GPL, BSD, Opensource/Free Software movement.

I've be a mindless supporter of these movements for years now not because I was a developer myself but because most of them provided me with a lot of useful free software.

However now that I'm becoming more of a programmer I'm questioning the ideology behind these movements.

1. For which situations are these intended? For every developer?
2. Doesn't it go against the developer himself? How can he secure profit while still sustain such projects?

Just willing to learn.
Thanks.

Terrible!

Can anyone give me some insight on this?

I know companies like RedHat exist but is this whole thing going to work for the rest of the software companies?

I know that GPL and BSD don't say anything on pricing of software but if you are forced to provide the source code, aren't you basically giving your work away for free?

>>4
There is nothing saying you can't charge for the software

>>5

Nevermind I realized my terrible mistake. I was assuming that if you charged for the software the source code would still be free for everyone.

>>4
You misunderstand GPL and especially BSD.

Since you retain copyright, you can relicense or dual license it.
GPL is communistic in the sense that people have to provide the changes to you, while BSD doesn't require anything but recognition. Anyone is free to use BSD in both free and commercial closed-source works.

I like BSD/MIT/WTFPL/public domain/... because they force the least things on me. GPL is useful, but it's much more selfish in my opinion, so I'll avoid using any GPL'ed code in my applications, even if I may open source them (usually as public domain or do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want, since I don't like restricting people, just like I don't like being restricted myself). LGPL and LLGPL are also useful and can be used in libraries as they don't force too many things on you, and you only have to distribute the libraries' code if modified (LLGPL allows static linking as well, unlike LGPL which is fuzzy in this area).

If you want to make money of yours or other people's GPL (or other open source software), you can provide support or sell commercial licenses, the latter only if you agree with what it entails(someone who prefers GPL over BSD might not).

Besides, you can do software as a service, internal software development and many other things. In my opinion people paying a coder for their work is better than people paying the coder for a "product" (which costs nothing to duplicate).

Besides, you can do software as a service, internal software development and many other things. In my opinion people paying a coder for their work is better than people paying the coder for a "product" (which costs nothing to duplicate).

Very good insight. I never looked at it that way!

Thanks for the useful post!

>>8
Once again, an American misunderstands communism

>>10
I'M KOREAN
SON OF A BITCH AMERICAN
AMERICAN IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A HAMBURGER?
DO YOU WANT A PIZZA?
AMERICAN IS PIG DISGUSTING
GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS A MURDERER
FUCKING U.S.A

>>1
Freedom, if it is equal and just, means that society must give up certain liberties. In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a community.

Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so software developers now control the way it lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of choice (for developers only).”

If “code is law,” then the real question we face is: who should control the code, the user, or an elite few? We believe the user is entitled to control the software one uses. Giving users that control is the goal of free software.

>>10
GPL tries to force copyleft through law. It's a clever legal trick.

>>13
I see that you are clearly too retarded to understand this, but neither the GPL nor copyleft nor law enforcement is communism.

>>14
It's a red herring, bro. Communism has nothing to do with this topic.

>>15
red
Communism has nothing to do with this topic.
0/10

>>12

freedom for the users

This is yet another way of looking at it.


So if I may as a question.

Say a software company finally makes a breakthrough in say computer vision. Something that can radically change computer visual input. How would said company go about ensuring a profit and the merited credits for such a discovery?

Say the company is willing to provide the source code (or pseudo code or whatever representation they use at such high levels; bear with me I'm just a newb) for improvements and such but doesn't want such methodology to be mercilessly copied by the competition (which would obviously be such a waste in R&D).

Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?

Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?
That would be absurd

>>17
They can't do anything to prevent copying. No matter how hard you try. It's just code.

What they can do is patent it, but software patents are: 1)valid in a few select countries, like the US 2) stupid.

>>18
>>19

I don't understand.

How is my proposal absurd?

What would in your opinion be a better way of securing a profit out of all the R&D work done?

Where would guys get profit from otherwise?

Thanks!

>>20
Make a good product and beat your competitors out of the water. Compete with free alternatives and still win. That's the key, but nobody said this game is easy!

>>21

Not the same guy but,

Isn't that what everybody is trying to do?

How can you compete with other corporations with free alternatives?

I mean sure you can make a better product and gain a better user base. That's understandable.

How would you make profit though. The whole point is to earn a living. How can you earn a living this way? Who would be paying for your work?

Any can't your competitors just copy your methodologies if the source code is freely available. If that was so, wouldn't it be basically impossible to compete with them?

>>21
>>22
I would say don't compete with the free alternatives.  If there are already a dozen free 3D rendering applications out there, then don't plan on making your millions by writing a 3D rendering application.

Instead, look at it like this:  You now have a great selection of free 3D rendering applications to use in making your "real" project, whatever that is, that will make you rich and famous.

The bottom line is that open source isn't really out there snatching up all the cutting-edge projects.  It's filling in the gaps where the old applications were either monopolized or just generally shitty.

If you find that the application you want to write has already been done by open source, then your idea simply isn't innovative.

>>23

Thanks!

Wise advice.

I reckon if we would still be using crappy closed-sourced commercial tools/utilities we would never have gotten here.

>>17
Say a software company finally makes a breakthrough in say computer vision. Something that can radically change computer visual input. How would said company go about ensuring a profit and the merited credits for such a discovery?
I really don't want to lecture on business principles but here it goes. I think this line of thinking is foolish, it isn't a good way to think about business. Companies do not deserve to profit, and profit cannot be ensured. Profit must be earned and due diligence must be applied before considering any investment for monetary profit. Do your standard market research: is there enough potential business in your target market to justify this investment, what do you provide that is more attractive than your (potential) competitors?

Now for the sales strategy. Please consider the idea that you wish to base your business on the model of selling an artificially scarce product. How about changing the strategy to selling something that isn't artificially scare resource; sell the service of your time. Sell the software then sell support as the designer/developer of the software. Worried about your competitors doing the same? Maybe you should have done more research to see how you could provide something worth paying for.

Thirdly, nothing is discovered in these days with regard to anything in CS. In everything that I've seen that can be regarded as interesting or novel, these 'discoveries' are mostly clever ways of making something work today that was previously infeasible or inefficient. Nothing is discovered, they are improvements on the previous works.

Say the company is willing to provide the source code (or pseudo code or whatever representation they use at such high levels; bear with me I'm just a newb) for improvements and such but doesn't want such methodology to be mercilessly copied by the competition (which would obviously be such a waste in R&D).

Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?
This licensing agreement, while technically possible, will infringe on the users' freedom. You aim to control the users' right to live a good life. Please don't do this.

>>22
How would you make profit though. The whole point is to earn a living. How can you earn a living this way? Who would be paying for your work?
People make profits on shipping barrels of oil, even though anyone can find out how to put barrels on boats. People make profits cutting hair, even though everyone can find out how to cut hair.

Too many huge posts. Someone please post a summary.

Hi, this topic requires someone who understands the reason WHY the GPL currently is, and WILL ALWAYS *HAVE* to remain VITAL to the software world.

In general, you have two kinds of software producers: greedy ones who want the monopoly, and fair-playing ones, who just want to have recognition, and their share of recognition or money for their hard-work.

The problem is the former. You see, I'd like to use a simple example to show WHY it's bad for a company like Microsoft to gain ANY ground with its paid-for software.

Let us take our very own world wide web, a huge network of HTTP servers which serve HTML pages over the HTTP protocol between HTTP protocol understanding browsers.

The HTTP protocol is a fixed standard. The standard is open, and free to implement. Why has it remained so? The most common HTTP server software used on "web" servers (HTTP servers) in existence today is the Apache HTTP daemon server.

This is a free, open-source web server. It became popular because of its command line nature, and its price: $0.00. The command line nature was an advantage because the WWW began among a small set of computers in a group of universities. I guarantee that these universities were not using Windows NT Server edition for US$300.00. They ran UNIX or Linux (I'm sure that Linux wasn't around then, but I haven't checked and cross refernced the dates).

So shell scripts and all that were the common way to automate these things, and starting a web server up quickly on boot with a simple shell script is obviously a good gain.

Now: Let us imagine what would have happened if Microsoft's web server product, the MS IIS (Internet Information Server) had become the most commonly used web server software.

First of all, IIS would be completely proprietary. Then, with adoption, MS would have become the de-facto standard setter. IF THEY changes IIS, then the WHOLE internet would be FORCED to change WITH IT.

That is, in less than 10 years, MS could make it so that interoperability between a free, standards compliant browser like Apache and IIS would be difficult. But nobody can complain: you have thousands of companies using IIS, and it woudl take too much money to re-train to begin to use apache.

So MS now has enough power to, one fine day, announce a "new" version of IIS with "enhanced capability" and "certain features in older versions of IIS disabled". Then, to mask it all, they release it with ".NET SOMETHING FLASHY", and then all of a sudden, the WHOLE of the Apache held market of the internet doesn't work...EXCEPT if they switch to IIS: IIS has the monopoly, and so it's likely that the Apache people will switch.

Also, MS would have been sneaking in hundreds of small, dirty changes to make the internet RELY on "extensions" to MS Internet Explorer.

All of a sudden, MS has control of the World Wide Web, and all servers. They then refuse to release the changes they've made to IIS to make it incompatible with the extablished ISO standards for the web, so no other servers can communicate on the web, and nobody can force MS to release their source: "it would place in danger their competitive advantage."

Then, we have a pure lock-out of ALL software developers who work on the internet: MS would then begin to phase out other technologies like HTML (add "extensions" until the language looks nothing like the original), CSS, PHP, MySQL, etc.

Until anyone who has a job on the internet is...BROKE and WITHOUT any fighting chance to FREE the internet again and get himself a job. And this is not farfetched: MS DOES NOT obey standards. They will FIGHT with ALL their might to get the standards on THEIR side, then "extend" them, and make their own standard the de-facto one.

This is what Silverlight is about, IIS, all MS Internet Explorer (they were trying to take over the web with it: integrating it into their OS, then since everyone buys Windows, they would have gotten the client side of the Web, then "added extensions", etc.)

This is what GREEDY companies do. So actually, open source software PROTECTS programmers.

You do not have to make your own software open source. No! But PLEASE: AT WORK, in your homes, USE open source software. When your company wants to implement a new system, keep suggesting a free open source alternative to any MS software. DO NOT allow them to grip our industry, or you'll be OUT OF THE JOB that you THINK that GPL is depriving you of.

OF course, you may make your own proprietary software. But by all means: release small open source products. Do anything to keep MS on the ground. Sell one or two main products. But small things that need no fee, please just release the source, and release it for free.

The GPL remains because it is NEEDED to prevent greedy companies from seizing the monopoly. So, no: you may not get money from an open source project: but it's open source software that guarantees the sanity of your work environment, and lets you NOT have to go to MS for everything to find out about what "extensions" they've made to a perfectly good standard, so you then have to be like a child going to them for food.

"You need to download KB937490 update since we've phased out support for your product."

"But...KB-WHATEVER is for the new version. I have to pay $100.00 to upgrade!?"

"Well, I'm sorry sir, but only the new version has the problem fixed."

Is this not what ALREADY happens? So the logic behind open source is not to make all software open source: it's to make KEY software in EVERY market be open source, so that greedy companies can't ever phase out the ability for programmers to implement common behaviour by following standards.

>>28
Kopipe? Or are you just retarded?

Non-developers won't bother compiling your application, so you can still sell binaries if you're a huge asshole, like the XChat developer.

Honestly, profits and etc. although practically necessary are all about selfishness. You need to get the right balance of profit and selflessness, and personally I think Open Source software is a good contribution to make to society.

>>30
and etc
_{LEARN FRENCH}

>>31
Learn Latin.

>>32
Read SICP

>>33
Hax my anus.

>>34
Get out.

>>35
OF MY ANUS

>>32
How would one conjugate "hax my anus" in Latin?

>>37
Give me an infinitive. Is it haxare? Haxere? Hactire?

If it's the first, it's haxa anus meum. Cogito.

>>38
Haxus ergo sum

>>38
anus meum
Back to school, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfmblRHZ0s

Veni anii haxi.

>>42
Anii is not the correct form for anus in Latin.

>>43
It's actually the plural

>>44
``anii" would be the plural of ``anius".

>>45
No, no, ＇anii＇ is the plural of ＇anus＇ in all languages. It's /prog/ canon.

>>46
no, the plural of „anus‟ is „anī‟ or „ani‟. „ī‟ and „ii‟ are different things in latin.

>>47
Okay, but I can＇t find the [sup]\\\[/sup]ī^// key on my keyboard anywhere.

>>48
On my keyboard, it's right next to the ❝Ƿ❞ key.

>>43
But is haxi correct?

>>44
Whether it's plural or not is not the fuqing point. The anuses are the object of the sentence, not the subject, so they should be in accusative form, not nominative. Regardless of what declension the word anus falls under, the accusative form will never be ani or anii.

>>51
I should add that the correct accusative plural form of anus is anos¹.

¹ en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anus#Etymology_1

>>51-52
ACCUSE MY ANUS

>>51
I came, anus, haxed.

>>14
Actually it's more accurately socialism, which is egalitarianism since the GPL secures that code licensed with it remains free. The means of production rests mainly in the hands of developers, not some oligarchic corporation or institution that decides whether or not the source code of its programs shall be released.

One could argue that Stallman is communistic in his approach of promoting free software, since he sees proprietary software as akin to private property, which both socialist and communist ideologues sought to abolish; Stallman has stated more than once that proprietary software morally should not exist at all. You could also add that the producers of free software are the struggling proletariat, while the profiteers and owners of proprietary software the bourgeoisie.

Those stressing for GNU/Linux to dominate the operating system market could be considered a "dictatorship of the proletariat" event, though in real life, this usually required a government of some sort, (maybe FSF could push such through?), though it may be possible that it could be done without such a need for one in the software world. And that's that.

Also, JEWS.

>>55
Fucking Moron

>>56
Listen here, fuckface.

>>55 is right.
I don't understand why people get all up against that point of view. There is nothing wrong with this socialistic/communistic approach to software. It fits imaginary/pseudo-public property quite well, and it doesn't have the shortcomings it has when applied to physical property.

So yes, rms' approach is communistic. So what? It's a fine approach. Are you just getting upset about it because you think it's un-American or something like that? Who cares, just do what you think is right!

>>55
This kind of makes sense, since the GPL encourages common ownership of code, and to be able to modify it. Socialism doesn't necessarily require state intervention either, as it was practiced in small communes and such. You can consider the Free Software community to be part of their own little commune of sorts.

>>58
I don't understand why people get all up against that point of view
Because it's wrong. The GPL or any other free software license isn't public ownership. If I am running a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL, that is all it is, licensed. I do not have any of the rights provided to the 'owner' of a piece of 'intellectual property, save the ones explicitly granted by that license.

>>60 also true, it's no public domain or MIT.
It's an attempt to force code to stay public.

>>12

Freedom, if it is equal and just, means that society must give up certain liberties.
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.

If “code is law,” then the real question we face is: who should control the code, the user, or an elite few? We believe the user is entitled to control the software one uses. Giving users that control is the goal of free software.
Code is not law.

I am constantly entertained by how GNU adherents attempt to redefine well-known terms without realizing they're doing so.

>>62
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.
American teenager.

>>60-61
Exactly, but what we are alluding to where Stallman and other free software advocates in their writing call for abolition of proprietary software and I compared that to the socialist and communist ideologues that called for the abolition of physical private property ownership, as well as ownership of capital (capitalism).

It's an attempt to force code to stay public.
Exactly. Keeping code out of private hands.

>>64
I compared that to the socialist and communist ideologues
 If you're entire argument is that he is "communistic" because he has a strong abolitionist opinion on an issue, then I think we can call most politically motivated people "communistic"
Keeping code out of private hands.
There is absolutely no requirement fro you to make any code available unless you redistribute. How exactly is that "keeping code out of private hands"?

you're
Goddammit, this is all your fault, /prog/

>>66
No, that's not /prog/'s fault.

>>67
I blame the public school system and the substitution of the pursuit of excellence with the politically correct dogmas of inclusion and sensitivity. Fucking hippies/communists.

>>68
I blame your dad for not hitting you hard enough.

>>65
If you're entire argument is that he is "communistic" because he has a strong abolitionist opinion on an issue, then I think we can call most politically motivated people "communistic"
I'm not calling him "communistic" simply because of that, I'm saying that his critiques on "intellectual property" and proprietary software draw strong parallels with socialist and communist ideologues who had critiqued the ideas of private property and private ownership of capital, and called for their abolition, albeit tangible things rather than software as with Stallman.

>>65
There is absolutely no requirement fro you to make any code available unless you redistribute.
Well of course. If you make a program strictly for yourself, then you have no obligation to share its source code.
How exactly is that "keeping code out of private hands"?
In this case, I should have been more specific, meaning that the license keeps code out of private hands while redistributed.

>>70
So you're just practicing rhetorical fallacies, then?

>>62
Freedom is having liberties. Giving them up is the opposite of freedom.
In that case, I will choose to exercise my liberty to commandeer your house/car at gunpoint then make you march off a cliff. What's that you say? I don't have the liberty to threaten your life, misappropriate your domicile/possessions and terminate your life? But I will have more freedoms that way!

>>70
... draw strong parallels with socialist and communist ideologues who had critiqued the ideas of private property and private ownership of capital ...
You are confused. In communist ideologues, property and capital belongs to the public. The free software activist's idea is that users cannot have freedom whenever users accept the terms of proprietary software. Freedom in this case permits useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Free software is all about the right to live a good life and cooperate with your community. Cooperation happens when people desire to cooperate. Proprietary software will forbid and restrict cooperation. There is no forced sharing here, only the idea that users should have permission to share and cooperate. The idea is that developers should not have the power to restrict society's right to share and cooperate.

>>61
No. The GPL does not keep code public. People make GPL code public because they desire to make it public. When you publish software, you've made the software pubilc. If you never distribute software, you will keep the software private. If I hire someone to extend my copy of GNU ls and rename it to FV Directory Lister, I am not required to make that public; nobody will have a copy except me and maybe the developer. As soon as I convey a copy to my friend van Rossum, van Rossum is not required to make FV Directory Lister public; van Rossum has permission to make it public or van Rossum can keep his copy private. What the GPL does is forbid software distributors to restrict other people from sharing. People share because they want to share, not because they have to.

There are multiple anons in this thread that claim that the rms' views are socialistic and are analogous to communism. Just so you know, whoever is arguing against us.

>>72
So you're just practicing rhetorical fallacies, then?
I'm sorry?

>>73
You are confused. In communist ideologues, property and capital belongs to the public. The free software activist's idea is that users cannot have freedom whenever users accept the terms of proprietary software. Freedom in this case permits useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Free software is all about the right to live a good life and cooperate with your community. Cooperation happens when people desire to cooperate. Proprietary software will forbid and restrict cooperation. There is no forced sharing here, only the idea that users should have permission to share and cooperate. The idea is that developers should not have the power to restrict society's right to share and cooperate.
While true, I would still argue that Stallman and others sees proprietary software as oppressive analogous to how Marx and others saw property ownership, ownership of capital and the bourgeoisie as oppressive. They sound quite similar, albeit with different methods and intangible things (in this case, software).
No. The GPL does not keep code public. People make GPL code public because they desire to make it public. When you publish software, you've made the software pubilc. If you never distribute software, you will keep the software private. If I hire someone to extend my copy of GNU ls and rename it to FV Directory Lister, I am not required to make that public; nobody will have a copy except me and maybe the developer. As soon as I convey a copy to my friend van Rossum, van Rossum is not required to make FV Directory Lister public; van Rossum has permission to make it public or van Rossum can keep his copy private. What the GPL does is forbid software distributors to restrict other people from sharing. People share because they want to share, not because they have to.
Right, if they so chose to release their work(s) under the GNU GPL (as there's plenty of other licenses). Also, going to sidestep a bit, what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?

what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?
For the last time, the obligation is not to keep the code public, but to make the source code available to those you redistribute the software to. As long as you are redistributing the software, you have to provide, or offer to provide, the source code to whomever receives it from you. When you are no longer distributing the software, you don't have to make the source code available. GPL compliance can, and has been, enforced through the courts. I'm not aware of the extend to which there has been monetary compensation, but it has AFAIK always resulted in the release of the appropriate code.

When you are no longer distributing the software, you don't have to make the source code available.
If you distribute the software in binary form with an offer to provide the source code, you have to keep the source code available for 3 years after you stop distributing the software.

>>75
Technically speaking, you only have to use licensing terms that do not conflict with the GPL. You can publish your own modifications without any terms of restriction i.e. your specific modifications can be public domain and the remaining bits that are original remains GPL.

what if an individual(s) were to release their code under the GPL and then not keep their obligation to keeping the code public, what penalties (if any) would they receive from the FSF if reported?
The only thing that the FSF could do is report to the public that individual as being dishonest. As the copyright holder, he makes a promise to share source code together with the binary under the GPL. He has no legal obligation to share his code as the copyright holder.

>>77
You've provided a written offer for that performance. Of course you should keep your promise.

>>79
Just don't come crying to me when a hard drive failure turns you into a criminal.

>>77
Ah yes, you're absolutely right
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

>>80
I didn't realize that hard drive failures absolve me of my promises. Thanks for the legal tip.

>>80
I think >>79 was saying that they don't. And that if you end up getting sued for not keeping your promises because your hard drive died, you're on your own.

Sage for Americans, everywhere.

http://xkcd.com/765/

>>85
marisagetout.jpg

>>85
He's an idiot. Everyone knows homoeopathy works the opposite way around.

>>84
Fuck off, ``faggot''.
>>85
[x.jpg
We know where you belong, do you?
>>87
Please don't reply to Rand(all) bullshite.

>>88
^* >>86

>>88
You're sending mixed messages here.

>>90
YOU'RE SENDING MIXED MESSAGES MY ANUS here.

>>88
umad.jpg

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!

Don't change these.

Name:		Email:
Entire Thread Thread List