Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

GPL, BSD, Opensource/Free Software movement.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 15:25

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.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 21:42

>>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.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List