FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:17 AM
Chris Jones
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:20PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Chris Jones wrote:
> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> > > freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> >
> > How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not
> > afford it in the first place?
>
> The cost is not a monetary cost.

[..]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:33:08PM EST, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <20101117172626.GB30626@turki.gavron.org>, Chris Jones wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:25:00PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> >> freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> >
> >How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not
> >afford it in the first place?
>
> Those are the rights guaranteed by Free Software to entities receiving
> the software. They do not make a requirement that everyone is able to
> receive the software.

[..]

Thanks for reminding me that the discussion was in reference to the GPL
concept of ‘Free Software¹’ as stated in its preamble, rather than the
generally accepted meaning of ‘free software’ in everyday English.

All the same, from a general perspective, I still pretty much stand by
what I wrote, namely that the relative success of GNU/Linux and other
non-proprietory software and the incredible diversity of options we now
have to populate our machines is first and foremost due to the fact that
said software is available for download at no monetary cost to the
user/developer.. even if at least where GNU software is concerned, this
aspect is only a side-effect.

I mean, what good does it do to a would-be ‘Free Software’ developer to
eventually ‘get credit for his work’ if he cannot afford the luxury of
a C compiler to start off with?

Incidentally, I became a user of free software after I bought a laptop
on a whim, when after a couple weeks, I got bored with the copy of Win98
that came with it. I resented the fact that I did not have the freedom
to customize it to my liking save for trivial stuff like changing the
size of my fonts or the colors of my GUI. So I drove to the store and
paid $179.00 for a boxed copy of RedHat 6.2. Only later did I find out
about ‘gratis’. Later yet about ‘libre’..

I, for one should know the difference.

cj

¹ Where it becomes even more confusing for humble users like myself is
that ‘Free Software’ apparently means different things depending on
who you listen to: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101124041736.GC2935@turki.gavron.org">http://lists.debian.org/20101124041736.GC2935@turki.gavron.org
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:24 AM
Chris Jones
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:20PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Chris Jones wrote:
> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> > > freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> >
> > How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not
> > afford it in the first place?
>
> The cost is not a monetary cost.

[..]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:33:08PM EST, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <20101117172626.GB30626@turki.gavron.org>, Chris Jones wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:25:00PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> >> freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> >
> >How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not
> >afford it in the first place?
>
> Those are the rights guaranteed by Free Software to entities receiving
> the software. They do not make a requirement that everyone is able to
> receive the software.

[..]

Thanks for reminding me that the discussion was in reference to the GPL
concept of ‘Free Software¹’ as stated in its preamble, rather than the
generally accepted meaning of ‘free software’ in everyday English.

All the same, from a general perspective, I still pretty much stand by
what I wrote, namely that the relative success of GNU/Linux and other
non-proprietory software and the incredible diversity of options we now
have to populate our machines is first and foremost due to the fact that
said software is available for download at no monetary cost to the
user/developer.. even if at least where GNU software is concerned, this
aspect is only a non-intentional side-effect.

I mean, what good does it do to a would-be ‘Free Software’ developer to
eventually ‘get credit for his work’ if he cannot afford the luxury of
a C compiler to start off with?

Incidentally, I became a user of free software after I bought a laptop
on a whim, when after a couple weeks, I got bored with the copy of Win98
that came with it. I resented the fact that I did not have the freedom
to customize it to my liking save for trivial stuff like changing the
size of my fonts or the colors of my GUI. So I drove to the store and
paid $179.00 for a boxed copy of RedHat 6.2. Only later did I find out
about ‘gratis’. Later yet about ‘libre’..

I, for one should know the difference.

cj

¹ Where it becomes even more confusing for humble users like myself is
that ‘Free Software’ apparently means different things depending on
who you listen to: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101124042445.GD2935@turki.gavron.org">http://lists.debian.org/20101124042445.GD2935@turki.gavron.org
 
Old 11-24-2010, 08:13 AM
Joe
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:17:36 -0500
Chris Jones <cjns1989@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:20PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Chris Jones wrote:
> > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > > Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the
> > > > freedoms to use, study, and modify the software.
> > >
> > > How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could
> > > not afford it in the first place?
> >
> > The cost is not a monetary cost.
>
> [..]
>
> Thanks for reminding me that the discussion was in reference to the
> GPL concept of ‘Free Software¹’ as stated in its preamble, rather
> than the generally accepted meaning of ‘free software’ in everyday
> English.
>

But don't lose sight of the fact that almost all restrictions on usage,
copying, modifying etc. are a *direct* result of the software not being
free as in beer, of the need to maximise the incomes of businesses in
the software trade.

As a very minor contributor to a Microsoft technical group (rather less
so now MS has abandoned Usenet and moved to web forums) I'm aware that
a lot of the problems with the particular product I dealt with were in
fact licensing issues, and on a bad day up to half the queries could be
related to deliberate restrictions on the software to maximise revenue.

So 'free as in beer' remains a core issue, possibly *the* issue,
whatever the philosophical niceties piled on top of it. Once there is
revenue to protect, the whole ethos changes.

For me, one of the great strengths of free software (however you define
it) is resilience. If my server breaks, I scurry about in the loft for
a while, assemble a set of workable bits, chuck a backup onto it (or
rebuild from /etc, if the hardware is seriously limited) and I'm back in
business.

Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware? You can
replace the motherboard only if the original is unobtainable, you
cannot simply buy a new computer and move the OS to it. Not under your
EULA, anyway. And yet again, we're talking money. A portable copy of
Windows will cost twice the price of the tied OEM version, so few
people outside the IT business bother. And you wouldn't believe the
virtualisation licensing, some versions of Windows not being permitted
to run virtually under any conditions.

--
Joe


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101124091339.2a7110db@jresid.jretrading.com">htt p://lists.debian.org/20101124091339.2a7110db@jresid.jretrading.com
 
Old 11-24-2010, 08:49 AM
Michal
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware? You can
replace the motherboard only if the original is unobtainable, you
cannot simply buy a new computer and move the OS to it. Not under your
EULA, anyway. And yet again, we're talking money. A portable copy of
Windows will cost twice the price of the tied OEM version, so few
people outside the IT business bother. And you wouldn't believe the
virtualisation licensing, some versions of Windows not being permitted
to run virtually under any conditions.

While I'm not contesting the principle behind all of this and everything
like that, but in my experience what happens in real life with this is
"nobody cares". Of all the software audits I've seen and heard of the
worst that happened was Adobe gave them a bill for the 200 licenses that
where missing (the company had well over 1000 I believe) to bring them
in line...and that was it. They had no interest in trying to fine them
or take them to court, they just said "your out by quite a lot, here is
your renewed contract" the only down side was it had to be paid in 30
days, but considering they where off by quite a way and where simply
paying what they *should* be paying, it was no real problem.


I've seen letters from lawyers stating a previous company had illegal
software, we got them in, they tested and saw we where out by one or two
and again just brought it in line as it was more a human over sight then
anything else. Going further then that to hardware restrictions
(replaced motherboards etc) and all that stuff, I've never heard or seen
anything of that being enforced, from my experience as long as you have
the correct license for what your running and you about 95% compliant,
nobody cares that much (though I'm not saying it doesn't happen)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4CECDF94.6030500@sharescope.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/4CECDF94.6030500@sharescope.co.uk
 
Old 11-24-2010, 09:06 AM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

On Mi, 24 nov 10, 09:13:39, Joe wrote:

> Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
> many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware? You can
> replace the motherboard only if the original is unobtainable, you
> cannot simply buy a new computer and move the OS to it. Not under your
> EULA, anyway. And yet again, we're talking money. A portable copy of
> Windows will cost twice the price of the tied OEM version, so few
> people outside the IT business bother. And you wouldn't believe the
> virtualisation licensing, some versions of Windows not being permitted
> to run virtually under any conditions.

I don't know about other places, but here not many people care about
such restriction, not even in business environments.

I'm guessing Microsoft itself is also not very keen on changing the
situation because given the average revenue too many people would be
looking for less costly alternatives, which would break their monopoly.

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 11-24-2010, 09:27 AM
Klistvud
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

Dne, 24. 11. 2010 10:13:39 je Joe napisal(a):


Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware?


Actually, we do. And it's one of the many reasons why we're on this
mailing list instead of, say, browsing the Microsoft Knowledge Base...
;-)


--
Cheerio,

Klistvud
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to
me.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1290594467.7149.0@compax">http://lists.debian.org/1290594467.7149.0@compax
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:28 PM
Joe
 
Default Free Software - was Toner refill

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:27:47 +0100
Klistvud <quotations@aliceadsl.fr> wrote:

> Dne, 24. 11. 2010 10:13:39 je Joe napisal(a):
>
> > Do most of you realise that almost all copies of Windows, and
> > many of Windows Server, are contractually tied to the hardware?
>
> Actually, we do. And it's one of the many reasons why we're on this
> mailing list instead of, say, browsing the Microsoft Knowledge
> Base... ;-)
>

Indeed so, but a lot of people come from Open Source roots, and have
never walked the Other Path, and most Windows users are just that, and
have no involvement with procurement or, indeed, repair.

--
Joe


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101124162811.3be3f5e5@jresid.jretrading.com">htt p://lists.debian.org/20101124162811.3be3f5e5@jresid.jretrading.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org