"There are *many* cases when open source is *not* the best solution, even when "possible". Example? Oracle vs PostgreSQL. I can give you many many many cases where Oracle is a much better solution for particular cases. For example, for Raster and topological analysis. In that case, the "best solution in implementation" is not open source. Disagree with me? Contest it with the PostgreSQL guys themselves, they will agree with me. "
LOL, apples and oranges. I was very clear to say: I agree, in some cases, open source is not an option to customers, but it is always the best solution in implementation, when POSSIBLE, and the best practice when writing code. Comparing oracle to PostgresSQL is like comparing a spaceship to a paper air plane. Oracle works at the hardware level and PostgresSQL is just a baby in its development compared to Oracle. Why not just compare DOS 1.0 to Ubuntu 9.10. Correct me if I am wrong but PostgresSQL didn't even have a windows version until 2005. There isn't a FOSS solution that fits the shoes of Oracle and so it would make sense to pick Oracle over any other database solution when oracle is needed. Your comparison is as silly as using oracle for a drupal implementation or when MySQL fulfils your needs. When FOSS is an option, it is always the best solution in implementation. Being a graduate student in topology, I am going to guess you are referring to some kind topographic process or graphical application when you say "topological analysis". Topological analysis as I know it is always best with Linux or a pencil. Disagree? ask any of the professors of mathematics here at LSU who are topologists ::grin::. I am sure we are talking about different things. "The agenda? Make ***ALL*** software free. I don't want to debate whether that is good or not, but that is the intention. " This is the BIGGEST misunderstanding that people have when thinking about the GPL. It is not about free software. I will say it again, it is not about free software. Free as in speech, not free as in beer. The free refers to the freedom to use the software and your computer the way you want, not the way the author of some program wants. The GPL is always the best license to use when writing code. "What about the freedom of the *user* to change it as they see fit without having to convert your entire code to GPL??!?!" You can keep you changes secret if you do not plan on distributing the changed software to the public or to customers as if it were your own. If you want to distribute GPL software you must show the users and the community, those that gave you the intial code, what changes you made and what you left the same. Why should you be allowed to change the code, that others have worked on, and distribute the program without sharing your changes with the community that gave you the code in the first place? How is that "true freedom"? That is like plagiarizing a novel and either adding a chapter or changing the characters' names so that you can be the author. "BSD and Apache licenses are usually about a different philosophy. People that release software under those licenses are not interested in political purity (like the GNU foundation is), but the interest lies somewhere else. They are about sharing, building communities that are free to change code and do whatever they want with it - *true freedom*. Credit has to be given where it is due. Fine with me." Yes different philosophies. Unlike the Free Software Foundation, a.k.a the GNU Foundation, some people want licensing that allows users to go off and make money with the code ignoring the community, forget the community that helped write the initial code, you deserve money for your changes. If your changes are so significant, write the base code yourself and license it anyway you want. If you are smart, you will use GPL ::grin::. "Even LGPL (which GNU itself says it is a bad license) is a far more attractive license in many cases. You can combine it with your own code provided that you follow certain rules and if you change/fix the original code, you need to publish those changes. Give credit where it is due. Fine with me!" The FSF does not say the LGPL is "bad", they consider it a compromise with the GPL being the best license choice in the interest of freedom. The LGPL, formerly the GNU Library General Public License, was designed as a compromise between the GPL and licenses lesser like the BSD and MIT license. The idea was to permit the use of a library in proprietary programs. Again, this is only acceptable as an alternative to lesser licensing. The GPL is still a better choice for code. And they say the FLOSS folk are not flexible ::grin:: "Dual licensing is not about "freedom" my friend. It is an excellent model to protect the interest of the software writer to make money!" Dual licensing is less about the users freedom then just using the GPL when writing code. Dual licensing is only acceptable as an alternative to proprietary licensing. Coders can make money with GPL. The difference is the way people make money. Companies hire coders of projects to come in a make changes to the code. The GPL protects coders from companies taking their code and selling it for themselves in many cases. Bill Gates did not write Window$ 7, or DO$, and I bet the people that did are not getting a check for every copy sold. Also, the people that wrote Window$ 7 cannot be hired by IBM to come in and customize the source of Window$ 7 to better fill IBM's needs, at least not without Ballmer's permission. The GPL seems a bit more on the fair side for the people that actually contribute to the source code in question. "People that want to tinker with the code (i.e. the user), are free to do so - provided they convert to "GPL mode." For that particular usage there is no monetary gain nor business in mind for the *user*; it is just about building things. A business wants more people to use their software so that people become very familiar with it. Perfect." It is not just about "users" being more familiar with a business's software. This is the old "Enterprise and Community edition" trick. Companies write code and open the source to "users" as you suggest. The Company then lets the "users" find bugs and make changes. The Company then incorporates the useful changes and fixes found by the "users" in both the Enterprise and Community edition thus making money off the "users" work. The "users" are lucky if the Community edition is not full of restrictions and lacking in features contained in the Enterprise edition. The users are also lucky if the project keeps a community edition for very long. It makes sense to charge users for support and even more sense to GPL your code. "If the user of the GPLed software decides to make a business out of it, then they actually have to worry about competition and all the other "traditional business things"" You must worry about competition regardless. They do not have to worry about anyone coming along to steal the GPL'd code and pass it off as their own (well maybe M$ might) because those who take the code must share the changes if they plan to distribute. What if they don't want to release all their source code under GPL? They have to if they want to distribute the changed software! If they do not want to distribute the changes, they are not required to, but you don't get to distribute a changed version of the communities software as your own. Why should they be able to distribute GPL software that the community helped build? What incentive does a community have to contributing to a project if some Goober is going to come around, take the source, make some if any changes, and sell it under a different name? Why does Goober get to make money off of the community that helped him write his code? Goober should contribute to the community. There is definitely a pattern emerging in our difference of opinion. "Compare that against the case of Apache or BSD licenses and you'll understand why I would think BSD or Apache to be "agenda-less" licenses." I believe I have clearly stated why these alternative licenses are not in the best interest of the users and the community. Chris... On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Ragi Y. Burhum <r...@burhum.com> wrote: >> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:18:07 -0600 >> From: Chris Penn <cantorm...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] Windows cheaper on the cloud? >> To: SoCal LUG Users List <linuxusers@socallinux.org> >> >> Ragi: >> The original comment was about open source (it may have been a joke, >> or maybe serious). However, you used the term "GPL" interchangeably, >> and that was the origin of my comment. >> >> >> Right, roger said open source. My comment was about GPL. I was not >> interchanging them. I was careful to limit my comment to GPL. Saying >> open source is a little broad. >> > > I read a comment about Open Source, and your response only mentioned GPL. > But whatever. > >> >> "Anyway, some of us don't leave in academia-world and do consulting to >> pay the bills. In this business-world, we have to make the best >> decision for our customers and *explain* to them what is best for >> them. In certain cases, *shrug*, open source is not the best solution. >> In many scenarios, the license is the real deal killer. Sometimes, >> these companies don't feel comfortable with GPL - and with reason. " >> >> You are free to live outside of "academic-world". I am also a >> sys-admin and even though it is at a university, I do get paid and >> have bills to pay like anyone else. I agree, in some cases, open >> source is not an option to customers, but it is always the best >> solution in implementation, when possible, and the best practice when >> writing code. >> > > Chris, with all the respect, but that is a ridiculous statement. Talking in > absolutes is honestly the attitude of closed minded people. I don't think > you are one of them, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. There > are *many* cases when open source is *not* the best solution, even when > "possible". Example? Oracle vs PostgreSQL. I can give you many many many > cases where Oracle is a much better solution for particular cases. For > example, for Raster and topological analysis. In that case, the "best > solution in implementation" is not open source. Disagree with me? Contest it > with the PostgreSQL guys themselves, they will agree with me. > >> "But make no mistake, in many cases, GPL is used to protect the >> ***creator's*** original intention with the source code, not the >> ***user***. Actually, I am not against that, they created it, it is >> their *right* to do so. But calling that " freedom for the **user** " >> is just regurgitating licensing political speech. If you want to talk >> "freedom of the ***user***", then licenses like BSD give the >> ***user*** far more freedom." >> >> No, that is wrong. What is the GNU GPL for, what is its purpose or >> intention? > > The agenda? Make ***ALL*** software free. I don't want to debate whether > that is good or not, but that is the intention. >> >> To defend the freedom of every user. >> That everyone that gets the software gets the following freedoms: >> 0. the freedom to run the program as you wish. >> 1. the freedom to study the source code and change it as you wish. >> 2. the freedom to help your neighbour, which is the freedom to >> distribute exact copies up to and including publication when you which >> 3. the freedom to contribute to your community, which is the freedom >> to distribute copies of your modified copies up to and including >> publication. >> > > What about the freedom of the *user* to change it as they see fit without > having to convert your entire code to GPL??!?! > Now THAT is true freedom! > > The viral clauses are, for certain cases, horrendous. They are there to > protect the agenda of the **creator**, not the **user**. > BSD and Apache licenses are usually about a different philosophy. People > that release software under those licenses are not interested in political > purity (like the GNU foundation is), but the interest lies somewhere else. > They are about sharing, building communities that are free to change code > and do whatever they want with it - *true freedom*. Credit has to be given > where it is due. Fine with me. > Even LGPL (which GNU itself says it is a bad license) is a far more > attractive license in many cases. You can combine it with your own code > provided that you follow certain rules and if you change/fix the original > code, you need to publish those changes. Give credit where it is due. Fine > with me! > Isn't there a clause there that says that if you integrate GPL code you > have to name your first child Stallman, and so does every other child that > come from any of those infected children until one of the generations > discover time travel and manage to come back and affect the > space-time-continuum to correct your mistake???? > >> >> "Ugh, I think I started a license talk. Lame. Sorry." >> >> I am only going to correct what you said, not attack it. Piece not war >> ::grin:: >> >> There is always an exception. As an alternative to proprietary >> licensing only, dual licensing is acceptable, i.e., QT. Releasing the >> code under GPL and then selling to particular companies permission to >> use the same code in other ways. It should be noted that the FSF will >> never support dual licensing as policy because they believe in >> treating everyone the same. >> >> Chris... >> > > Dual licensing is not about "freedom" my friend. It is an excellent model to > protect the interest of the software writer to make money! > People that want to tinker with the code (i.e. the user), are free to do so > - provided they convert to "GPL mode." For that particular usage there is no > monetary gain nor business in mind for the *user*; it is just about building > things. A business wants more people to use their software so that people > become very familiar with it. Perfect. > If the user of the GPLed software decides to make a business out of it, then > they actually have to worry about competition and all the other "traditional > business things" (whether they are valid or not is not under discussion). > What if they don't want to release all their source code under GPL? Well > they can buy a business license! > Dual Licensing using GPL and some other form is *perfect* for this > scenario. > Note I don't think this is actually a bad business practice... except that I > recognize it as that, a *business practice*. It is clearly not a form of > "software freedom" and hardly protecting the "freedom of the user". > Compare that against the case of Apache or BSD licenses and you'll > understand why I would think BSD or Apache to be "agenda-less" licenses. > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > LinuxUsers@socallinux.org > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > -- "As we open our newspapers or watch our television screens, we seem to be continually assaulted by the fruits of Mankind's stupidity." -Roger Penrose _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
