people are not equal, and there's as little liberty and fraternity as he can possibly get away with.

Since it's so easy to have liberty, equality and fraternity in the digital world, why would we want to exchange that for one where we promote the emergence of lords and masters?

This viewpoint isn't anarchy, it's democracy. If you read something about the democratic revolutions in England, the U.S. and France, it's quite clearly so. It's why we are culturally suspicious of all concentrations of private power and have laws against things like monopoly.

Cheers!

#

The logic behind this is so mind-numbingly short-signted that I cannot contain myself any longer. The issue is not how much something costs to duplicate, but how much it costs in research & development.

Trying to follow the hammer analogy: let's fill in a little more detail. Suppose the hammer producer spent 6 months perfecting the design of this tool--getting the shape of the head and handle just right, balancing the weight so it swings and aims with ease, finding the right materials, etc., through various iterations of design and development. Then he sells his first model for $20. The buyer then "copies" the hammer and gives it away to everyone he knows, they give it to everyone they know, etc. Consequently, the seller is going to sell, oh, approximately ONE hammer--okay, maybe a ten--before everyone within the market he can easily reach already has a copy from their friend and no longer needs to buy one.

So our poor hammer developer gets an astounding $200 compensation for his 6 months of intensive, full-time R&D. Yeah, like that's gonna fly in large-scale economics.

In this world of free hammers, you'd have to charge at least $30,000 for the first hammer you sell, just to recoup your investment of time and effort (not to mention other expenses for materials, etc. incurred during R&D) so you can feed your family. After that, you might as well just start giving them away for free, since nobody else in their right mind will pay for one. Too bad for that one sucker that paid... everyone will just wait for somebody else to pay, and then leech a copy off him. This is not freedom, this is just plain selfishness. It also implies someone who is not accustomed to actually *working* (esp. in the software industry!) to support themselves and their family.

The logic essentially demands that somebody (a person with more money than brains) actually chips in all the money for the expensive development of a product, and then gets nothing in return because everybody else gets the product for free.

I do agree with a previous poster, that 75 year copyright terms are drastically too long when applied to software. 3 or 5 or 8 years might be a much more reasonable term for something that becomes obsolete so quickly. But to suggest that all software should be freely copyable, is to remove the funding that even allows software to development to continue.

If people stop paying proprietary software companies for their software, those companies cannot keep paying their programmers. So those programmers lose their jobs. Can they then just devote 100% of their time hacking on Free Software projects? Hardly. Most of us not living with Mom and Dad need to pay a mortgage or rent, eat, and occasionally clothe our bodies. So they get another job. If nobody's paying for software, that next job isn't going to be in software development--it'sll be in some other field. They are no longer paid to keep their programming skills sharp. Maybe they get paid a little less, and consequently need to work a few more hours to make ends meet for their families. Are these same guys still going to devote their spare time to hacking on Free Software projects, making them better? I doubt it. So if proprietary software tanks, so (eventually) does free software.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as sickened by the abuses of large software monopolies as the next guy. But the ultra-left-wing approach taken by RS is a pretty hard sell in reality, when you're dealing with regular people and not quasi-policitcal visionaries whose sources of income are less than clear.

#

*clap* *clap*

Nicely said.

#

however it does little to protect the freedom of software users who care nothing about the availablity of the source code and more about usable software

The GPL isn't designed to protect that. And where is it stated that "usable" software is a right? if they (or you) want "usable" software, you can open up your checkbook and support your favorite hard-to-use application's development team. Who knows? you may get your wishes (and your name in lights, or at least the acknowledgements).

Oh, wait...you want things gratis? ah, you're failing to distinguish between that term and libre.

#

I'm willing to pay for free software but the developer who posted with the subject "Why?" says he not willing to develop with the end user in mind.

So why should a non-developer user donate to developers like him who refuse to create applications that they can be taken advantage of by more users?

#

Gratis kind of free software can be proprietary. It is the software M$ bundles with their OS to cut off the air supply of whoever first developed it. Being laid off from a programming job means having the time to develop open source stuff, so open-source developers will have avenged the victims of such dumping when all the Bangalore outsourcers working for M$ and $un start to squeal like stuck pigs at having the tables turned upon them.


Consider, though: you could say the United States is not a Free Country, because it costs money to live there, unlike those Socialist European countries.

#

It is obvious that you dislike the GPL but the points you are trying to make are all wet. The facts disprove your claims of a lacking in usability, reliability, stability and interoperability. While your opinion on the "freedom" that RMS espouses, and it's forced cooperation aspect, is valid, the rest of your comment is full of mistakes, misstatements and incorrect facts.

<TT>
--

If I cound spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place!
</TT>

#

I only know of Mr. Stallman through his own writings, and based on those I respect the man, although I don't agree with all he states.

I respect him for having a vision, the will to implement that vision, and for donating the results of that work to all. This is quite an achievment for a private indivual, as opposed to a rich corporation, or even a wealthy public figure.
(It is easy to be philanthropic when you own billions of $$'s. and the payoff in increased public image is great.)

When I read the comments about him though, I find such a lack of perspective, and very narrow thinking.

There are those that have jumped on the Stallman bandwagon, and seem to think that all proprietary software is evil. A question I have for you then is what about medicines, health care, and gasoline, and all other social neccessities of the 21 century. Should they not be free as well?
Shouldn't everything be "open sourced"?

All seems to be quiet on THAT front.

To continue along those lines, say that you are not a software developer/coder (whatever) but instead you fabricate bricks, you make cars, or even microprocessors (again whatever). Would you not want to be paid for doing that?

We live in a world that has not yet reached the
"star trek" age of everything is free. We live in a world that is driven by greed.

Having non-free things in this world is not evil,
it is greed, and the abuse of others that is evil.
The fact that microsoft products are 'closed' and
NOT free is not bad in itself, it is how microsoft
abuses its users that is.

The flip side of the coin though is that those that are opposed to Stallman's work, or at least those who criticise and insult him (and this includes both individuals and corporations) seem to have no problem using the results of his vision, and would charge $$'s if not for the GPL..

Which brings up another 'evil' that drives this world: "hypocracy".

To all those that continue to insult Stallman for saying what he does, make sure that you have the necessary qualifications to do that....just having an anonymous mouth or keyboard is not enough.

At least I don't find Stallman a hypocrite, in spite of a number of things I can't stand about him.

#

> We live in a world that is driven by greed.

Tell me then: was it different at any given time ?

Stallman says - human knowledge belongs to all

Greed will always be there.

"The world is a nice place worthy fighting for - I agree with the second part"
seven

#

"...would charge $$'s if not for the GPL."

You're confusing Free as in Gratis with Free as in Freedom. The GPL does not require that you give your product away, only the source code if you distribute it. Proprietary software favors only the interests of large corporate stakeholders of software companies. Free Software serves the interest of users, customers, developers and integrators, benefitting the community more than the few. 95% of software projects are internal projects, not the boxed retail software you see at the store. Most developers do not work directly for "software" companies. Most software serves a line of business purpose to help a company sell products or services. The better the quality of the software in the "creative commons", the better developers can glue together solutions customized to their clients'/employers' needs without having to reinvent the wheel or get locked into a single supplier. And by sharing useful software with the community, we gain back in the form of improvements from other companies that contribute back. That's what the GPL ensures: if I release a useful library or program that others can use, whether for a fee or for gratis, it gurantees that they will share their improvements if they are useful enough to distribute. So Free Software may not benefit the 5% of developers that benefit some from proprietary software sales (a drop in the bucket compared to their managers), but it benefits the 95% of developers who don't work for the proprietary software companies and their clients/employers. Think about it this way, as a business manager, would you rather pay a small fortune for a license to use someone else's customer relationship management software which designed for generic needs and locks you in to that vendor, or would your rather pay an in-house or outside developer who can build a customized solution for your needs derived from standard components?

#

You're making a very common mistake here.
You are confusing three issues that are similar, but in fact quite different.

1. Whether programmers are paid to do programming.
   
2. Whether people are paid to do software support.
   
3. Whether the company you work for owns the software you're working on.
   

You're assuming that if software is "Free" in the Stallman sense, that no-one gets paid to write it; in fact quite the opposite is true; most "Free" software is written and maintained by proffessional developers who are being paid to work on it.

The Big Examples are of course companies like SuSE and Red Hat; but those are eclipsed by folks who are:

• employed full time as administrators/programmers and who extend/modify a "Free" package to meet their needs, since it is less expensive than starting from scratch
  
• hired as contractors to modify or simply install and set up a "Free" package to meet someone's needs.
  

And of course, most of the items you mention are "Free" in the Stallman sense. Nobody sells you a car, or a brick, with a License that prevents you looking under the hood, or breaking the brick in half if you need a half-brick, or putting nicer wheels on the car, etc. And you can buy a Chiltons manual to do your own repairs to the car.

In fact, "Free Software" is simply an attempt to get the same sort of rights to software you buy that you do have if you buy a car or a brick. The fact that in order to do so you have to put a "you must publish the