I should start off by saying I love Linux/Unix and have switched over from MS. I also want to emphasize that I think as a user of the software that open-source software has been the most powerful, stable, *supported* (via forums online) and useful software I have ever used. However, if I were a software programmer by trade (I'm not), I would be nervous by the precident being set by the open-source model. I quess this is why Bill Gates is so nervous.

I see this Linux thing as a revolution in the software world and am enjoying being a part of it. I'd enjoy reading your feedback.

Open Source Initiative OSI - Licensing
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

"The Open Source Definition"
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

"Free Software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of "Free" as in "Free Speech".
The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of Free Software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues surrounding freedom in the use of software." http://www.fsf.org/

"The Free Software Definition"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

"What Does Free Mean? or What do you mean by Free Software?"
http://www.debian.org/intro/free

One of the biggest reasons I use Debian is:" Debian GNU/Linux is a strong supporter of free software. Since many different licenses are used on software, a set of guidelines, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) were developed to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes free software. Only software that complies with the DFSG is allowed in the main distribution of Debian."

A good book of the subject of Free Software: "Free as in Freedom
Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software"
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/index.html


REVOLUTION!

Rather look at this another way. If the many great scientists that have lived over thousands of years had patented their discoveries where would science be today? I also believe that no person has the right to patent discoveries or methods because they retard development and the progress of science as a whole. Whilst a single person may develop a way of doing something, does not mean that this method is perfect and cannot be improved on. I fully support the concept of copyright and the originator deserves recognition for what he has developed through his work. There is also nothing wrong with him charging others using his methods, but if someone else develops a better product based on the same principles then they will derive the benefit. This results in competition and improvement of technology. If the method is patented then no one can improve on it.

You bring up a great point TigerOC... If H. Ford had patented the engine, drive train, etc... there would not have been automobile development. That is unrealistic though. Even patents will be improved upon, there is no stopping progress. If Linus had patented Linux, would he be getting kickbacks from everything that has the word Linux in it. He did, however, point us all in the right direction so he should be credited for that, but money is allway's the issue and how much should he get?

Patents, Copyrights, Loyalties, perks, kickbacks, sindication... where does it end. I don't think it does, however, I don't think anyone really would do something just for freedom. There has to be some payout... if not, then they are much more human then I.

KC

A bit late to ask this kind of questions, after 12 years of Linux and more than 20 years of FSF/GNU...

And after various people have shown it's perfectly possible to make money out of Linux, too.

OSS might, if it gets big enough, wipe out the current software-creation model, it's true. But only by replacing it with a new one.

After all, think about it: Is hardware any good without software?

No.

So anybody who wants to sell hardware, has to make sure there's software that'll run on it. The more software, the more attractive the hardware. That gives an incentive for hardware manufacturers to develop software - look at IBM, for instance, who are investing heavily in Linux at the moment.

OSS may make it harder to make money by selling software (altho Red Hat might argue that. . . ) but that won't reduce the demand for software, so that demand will be met. It may be done in a different way, by different people, but that's all. It doesn't reduce the need for programmers at all.

you've all given me alot to read and think about. thanks!

Rent or buy this: OS Revolution

just added it to the top of my NetFlix que


Thanks for the recommendation!

well -- the payout can be for instance (i needed a database -- i wrote a database -- now i have the dadabase i needed) then this freedom you talk of is nothing more than -- heh, anybody else need a database ?

motive is always there but motive doesn't have to be predatory or copywrite oriented or even computer oriented. With my new database i could be running a shoe repair buisness and the payout as you say could be simply keeping track of my shoe repair supplies. Computers are just tools not necesarily a tool for exploitation of others due to computer oriented need for a "payout".

just a simple note on this idea
while it is valid that raw economic throuput involves improving on the ideas of others
this is traditionally thought of as involving comodities (manufactured designed ones and not raw materials)
Software can never be a true commodity in term of supply and demand
as soon as you have one copy of it you can instantly make millions more coppies and distribute them world wide with the click of a button. There is absolutely no supply side pressure. Therefore software in a true economic sense is absolutely worthless.
This would be like cars if you had a machine that could fully duplicate them in an unlimited way for free and distribute them workd wide for free instantly.
Cars would then be worth nothing -- they would still be usefull but no one would ever pay money for one ever again.
In light of this it is inapropriate for governments to create artificial scarcity by saying the software can not be duplicated and constitutes a breach of fundamental economic laws. Economies are natural phenomenons not artificial constructs in a healthy economic environment.

Your comment about software not being a true commodity are absolutely correct...that's precisely why the methods for authenticating a single copy and matching it to a single user are so fierce in the most widely used OS - Windows.

Of course, it doesn't work

What is dangerous is letting Bill Gates Control ALL of the internet..........he wants to turn it into a Giant Toll Road...........and those of you who support windows "Longhorn" are only adding to M$ Control over everything!

I just watched the movie, it is awesome! Thanks for the recommendations!!!!

It's so great to put faces to the names and to really see how the dynamic works between the few at the top of Open Source and Linux.

Richard Stallman obviously has some animosity towards Linus Torvalds: "Giving me the Linus Torvalds award is a bit like giving the Han Solo award to the rebel fleet" -- Richard.

"See the great thing is that whenever you create a Linux distribution you can call it whatever you want--Debian, Red Hat, SuSe--calling everything GNU/Linux is just rediculous to me" -- Linus

Also it's a good foothold to understand what Stallman meant by free and what his intentions were the whole way through the development of GNU OS (which of course turned out as GNU/Linux because he couldn't write a kernel in time).