Linked by ddc_ on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 23:22 UTC
Slackware, Slax There are different reasons people use Unix-like operating systems, including configurable, availability free of charge, powerful command line interface an many more. Some people are motivated by the moral issue: they reject non-free software. Specifically for such users Free Software Foundation developed Guidelines for Free System Distributions and created the list of absolutely free ("as in freedom") distributions. In this article we are going to look at the most recent entry on the list - Parabola GNU/Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 505810
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rant"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

No, I've never heard any argument for why it should be illegal to sell software. That isn't anywhere on the FSF website, and characterizes a common misconception amongst people about libre-free software.


They say that they believe all software should be GPL or compatible.

If you are an independant developer creating bespoke software you are likely to have a contract with a third party anyway.

If the software isn't bespoke, you and you release it as GPL, you won't make anymoney from selling it ... because someone else will just take the source and redistribute it. You might be able to make money from support, but it has to be a pretty large program, otherwise another entity will easy just undercut you on support.

It is about whether they are arguing against selling software, it is that they are campaigning that software must be released with this license otherwise you are infringing on the user's rights, however it isn't easily possible to make money. Even Stallman admits this on the FSF.org

“Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now”


http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

It sort of is like your priest example, as in, its based on a complete misunderstanding of reality. Priests (choose any religion that has a caste that calls themselves priest) don't do that, and never really have. Now, there are crazy religious zealots that do that, maybe even a few that would call themselves ministers, but not priests. You're blaming the wrong people. Just as the original poster didn't understand free-libre software.


Except the FSF is run by an extremist.

The point is, you should at least *try* to understand things *before* getting pissed off about it. If for no other reason to be able to cary on an intelligent conversation and/or rant at the correct people.


He does, you are nitpicking about the details. He was close enough as much as it matters. It constantly irritates me, that anyone that supports open source will say "well nobody said that exactly".

And tbh if the differences are this easily misunderstood by people in the profession ... how is anyone outside of the software engineering going to understand the nuances?

Just go to ubuntu Forums, you have lots of new Linux users arguing about freedomz to see the source code ... many of them have never written a line of code.

In 2004 I was admittantly was one of them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Rant
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 17:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Rant"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, now we are down to facts and a reasonable argument. This is progress.


He does, you are nitpicking about the details. He was close enough as much as it matters. It constantly irritates me, that anyone that supports open source will say "well nobody said that exactly".


I'm not nitpicking, it matters. If the FSF were actually saying that selling software should be illegal, I would never use anything they produced. So, it definitely does matter to me, and I would imagine others as well.



Call me crazy, but there is a world of difference between

"Its illegal to do X."

Vs

"Its hard to do X, but legal to try"




And tbh if the differences are this easily misunderstood by people in the profession ... how is anyone outside of the software engineering going to understand the nuances?


Not sure what you are arguing here. Yes the nuances are difficult to explain to people in the profession, that's why they need to be explained instead of ignored. Because they matter.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Rant
by lucas_maximus on Fri 3rd Feb 2012 18:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Rant"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No instead they demand you use a license that makes it more difficult to make money, unless you already have pots of cash. I think it amounts to almost the same thing.

Richard Stallman doesn't like software professionals. Stallman is a professional speaker, I actually applaud him for being able to convince the enough people that he can make a living talking about how the author keeping hold of his source code is taking away your human rights.

Secondly I will say it again, if a software engineer apparently find it difficult to understand the difference, there is no hope someone outside of the professional will understand it, and I don't think they should ever have to be tasked with understanding the value of something they didn't care about enough in the first place to research themselves.

I had problems explaining to people that worked in the same department as me what the problems are (and they are somewhat technically minded but in a different discipline).

Hell half the time, software engineers don't understand how it works. A lot of what a software engineer does is basically completely fictional and is a construct of our imaginations. Then we have imaginary processes and we test these things using another imaginary construct.

That was originally based on maths at some point in time (There was a time when people thought that all software would be written by mathematicians).

I will say it again as you glazed over it. There are many people on the internet demanding the source for this that and the other that have no experience in the software industry and have never written code.

What are they going to do with it? Hang it on a wall? Sing it at Church? What?

To use the old car analogy. Nobody except enthusiasts care what happens when you press the gas pedal. But everyone cares when it goes wrong.

Edited 2012-02-03 18:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2