Originally posted by NickFitz
View Post
No, it prevents you from making a proprietary version of the software. If you build your own product on somebody else's work, then you have to accept that they want you to apply the same principles to your product as they apply to their code, without which you wouldn't have had a product. Seems reasonable.
Also, you conflate "free software", as espoused by the subject of this thread RMS (as Richard Stallman prefers to be known), with open source. They're different, and RMS explicitly rejects the philosophy of the open-source movement as being insufficiently accommodating of the principles of software freedom that he espouses.
I shall assume that when you say "open source", you mean "free software". If you actually meant "open source", then you're arguing against the wrong thing for a thread about RMS.
Furthermore you still seem to believe that what RMS calls "proprietary software" is the only form of "commercial software". Again, I shall assume that when you say "commercial software" you mean "proprietary software", as otherwise what you say would make no sense (I don't mean that in a snarky way, but if we don't use consistent language it would be impossible to have a sensible discussion, and your terms are imprecise compared to RMS's.) "Free software" is free as in speech, not as in beer; as I posted above, RMS has never argued that "free software" should not be sold as commercial software.
It's had quite a few years to achieve that effect. Got any evidence for this yet?
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have been acknowledged by both the US DoJ and the EC. The question you're really asking, though, is about business models: you seem to believe that the only viable business model is one where proprietary software is sold under licensing terms that restrict the freedoms of users. The fact that such companies as Red Hat and, indeed, IBM have constructed successful business models around free software (GNU/Linux, in their case) suggests that your assumption is not correct.
The evidence of reality over the last few decades is that people do, in fact, develop alternatives, and that many professional people provide a choice of high quality free software (whether for a monetary charge or not). Again, it's down to business models: you believe that the proprietary, closed-source business model is the only way to make money from software, when a glance around will show you that this is not the case.
What is the most widely-used web server software in the world? Do you really believe that Apache is developed by a few geeks hacking away in sweaty underpants in their mums' basements? No, it's written by highly professional people, who make a good living at what they do despite giving away the source.
Correct. IBM pays, Yahoo! pays, Google pays, even my current client pays: we are actively contributing back to the Django codebase on our current project. It's like saying "Thank you" for the fact that it was free - as in beer - in the first place.
The free software that powers, for example, the web isn't made by people giving their time for nothing. Again, you seem to think that the word "free" refers only to monetary considerations, whereas it explicitly refers to non-monetary considerations in RMS's philosophy.
One of the creators of Django is working with us as a consultant, and he's not doing that for free as in beer (I'm sure he's getting more than me): again, it's a different business model, and he's able to make far more than if Django had been kept proprietary.
Fine. Do so; nobody's trying to stop you. Again, your comment about the free software brigade seems to be based on your failure to understand the purpose and terms of the GNU General Public License. It's not trying to stop you making money, it's trying to prevent you restricting the freedom of the user to use your product in any way they see fit.
I don't know enough about the matter to comment, other than to say that I've never heard that suggested anywhere else. But I don't know.
"Better" than what? IE? It's worthy of note that Microsoft's IE team have thrown away the existing rendering engine, so that IE 8 will default (for web sites that suggest they are standards compliant) to using a new rendering engine that implements the same standards as Firefox's Gecko engine, retaining the old rendering engine that ran from IE4 to IE7 merely for backwards compatibility with cruddy old tag-soup sites.
Ever heard of Opera? They're still chugging along quite nicely.
Apple are also giving away a web browser (which is better than all of the rest for everyday use).
And Microsoft are getting quite a bit of kudos from the Web Standards brigade, as you'd probably call us, for their decision to throw IE 7 and down into the dustbin of history, and finally do what FF, Opera and Apple have been doing for years, so it's not right to say that they are in trouble - they were only ever in trouble with those concerned about web standards for polluting the market with a substandard, non-standards-compliant piece of bug-ridden junk, and they're finally making amends
As to why you'd want to create a new web browser... well, you might as well want to develop a new spreadsheet application. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which it would make sense for an individual to do that.
Why would people with a legitimate version of Windows want it to phone home to Redmond, decide incorrectly that something iffy was going on, and disable itself until they paid again? That's where Microsoft took itself with its addiction to the proprietary software model, and its own customers hate its guts for it. Not good business sense.
Ordinary users just want it to work, and hopefully to get better over time. By deliberately infecting their customers' purchased software with an application designed to protect the proprietary software business model, which then went wrong for some customers, Microsoft revealed the fundamental reason why software should be free: not so you can recompile the kernel with your own changes, but so that your working installation doesn't suddenly get turned off in a flawed attempt to protect the vested interests of its manufacturers' shareholders.
BTW, Microsoft are now involved in several open source (although not free software) projects, and have also started releasing specifications under Creative Commons, and with guarantees of no patent enforcement. Maybe they know something about the way the world of software is changing? Or has BillG become an RMS fanboy?
Whatever, you keep your source code to yourself. We don't actually need it. Whatever you've got, somebody else has done it as well or better, and will be setting it free (as in speech - not necessarily as in beer).
Also, you conflate "free software", as espoused by the subject of this thread RMS (as Richard Stallman prefers to be known), with open source. They're different, and RMS explicitly rejects the philosophy of the open-source movement as being insufficiently accommodating of the principles of software freedom that he espouses.
I shall assume that when you say "open source", you mean "free software". If you actually meant "open source", then you're arguing against the wrong thing for a thread about RMS.
Furthermore you still seem to believe that what RMS calls "proprietary software" is the only form of "commercial software". Again, I shall assume that when you say "commercial software" you mean "proprietary software", as otherwise what you say would make no sense (I don't mean that in a snarky way, but if we don't use consistent language it would be impossible to have a sensible discussion, and your terms are imprecise compared to RMS's.) "Free software" is free as in speech, not as in beer; as I posted above, RMS has never argued that "free software" should not be sold as commercial software.
It's had quite a few years to achieve that effect. Got any evidence for this yet?
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have been acknowledged by both the US DoJ and the EC. The question you're really asking, though, is about business models: you seem to believe that the only viable business model is one where proprietary software is sold under licensing terms that restrict the freedoms of users. The fact that such companies as Red Hat and, indeed, IBM have constructed successful business models around free software (GNU/Linux, in their case) suggests that your assumption is not correct.
The evidence of reality over the last few decades is that people do, in fact, develop alternatives, and that many professional people provide a choice of high quality free software (whether for a monetary charge or not). Again, it's down to business models: you believe that the proprietary, closed-source business model is the only way to make money from software, when a glance around will show you that this is not the case.
What is the most widely-used web server software in the world? Do you really believe that Apache is developed by a few geeks hacking away in sweaty underpants in their mums' basements? No, it's written by highly professional people, who make a good living at what they do despite giving away the source.
Correct. IBM pays, Yahoo! pays, Google pays, even my current client pays: we are actively contributing back to the Django codebase on our current project. It's like saying "Thank you" for the fact that it was free - as in beer - in the first place.
The free software that powers, for example, the web isn't made by people giving their time for nothing. Again, you seem to think that the word "free" refers only to monetary considerations, whereas it explicitly refers to non-monetary considerations in RMS's philosophy.
One of the creators of Django is working with us as a consultant, and he's not doing that for free as in beer (I'm sure he's getting more than me): again, it's a different business model, and he's able to make far more than if Django had been kept proprietary.
Fine. Do so; nobody's trying to stop you. Again, your comment about the free software brigade seems to be based on your failure to understand the purpose and terms of the GNU General Public License. It's not trying to stop you making money, it's trying to prevent you restricting the freedom of the user to use your product in any way they see fit.
I don't know enough about the matter to comment, other than to say that I've never heard that suggested anywhere else. But I don't know.
"Better" than what? IE? It's worthy of note that Microsoft's IE team have thrown away the existing rendering engine, so that IE 8 will default (for web sites that suggest they are standards compliant) to using a new rendering engine that implements the same standards as Firefox's Gecko engine, retaining the old rendering engine that ran from IE4 to IE7 merely for backwards compatibility with cruddy old tag-soup sites.
Ever heard of Opera? They're still chugging along quite nicely.
Apple are also giving away a web browser (which is better than all of the rest for everyday use).
And Microsoft are getting quite a bit of kudos from the Web Standards brigade, as you'd probably call us, for their decision to throw IE 7 and down into the dustbin of history, and finally do what FF, Opera and Apple have been doing for years, so it's not right to say that they are in trouble - they were only ever in trouble with those concerned about web standards for polluting the market with a substandard, non-standards-compliant piece of bug-ridden junk, and they're finally making amends
As to why you'd want to create a new web browser... well, you might as well want to develop a new spreadsheet application. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which it would make sense for an individual to do that.
Why would people with a legitimate version of Windows want it to phone home to Redmond, decide incorrectly that something iffy was going on, and disable itself until they paid again? That's where Microsoft took itself with its addiction to the proprietary software model, and its own customers hate its guts for it. Not good business sense.
Ordinary users just want it to work, and hopefully to get better over time. By deliberately infecting their customers' purchased software with an application designed to protect the proprietary software business model, which then went wrong for some customers, Microsoft revealed the fundamental reason why software should be free: not so you can recompile the kernel with your own changes, but so that your working installation doesn't suddenly get turned off in a flawed attempt to protect the vested interests of its manufacturers' shareholders.
BTW, Microsoft are now involved in several open source (although not free software) projects, and have also started releasing specifications under Creative Commons, and with guarantees of no patent enforcement. Maybe they know something about the way the world of software is changing? Or has BillG become an RMS fanboy?
Whatever, you keep your source code to yourself. We don't actually need it. Whatever you've got, somebody else has done it as well or better, and will be setting it free (as in speech - not necessarily as in beer).
) can pick up a programming language and write code. I am amazed at how many developers class themselves as "C# developers" or "Java Developers" or "VB Developers" and will stick to only one language when one of the others would be far better for the job in hand.
Comment