Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Programs you can use during a financial meltdown!
Carol Haynes:
[Carol]: FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).
--- End quote ---
Most non-free software in the world today is not sold, but licensed. From complex operating systems to tiny games or screensavers, end users of the software have a license to use it under conditions laid out in an End User License Agreement (EULA). This agreement lists out the conditions under which the user can use the software -- often restrictions are imposed on the use to which the software can be put. In almost all cases, users are explicitly prohibited from "taking the software apart" to study how it works, cannot modify or improve it, are only allowed to make a single copy of the software (for backup purposes) and are strictly prohibited from distributing copies to other people. (Much of the open source model is one of distribution.)
I openly credit Vista's original EULA for pushing me toward Linux. Thanks again, Microsoft; it was the best thing you've ever done for me! But then recently, the highly popular open source Mozilla Firefox browser was severely criticized for creating a pop-up dialog of Firefox's EULA, a piece of software which needed no "branding" EULA. Mozilla Foundation’s Mitchell Baker quickly responded to it as a mistake.
__________________
Most of us are never going to open the hood and retool the source code. But there's intrinsic value in using free/libre software, since most of the world cannot afford to send money to Redmond for its proprietary products, much less trust a corporation to do the right thing by us. Not Microsoft. Not Google. Not IBM. Not Apple. Not Goldman Sachs....
Besides, all data composed by governments (and many key industries) should be open source that follows open standards. Stephen Fry explains it well: http://www.gnu.org/fry/
-zridling (October 05, 2008, 09:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
I am not arguing that all of that isn't true. What I would argue is the the FSF definition just isn't rational. There are free things in this world that don't fit those criteria and I would argue that the FSF definition is an abuse of the term FREE - in fact that have chosen to restrict the meaning of the word free to their own narrow definition. In fact saying that software is only free if it is subject to GNU is a contradiction in terms - how can something be genuinely free if you have to agree to a license before you can use it, modify it or anything else?
Are all software writer and companies that provide free software now supposed to fall under that definition or find another term for their software?
I actually think it does a disservice to the software community because there are already so many categories for software that it is becoming ever more confusing. To redefine FREE to a narrow and specific meaning is just plain daft and adds even more confusion.
Personally I think there should be a limited set of definitions:
Open Source: Source code included.
Free: Costs you nothing.
Registrationware: Free but you have to register the product (e.g. DonationCoder stuff, AVAST AV etc.)
Shareware: Try before you buy
Commerical: Buy it - like it or lump it.
I suppose any of the last four could have an addtional OS (Open source appended) and 'licensed' if that is required (I have come across OS software in all those categories).
So Linux would become: Linux (Free/OS/L GNU)
AVAST Free would become: AVAST (FREE/L Avast)
DC's FARR would become: FARR (Registrationware/L DonationCoder.com)
I don't think GNU should be an implicit license in any definition - many software writers hate GNU and they shouldn't be penalised for refusing to use it. Their software can still be considered free if it is open source and not charged for but with a 3 line license: "Give it to whoever you like but complete and in tact", "Use and abuse it however you like", "Provided as is, no guarantees - use at your own risk".
40hz:
I don't think GNU should be an implicit license in any definition - many software writers hate GNU and they shouldn't be penalised for refusing to use it. Their software can still be considered free if it is open source and not charged for but with a 3 line license: "Give it to whoever you like but complete and in tact", "Use and abuse it however you like", "Provided as is, no guarantees - use at your own risk".
--- End quote ---
Why not just remove (or ignore) the loaded word "free" and simply point interested parties to the license that governs the use of the product. That's what it really all comes down to anyway.
Maybe it would be easiest for everyone if something that's being released under GPL simply carried the short label FOSS-GPL2 or FOSS-GPL3. That could also work for BSD and Apache, etc. Ideally, these designations could be registered as a trademarked "flag" whose use is restricted to products that comply with the terms of the GPL license.
All other licenses (i.e. as set by the author and which vary by product/company) could be just labeled EULA. Or not, since it doesn't matter to the FOSS crowd what you do if you choose not to be a part of their movement.
On the subject of authors being "penalised for refusing to use [GPL]," I really don't think they are. As the matter of a fact, I don't think they can be. FSF has no authority to do anything other than voice an opinion of how they feel things should be. That, and challenge the people that want to have it both ways by calling themselves something they're not. Participation in the free software movement is completely optional. To go back to my earlier comment, if you really want to share something, then share it. Otherwise don't. That's your prerogative. No need to hate anybody.
Carol Haynes:
I agree with what you are saying but the problem is that all over the internet there are different definitions of the same thing. What we need is a standard definition for different types of software.
40hz:
Good point. But in order to have a standard, you need a governing body to establish and enforce it. And who can you trust to do that any more? (We can thank ISO for a lot of that!)
To my mind, the real problem is that there has been a concerted effort on the part of a lot of closed source software publishers to create as much confusion and misunderstanding as possible about what was (up until a few years ago) generally understood by the terms "free" and "open." (Does a certain individual whose last name begins with a "B" ring a bell?)
I learned something many years ago when I worked for one of the Fortune 100 tech companies. When you're a well-heeled company, there is a three pronged approach to dealing with innovations or trends you are unable to control.
1: Try to get the innovation outlawed. Claim it is dangerous, immoral, or (in the USA at least) argue that it is communist/socialist in its goals and therefor threatens the economy, the family, the church, or jobs.
If that sounds far fetched, SCO made such an argument back in 2003.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws,"
--- End quote ---
Also, whenever possible, throw in a touch of xenophobia for good measure. (ex: "Did you know that Linus Torvalds is from Finland? Did you know Finland's right on the border with Russia?" - or my favorite: "I don't know if I want to trust my company's data on software that has so many foreigners working on it. Those people all hate us and they'd do anything to hurt this country!")
2: Spread confusion. Attempt to render the name of the product, or its rallying cry meaningless. Release something that works the opposite way and call it the same thing. Redefine the terminology to be either narrower or broader than originally intended. Dismiss the innovation as "nothing new" or equate it with something that already exists. As a last resort, attempt to trademark or otherwise take ownership of the terminology and diffuse any momentum that it may have. Look how well that's worked recently with the term "green." Green has been rendered virtually meaningless now that it has been extensively co-opted by industries that are anything but.
3: Resort to the BIG LIE. Just keep repeating your position and ignore reality. Do it often enough and you can get a certain percentage of the population (usually the ones that just want the issue to go away) to side with you no matter how crazy your arguments are. If you can sponsor a bogus "independent study" to support your contentions, so much the better. Creating a captive "trade group" or "industry council" is also wise. Especially if the name masks the true nature of the organization. (ex: call a group that is set up to encourage the wider adoption of software patents something like: The Society of Professionals for Software Innovation.)
My former employer used many of the above tricks. And from what I am seeing, the above tricks are still successfully being employed today. :(
If you want people to stop being confused about software licensing - stop confusing them. 8)
40hz:
To momentarily get back to the original topic:
Your current PBX = trixbox CE
http://www.trixbox.com/products/trixbox-ce/features
All-in-one distro based on Asterix that allows you to set up your own full featured in-house telephone system.
Features include:
* Unlimited Extensions
* TDM/SIP/IAX Trunks
* Remote Extensions
* Voicemail
* Fax Support
* Voicemail to Email
* IVR Menu System
* Ring Groups
* Call Queues
* Conference Rooms
* Follow-Me
* Time-Based Routing
* Music On Hold
* Paging and Intercom
* Web Access to Voicemail
* Admin Status Screen
* Package Manager (for easy updates)
* Phone Provisioning Tool
* Network Settings Tool
* Enhanced CDR Reports
* Echo Cancellation - OSLEC (Open Source Line Echo Cancelation)
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version