GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Every time someone asks me why Ubuntu/Gentoo-Linux is my preference, I always explain to them the Open Source/Free Software definition, and it's benefits for programmers, they never seem to comprehend since they have no idea what a source code is.
Why Windows is the major OS is no mystery, these people aren't aware of the alternatives. Average users just use whatever comes pre-installed. They don't stop to think. Their just interested in the web browser and instant messenger. And of course they have little knowledge/understanding of programming. There is no wonder why Windows users are the majority.
Do you think people care about the 4 basic freedoms? closed- or open source seems unimportant to them just as long as it completes their tasks.
Ubuntu/Gentoo-Linux is my preference ... Do you think people care about the 4 basic freedoms?
Unfortunately very few people are aware of them. If they were, and understood the concepts behind them, they would at least pay lip service. Someone at MS said, "If there's a vigorous discussion of the value of DRM we will have already lost the battle." The same thing goes for Open Source generally. The advantage for Big Business is to keep the discussion from happening.
LXer linked an interesting article this morning accusing the new Linux Foundation of being formed for the express purpose of strengthening that barrier between those concepts and the general public until the corporate world can get a better handle on where the money will come from (and where it will go).
The real trigger for my answer here was your expression of concern for "freedom" while professing your attachment to Ubuntu. Say what?!?!
Freedom and Ubuntu in the same sentence is like saying military intelligence. The simple facts that the *buntus includes binary blobs ( closed source drivers) by default goes against the entire idea of Open Source and freedom.
Perhaps its time to actually READ Debian's stance on what ``free'' means?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2.
Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
3.
Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4.
Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
5.
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6.
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7.
Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8.
License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.
9.
License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software.
10.
Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that we consider "free".
The concept of stating our "social contract with the free software community" was suggested by Ean Schuessler. This document was drafted by Bruce Perens, refined by the other Debian developers during a month-long e-mail conference in June 1997, and then accepted as the publicly stated policy of the Debian Project.
Bruce Perens later removed the Debian-specific references from the Debian Free Software Guidelines to create “The Open Source Definition”.
Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do.
Works that do not meet our free software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
I will let you look up and hopefully read the rest yourself.
Of course in gnu.org's eyes (http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#...xDistributions) even Debian isn't a "free" distro because it has the contrib and non-free repos. However those are not in a etc/apt/sources.list by default and have to be added manually. And there are a lot of people that do not use non-free packages at all.
Freedom is very important but how will we encourage people to use free and open software when it fails to recognize their hardware? It is not possible to use Linux without any display on the monitor, at least for newbies. Binary crappy display drivers, as unstable and closed as they may be, have to be tolerated until the people working on the open source drivers produce something stable and as functional.
One thing that I cannot stand about binary, closed-source ports is the lack of stability. Flash 9 always blows up firefox after running it for a few minutes. I would rather have an open source implementation of a flash player but anyone who makes that would be sued by Adobe. Closed-source software is unnatural and contrary to the ideals of democracy and has no place in the world (except the landfills.)
I know that closed-source software will never go away but I can always dream...
Freedom and Ubuntu in the same sentence is like saying military intelligence. The simple facts that the *buntus includes binary blobs ( closed source drivers) by default goes against the entire idea of Open Source and freedom.
I see no benefit to the Linux and OpenSource community in taking a "purist" view such as this. If OpenSource is ever going to even appraoch the mainstream, then it has to work for people--including those who are not going to invest significant time seeking out the right drivers.
Imagine trying to convert someone from the all-proprietary MS quagmire. Any change is welcome: Move to Firefox and Thunderbird, move to OpenOffice, move to the GIMP. Setup a VM, so that they can have their toe in the Linux waters without losing the comfort zone of Windows.
Surely we don't want to say to the potential convert: "We'd love to have you join us, but you have to use all Open-Source stuff---you can't mix in any proprietary stuff." Good way to lose a lot of people....
Linux is about choice: We have distros for the purists--even some for the masochists. There is also a place for the Ubuntu approach.
The problem I have with the Ubuntu approach is their effort to blur the lines between free and non-free. The plan seems to be, we'll push it as far as the community will allow, then next time, we'll be able to push it a little further. I have no problem whatsoever with non-proprietary blobs or other software being included in distributions, just make it clear that you're doing so. My preferred model is Linspire and Xandros. Make it as Windows-user friendly as you possibly can, and charge a fair price for it.
The point made in the original post is that people don't have a clue about the difference between free as in beer, and free as in liberty. I think we need to help them learn, and the easiest way to teach is to attach a financial penalty to the reduction in liberty.
Well i think that when we say that linux is about choices, then as long as it is a conscious choice , i don't have any problems with proprietary software. There would always be some applications that are "better" than their free/ opensource counter parts. In this sense i have no probs with ubuntu.
If someone wants to use proprietary software its their choice and if some linux distribution makes it so that ppl cannot use proprietary software on it, that distribution would be doing what Microsoft is doing, what is the difference.
SO yeah, make the user realise that they are using proprietary drivers, etc, and if they want let them. ITS THEIR CHOICE.
Well thats just what i think, other can always disagree.
Distribution: Slackware & Slamd64. What else is there?
Posts: 1,705
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyran
Every time someone asks me why Ubuntu/Gentoo-Linux is my preference, I always explain to them the Open Source/Free Software definition, and it's benefits for programmers, they never seem to comprehend since they have no idea what a source code is.
Why Windows is the major OS is no mystery, these people aren't aware of the alternatives. Average users just use whatever comes pre-installed. They don't stop to think. Their just interested in the web browser and instant messenger. And of course they have little knowledge/understanding of programming. There is no wonder why Windows users are the majority.
Do you think people care about the 4 basic freedoms? closed- or open source seems unimportant to them just as long as it completes their tasks.
Some of the world's most secure, stable, and best-performing operating systems are proprietary, closed-source products. There is obviously no relationship between a software license and how well the software does what you want it to do.
What are the 4 basic freedoms? And how does forcing someone to do what you want equate to freedom?
I've been working as a developer since 1975 and I don't see any benefits for so-called "Free Software." except price. We don't use any open source or "Free Software" in our products and we've still got plenty of customers.
Winbloze was marketed brilliantly and had help from the authorities, open your eyes people. It has nothing to do with how good it is or whether it's open or closed, it was just good time and brilliant marketing. A lot of success in business comes about through agreements such as they were able to make with hardware manufacturers and resellers. It's difficult to buy a PC without that rubbish on it even nowadays.
1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
(Access to the source code is a precondition for these.)
Quote:
Some of the world's most secure, stable, and best-performing operating systems are proprietary, closed-source products.
Name some.
Quote:
Winbloze was marketed brilliantly ... It has nothing to do with how good it is or whether it's open or closed, it was just good time and brilliant marketing.
Much the same could be said for Ubuntu.
No one is arguing that there should be rules against closed source programming. Only whether or not "free" Linux Distributions should include such code as a part of their default installation. As I understand it, the GPL3, if adopted, will pretty much outlaw that practice.
Distribution: Slackware & Slamd64. What else is there?
Posts: 1,705
Rep:
The FSF coming out with some propaganda doesn't give it any reality boost. How pathetic that people today think they're entitled to everything for "free" and don't have any idea at all what freedom is. Basically the manifesto admits that the whole point of the GPL is to eliminate closed-source software. It's politics. Since when does trying to jam your agenda down people's throats = freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickh
Name some.
IBM Z/OS. According to local hero Eric Raymond in his OS comparo, it's never EVER had an exploit. In all the time I worked with it (since OS/360) I have never seen and never heard of a virus or exploit of any kind. That's a pretty impressive record especially when you consider:
This is the OS that runs 95% of the worlds financial work, every bank, insurance company, government, etc. uses it. I guess you guys think the world runs on x86. Think again, it doesn't. When it comes to money or anything that has to work in the business world, it runs on an IBM mainframe.
#1 business OS in the world for more than 30 years http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/
IBM had fully virtualized guest OS running in 1970s btw on VM operating system, still in use today.
There are many, many other highly parallel supercomputing and standard embedded OS that are also closed source, proprietary products. This license and business model is far more popular than any other.
No one is arguing that there should be rules against closed source programming. Only whether or not "free" Linux Distributions should include such code as a part of their default installation. As I understand it, the GPL3, if adopted, will pretty much outlaw that practice.
I was responding to the OP which is why I quoted his post. I personally care about real freedoms and not what the FSF's new-age definition of freedom is.
Why does anybody think that they're entitled to someone else's labor for nothing?
The FSF coming out with some propaganda doesn't give it any reality boost. How pathetic that people today think they're entitled to everything for "free" and don't have any idea at all what freedom is. Basically the manifesto admits that the whole point of the GPL is to eliminate closed-source software. It's politics. Since when does trying to jam your agenda down people's throats = freedom?
I was responding to the OP which is why I quoted his post. I personally care about real freedoms and not what the FSF's new-age definition of freedom is.
Why does anybody think that they're entitled to someone else's labor for nothing?
What do you guys do for your jobs?
You do know that you can charge money for software released under a open/free software licence?
"Free" software can come at a cost, which is why there are commercial/pro versions of Red Hat, SUse, Xandros, Linspire and several other distros. And things like the Xandros Network, Linspire's CNR, CLub Madriva, Vector's Club. No one is saying that "FOSS" equals free as in beer.
Many people new to free software find themselves confused because the word "free" in the term "free software" is not used the way they expect. To them free means "at no cost". An English dictionary lists almost twenty different meanings for "free". Only one of them is "at no cost". The rest refer to liberty and lack of constraint. When we speak of Free Software, we mean freedom, not price.
When I ran Xandros I had no problem paying for it or the cool updates/software the Network offered. Once Linspire's CNR is up and running for Debian I wouldn't mind paying for software that I can't find anywhere else.
The issue is whether all the people that are jumping on the Linux bandwagon really see the difference. I love Linux and I haven't ran windows in over 2 years, the reasons I switched had nothing to do with costs, they had to do with linux being way more stable for me. Two years and counting without one crash or major problem.
Distribution: Slackware & Slamd64. What else is there?
Posts: 1,705
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyran
You do know that you can charge money for software released under a open/free software licence?
Yes. But I was answering your original question- I personally don't care if software is open source or not, and I certainly prefer that it's not GPL. BSD and MIT licenses are really free software licenses.
Every time someone asks me why Ubuntu/Gentoo-Linux is my preference, I always explain to them the Open Source/Free Software definition, and it's benefits for programmers, they never seem to comprehend since they have no idea what a source code is.
Why Windows is the major OS is no mystery, these people aren't aware of the alternatives. Average users just use whatever comes pre-installed. They don't stop to think. Their just interested in the web browser and instant messenger. And of course they have little knowledge/understanding of programming. There is no wonder why Windows users are the majority.
Do you think people care about the 4 basic freedoms? closed- or open source seems unimportant to them just as long as it completes their tasks.
If the software doesn't work for you, and you have the ability to modify it yourself, then you might care about whether you have the right to.
If the software works without needing any modification, or you don't have the necessary skills to modify it, what difference does it make whether you are allowed to?
Open source is only relevant if a)The software is not fit for purpose without being modified beyond the extent to which the user is allowed to modify it, and b)The user has all the necessary skills and inclination to carry out the necessary modifications. If the sofware is fit for purpose and/or the user is unable or unwilling to modify it, why should the user care about some obscure licensing clause that has no relevance to them?
...why should the user care about some obscure licensing clause that has no relevance to them?
I can't believe that a person with at least several years of exposure to FOSS would ask such a question. I'm looking for some hint that you're joking, but I don't see any.
Let me pose to you a different, but entirely parallel question. Suppose you found that the police had entered your home and done random searches, read your mail, and listened in on your phone conversations with no grounds at all other than the fact that they don't like, or trust you for whatever reason. Why should you care? As long as you aren't doing anything wrong, you're safe, right?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
