Fee Beer as in Freedom
Stallman cannot explain what free software is anymore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Beer :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Beer :
| Free Beer, formerly known as Our Beer is the first brand of beer with a "free" recipe - free as in "freedom", taken after the term "free software". The name "Free Beer" is a play on Richard Stallman's common explanation that free software is "free as in speech, not free as in beer." The recipe is published under a Creative Commons license, specifically the Attribution-ShareAlike license. The beer was created by students at the IT-University in Copenhagen together with Superflex, a Copenhagen-based artist collective, to illustrate how concepts of the free software movement might be applied outside the digital world. |
Which is why he has now taken to gratuitously pepper his speech with Spanish words.
Couldn't he have just picked a different word? Why not "liberated software" or "freedom of software"? That's a hell of a lot easier to understand.
Couldn't he have just picked a different word? Why not "liberated software" or "freedom of software"? That's a hell of a lot easier to understand.
While we're on the concept of free software, they should give out free cars too. Oh wait... that could hurt some industries... and possibly cause unemployment... and most likely hinder how cars progress...
I don't like Linus' ideas primarily because he thinks that all software should be free and open to the community. At least, this is the impression I've gotten from some of the videos I've seen (and from some Linux fanboys...). He doesn't appear to see how making all software free can really cause a lot of damage.
I don't like Linus' ideas primarily because he thinks that all software should be free and open to the community. At least, this is the impression I've gotten from some of the videos I've seen (and from some Linux fanboys...). He doesn't appear to see how making all software free can really cause a lot of damage.
Last edited on
| free software |
| free cars |
Did you have some kind of point with that analogy or you just wanted to make yourself look foolish?
| I don't like Linus' ideas primarily because he thinks that all software should be free |
| He doesn't appear to see how making all software free can really cause a lot of damage. |
Last edited on
Sorry for thinking of the wrong person. And I'm also sorry for comparing two products which are very important in the market. I understand how you're saying that cars cost money to actually manufacture, while with software... not so much. But I didn't mean that everything about them are the exact same. I compared them because both are equally important in our lives, and I'm fairly sure that both make up a large part of our economy.
Many software companies and programmers are professionals because they get payed for it. Not everyone is willing to spend hours upon hours on something that they won't get anything out and won't benefit them.
If we get rid of the software market, all companies employing these programmers, graphics designers, modelers (I'm including games, since they are a form of software) and sound engineers will be left without jobs. Good for the economy? I think not. Yeah, they can find other things to do, but they can't exactly get the salary that they used to. Not to mention that there probably aren't enough jobs for all of them.
Many software companies and programmers are professionals because they get payed for it. Not everyone is willing to spend hours upon hours on something that they won't get anything out and won't benefit them.
If we get rid of the software market, all companies employing these programmers, graphics designers, modelers (I'm including games, since they are a form of software) and sound engineers will be left without jobs. Good for the economy? I think not. Yeah, they can find other things to do, but they can't exactly get the salary that they used to. Not to mention that there probably aren't enough jobs for all of them.
Last edited on
| I compared them because both are equally important in our lives, and I'm fairly sure that both make up a large part of our economy. |
| Many software companies and programmers are professionals because they get payed for it. Not everyone is willing to spend hours upon hours on something that they won't get anything out and won't benefit them. If we get rid of the software market, all companies employing these programmers, graphics designers, modelers (I'm including games, since they are a form of software) and sound engineers will be left without jobs. Good for the economy? I think not. Yeah, they can find other things to do, but they can't exactly get the salary that they used to. Not to mention that there probably aren't enough jobs for all of them. |
b) OSS is not necessarily free of charge.
c) There are companies that make a profit off OSS, not necessarily by selling it. For example, Nokia sells licences for Qt that allows licencees to make undisclosed modifications to Qt.
d) There are OSS developers that started as hobbyists and were later hired by a company because it was in that company's interest that they keep writing. The software wasn't always part of the company's business model.
Just because a product's distribution is free of charge doesn't mean you can't charge for something else, or that it has no value.
By the way, just so it's clear, I completely disagree with RMS's belief that all software should be open source, not on practical, but philosophical grounds. I don't see why a market where all software is open source couldn't be sustainable, but it seems to me like getting a freedom by sacrificing a more important one.
Sorry, I'm tired and have already taken some sleep medication. My thoughts aren't always going to make sense right now. I meant to say something else in that first part you replied to, but apparently my mind and my hands were thinking two different things at the time.
If at some point I said that open-source meant free, sorry, this is not what I meant. Normally they go hand-in-hand to some degree, but I don't want to give the impression that I think that open-source = free.
I'll continue here tomorrow, I'm incapable of thinking in complete, constant thoughts at the moment. [/vikatin]
| c) There are companies that make a profit off OSS, not necessarily by selling it. For example, Nokia sells licences for Qt that allows licencees to make undisclosed modifications to Qt. |
If at some point I said that open-source meant free, sorry, this is not what I meant. Normally they go hand-in-hand to some degree, but I don't want to give the impression that I think that open-source = free.
I'll continue here tomorrow, I'm incapable of thinking in complete, constant thoughts at the moment. [/vikatin]
| No, you're thinking of RMS. Torvalds just wants to keep his kernel free (AFAIK, anyway). |
Torvalds openly states that he doesn't care about "free" software in that sense. IIRC he just thinks open source is better because it can yield higher quality (although GDB is a testament to the other side, for the most part he's right).
I think software should be open source. Not necessarily GPL, but open source. It is very economically sustainable -- look at Red Hat, Canonical (although the founder of Canonical was already a millionaire apparently), Novell etc. who all make a lot of profit by selling their Linux variants. Alot of them make money selling merchandise, or easy-install CD-ROMs or "technical support".
| it seems to me like getting a freedom by sacrificing a more important one. |
What one is that? Is that why you like BSD licenses? I think the FreeBSD license is actually free-er than the GPL; it lets you do virtually anything except take credit for other people's code. PD is the ultimate "free" software "license", but unfortunately, as it's not legal in some countries (Germany, for example), you can use the WTFPL...
Last edited on
| What one is that? |
To put it in a poorly thought-out analogy, if the GPL is communism/socialism, permissive licences are anarcho-capitalism.
| Is that why you like BSD licenses? |
And unlike PD, BSD licences offer you a way to politely ask for credit where credit is due.
*In this context, "information ownership" means "information only you know". Therefore, to own information means to restrict access to that information.
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
NGen, the theory is, why pay for something when you could make it yourself. You can't just go out and make a car, it's expensive, time consuming, and requires a LOT of knowledge. You can, however, go out and make a program as it's free, on your conventional home computer, and requires a variable amount of knowledge, depending on what you want.
Even then, you have to realize, people still purchase commercial products for all platforms. Commercial products receive more support (most of the time) which is the number one reason to buy a product.
And then you have products like Adobe Photoshop, that just because they can, charge out that ass for their program. But since GIMP sucks so much in the interface and even in some of the algorithms compared to Photoshop, and even has quite a few more features, people STILL buy Photoshop. Wouldn't you think that something that is productive like Photoshop would be better off if everyone could use it or at least affordable?
EDIT: WOW the guys in my class just explained why Linux is for hackers and why they don't use it because its console based. I think I'm switching classes, fml.
Even then, you have to realize, people still purchase commercial products for all platforms. Commercial products receive more support (most of the time) which is the number one reason to buy a product.
And then you have products like Adobe Photoshop, that just because they can, charge out that ass for their program. But since GIMP sucks so much in the interface and even in some of the algorithms compared to Photoshop, and even has quite a few more features, people STILL buy Photoshop. Wouldn't you think that something that is productive like Photoshop would be better off if everyone could use it or at least affordable?
EDIT: WOW the guys in my class just explained why Linux is for hackers and why they don't use it because its console based. I think I'm switching classes, fml.
Last edited on
Open Source Software can be used for commercial purposes. Stallman's `Free' doesn't mean free of charge, you can sell it for example
Some companies can also sell support for free software.
Some companies can also sell support for free software.
Hey! I'll let you say anything you want about The GIMP's algorithms, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you badmouth its interface. I have one word for you: easily rebound shortcuts. Adobe seems to think the only keyboard layout there is is US. How the hell am I supposed to press shift+;?
Helios has gone crazy! He actually likes a GNU program!
Tbh, I think GIMP is a pretty cool guy, eh draws pictures and doesn't afraid of anything.
Tbh, I think GIMP is a pretty cool guy, eh draws pictures and doesn't afraid of anything.
The GIMP is not developed by GNU. It's developed for the GNU OS.
And when did I say I dislike GNU programs by default, anyway?
And when did I say I dislike GNU programs by default, anyway?
What, The GNU Image Manipulation Program, developed by the GNU Network Object Model Environment (GNOME) project has nothing to do with GNU?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+joke
| And when did I say I dislike GNU programs by default, anyway? |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+joke
I can't find who the maintainers are, but in any case, I insist it's not a GNU project.
No good joke needs to be explained, let alone pointed out.
No good joke needs to be explained, let alone pointed out.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Sorry Helios...
http://www.gimp.org/develop/
p.s. Last time I used it I did not get on with it's UI.
| GIMP org wrote: |
|---|
| GIMP is Free Software and a part of the GNU Project. |
p.s. Last time I used it I did not get on with it's UI.
Last edited on
Oh, gang up, will you? :-)
When they tried to "fix" it in version 2.6 by making it more like your average MDI, they truly broke it. Sure, all those windows were a bit cumbersome in your average desktop environment, but once you got used to it you could really get things done. I still find it a lot faster to work with than PS.
| p.s. Last time I used it I did not get on with it's UI. |