Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free & Proprietary

mattmaroon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Free & Proprietary

#41

Post by andreyf »

derefr wrote: post #24
aggieben wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the great irony is that FSF software isn't really free either - it just has its own restrictions that it prefers to others'. To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite", and seems to have sprung directly from Stallman's own peurile bitterness, and not from anything so noble as what they claim. Even if you like the FSF stances (and I have no problem with that), I think it's hard to argue that their idea of "free"…

I think of it like this: GNU's "free" is really "the freedom of software." That is, it's not what's better for the users/property owners (think fascism) but what's better for the software itself, as an entity (think democracy.) Your right to freely use the software stops where the software's own right to not be "jailed" begins. To put it another way, the GPL is definitively the license that will apply to AI entities…

Software has freedom? That's deep...

Re: Free & Proprietary

#42

Post by andreyf »

pg wrote: post #28
bitdiddle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your definition of "free"? I believe FSF code, as in GPL is free. There are four freedoms that come with it. The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. You're also free not to use it. I find it interesting that so many criticize RMS for his character and style. I find myself very tolerant of people who are very talented programmers. I think RMS is a pretty decent programmer. Emacs…

The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. The GPL is more restrictive than that. If one puts code online and says "do whatever you want with it," everyone has the same freedom to use it. No one can deny anyone else the freedom to use it, short of blocking access to the server.

I think he meant to say "one can't deny others the same freedoms on derivative works".

Re: Free & Proprietary

#43

Post by ericb »

andreyf wrote: post #33
ericb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponent…

> The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of…

Free Ipod! Terms and conditions apply

I agree about the different purposes, but I'd also point out that usually the more "terms and conditions" the less likely what you're getting is really free. To remove vagueness regarding freedom, Webster's definition:

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d: ease, facility e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use

Re: Free & Proprietary

#44

Post by andreyf »

kleevr wrote: post #5
sspencer wrote: post #2

Stallman's inability to see how damaging his rhetoric is to his cause is rapidly overshadowing any of his achievements. I went to HOPE 2006 in NYC a few years ago, and ran into him while heading to a lecture about Asterix PBX use. As a huge admirer of GNU tools and the GNU/Linux operating system in particular, it was thrilling to finally get to meet one my heroes. For about a few seconds. I shook his hand and somewha…

I recently watched the documentary called "Revolution OS" and became disenchanted with the guy as a personality. (The movie is available on the NetFlix WatchNow service...ironically only if you run windows+IE+MediaPlayer.)

It's also available on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409

or as avi: http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secur...

It's funny, but I thought Stallman was portrayed very well in that movie. I found final scene in which he describes what "the whole GNU project" is in one sentence especially touching - it's my favorite in the film.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#45

Post by tlrobinson »

andreyf wrote: post #44
kleevr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently watched the documentary called "Revolution OS" and became disenchanted with the guy as a personality. (The movie is available on the NetFlix WatchNow service...ironically only if you run windows+IE+MediaPlayer.)

It's also available on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409 or as avi: http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secur... It's funny, but I thought Stallman was portrayed very well in that movie. I found final scene in which he describes what "the whole GNU project" is in one sentence especially touching - it's my favorite in the film.

The scene I found most amusing was during Stallman's acceptance speech of an award at LinuxWorld when Linus Torvald's kids were running around on stage distracting everyone. Stallman then goes into his usual diatribe about how Linux should always be refered to as "GNU/Linux". Cut to scene of LinuxWorld show floor, with no "GNU" in sight.

Very symbolic and representative of the GNU and Linux relationship.

(starts at 1:11:45)

Re: Free & Proprietary

#46

Post by rw »

This Matt fellow needs to lay off the vitriolic rhetoric if he wants to be taken seriously by those he criticizes.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#47

Post by tokipin »

andreyf wrote: post #38

It's obvious that up to this point, proprietary software has created a vibrant ecosystem and immense profits that probably would not have existed were all software open source. It's driven the computer revolution, which is the most significant shift in technology and user behavior in living memory. I would argue that open source technology has been a much more "vibrant ecosystem", and that open source software is cre…

i think the idea is that $$ is a huge incentive

Re: Free & Proprietary

#48

Post by andrewf »

sspencer wrote: post #2

Stallman's inability to see how damaging his rhetoric is to his cause is rapidly overshadowing any of his achievements. I went to HOPE 2006 in NYC a few years ago, and ran into him while heading to a lecture about Asterix PBX use. As a huge admirer of GNU tools and the GNU/Linux operating system in particular, it was thrilling to finally get to meet one my heroes. For about a few seconds. I shook his hand and somewha…

The whole book is an invariant section!

Re: Free & Proprietary

#50

Post by greendestiny »

andreyf wrote: post #33
ericb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponent…

> The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of…

You're not taking anything away when building open source software into proprietary systems, other users are free to get the original project just like you were. FSF licenses just restrict the way I can release my derivative work.

At best the FSF license can be seen as an understandable restriction on freedom to preserve open source software by requiring reciprocation. To me there is no question that MIT and BSD licenses are more free. FSF style licenses made more sense when open source seemed like it might be a delicate beast at the mercy of proprietary forces, I think its clear now just how robust open source software is.

Post reply on HN