Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
20 New User Misconceptions about Linux
40hz:
And nobody is required to sign in under the GPL. It's purely voluntary. So how is that "taking freedom away" from anybody?
--- End quote ---
This (but an example for Creative Commons) http://blog.internetcases.com/2007/09/21/scandal-over-use-of-creative-commons-photo-on-flickr-results-in-lawsuit/ -Paul Keith (February 24, 2011, 04:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
Let's not mix things for this discussion. GPL is GPL. CC is CC. (And not a license.)
They're two different things that work under two different legal theories. So what goes with one doesn't necessarily follow with the other.
Freedom also involves opt-out. Just in case, a license maker may not be fully aware of the implications.
--- End quote ---
I believe in some form of early opt out for most things. Unfortunately, the US legal system doesn't agree that that's a sufficiently necessary contract clause such that it should be made universal and mandatory.
In our legal system, the rule has always been to expect any person who would be deemed mentally competent to exercise due diligence and good faith before signing a contract.
In short, know what you're signing before you put your name on it.
It's something that FSF rarely address but it can't be helped. Libre impression has helped them a lot but if they really wanted to align themselves with the gratis movement - they'd replace Free with Released. Would summarize many of the licensing ignorance around. Of course "software that might be potential abandonware" isn't as catchy as "open source".
--- End quote ---
I don't think they're all that interested in aligning with the "gratis movement." Stallman was a professional programmer. So were most of the people who put FSF together. Their intent was not to destroy the opportunity for a programmer to make a living. What they wanted was for software development to be allowed to occur in the same manner it had previously occurred. Which is to say via the free and unrestricted sharing of what has today come to be known as intellectual properties. FSF's attitude was that the free exchange of code, techniques, and ideas they had experienced (mostly at MIT) was what allowed so much of what was accomplished (and in such a short time) to happen in the first place.
They were right too.
Right now, advances in medicine and genetic research are starting to become hampered by the information silos that are going up as fast as the companies and universities can erect them around the researchers.
Also for GPL, there isn't as major a controversy yet as what happened with Creative Commons.
--- End quote ---
Probably won't be either. FSF spent a huge amount of time and legal effort ironing out the bugs and closing the loopholes as the were identified. There's case law in the US and EU that now supports the terms of the GPL and the legal premises it's based on. Creative Commons got put together a little too loosely and quickly for its own good. It's now starting to feel some growing pains as a result.
The case you mentioned will probably be dismissed since it's fairly obvious the plaintiff's attorneys don't have a clue what creative commons is. I think their lawyer thinks creative commons is some sort of stock photo service or licensing agency. :-\
No problem. The pain will pass and the Creative Commons will emerge both strengthened and invigorated by its ordeal.
:Thmbsup:
zridling:
It's a lot like some hardcore Linux users. They are so closed to converting users into Linux. Just a little bit more attitude towards gratis than closed club house preacher and RTFM could have easily been WWWTM (What's wrong with this manual?) ...and Linux users would have an easier time converting people just a tiny bit and making up for all the shortcomings of Linux but only a few do that and we get this circular argument where valid arguments become cliche arguments just because the source of the concept becomes hijacked by the wrong fundamentalists on a cult level.-Paul Keith (February 24, 2011, 01:51 PM)
--- End quote ---
Where are these mythical, horrible Linux people you speak of? Maybe that's "misconception #21." The only time I've seen vitriol is in Linux usenet groups that Microsoft employees regularly troll and spam. They are much harder on each other than outsiders. And if I need not use the command line anymore, there's no need for a effing manual. Otherwise, in five years I've not encountered the hardcore, closed, cult, preachy, fundamentalists.
zridling:
LifeHacker does an article this week titled: Getting Started With Linux: Why Install Linux?
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/03/getting-started-with-linux-why-install-linux/
kalos:
the biggest problem with Linux, OpenOffice and relative project is that they are created not in order to bring innovation, but to resemble as much as possible to Microsoft products
for example, the main feature of OpenOffice is that "it looks so much like MS Office, it has increase compatibility with MS Office, it can do many of the things MS Office does, etc", instead of bringing a totally new innovative interface, totally new features, totally new and better file handling, memory handling, etc
so, who would use OpenOffice? only a geek that wants to create and use something that MS already has created (just like a university thesis: create an MS Office clone) or only users that want to use something different from MS Office, because they hate MS or because they don't have money for MS Office
the biggest challenge OpenOffice, Linux, etc must overcome is this:
a user thinks that doc documents are meant to be opened and edited by MS Office, why would he use OpenOffice for it, even it advertises that it is fully compatible?
consider Nvidia's slogan: Nvidia - the way is meant to be played. you can play games with other graphics cards, with emulators and so on, but it's not the way they meant to be played
you can use Linux and install Wine in order to run MS Office, right... does this sound clever?
ofcourse Linux has some advantages, eg possible faster startup, possible fewer reboots, etc, but these don't even touch everyday usage of an average user, in order to consider them a real advantage
all these thoughts from a user that has tried many many distros, window managers, OpenOffice from years ago, and find out how they fail to bring innovation and make the user think, I will definately switch to these alternatives
ofcourse these do not apply to numerous opensource projects are innovative and have real advantages
zridling:
Glyn Moody has more on all the GPL/open source FUD making the rounds these days -- More Fun with Anti-Open Source FUD:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2011/03/more-fun-with-anti-open-source-fud/index.htm
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version