Answers inline Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:52:57 -0600 > From: Chris Penn <cantorm...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LinuxUsers] GPLlicensing compared to all other open > source licenses WAS Re: Windows cheaper on the cloud? > To: SoCal LUG Users List <linuxusers@socallinux.org> > > "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. > > How are those Apple to Oranges? Clearly, this is not your area of expertise. If you are going to bash an open source project like PostgreSQL, at least have any idea of what you are saying. Otherwise, don't bother. For your information, PostgreSQL is the best open source ACID RDBMS out there! In many instances, it actually outperforms Oracle. You would know this if you would actually tried to create a real-world data production solutions of any decent scale. Since that is not what you do, it is OK that you do not know this. But spare me the unfounded remarks.
Bashing PostgreSQL because it didn't have a native windows installer/build (you ask me to correct you - it actually did run on Windows through Cygwin) is ironic, and because it is coming from you, it is outright *hilarious*. I am not going to ask you explain the "Oracle works at the hardware level and PostgreSQL is just a baby", because, honestly, it doesn't make any sense. You and I know how software works. PostgreSQL works at the "hardware level" as much as Oracle does. > 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. > > Being a graduate student in topology doesn't make you an expert in **everything** that has the term "topology" in it. In fact, I know many PhDs in Computer Science that don't know the first thing about contemporary programming paradigms and languages. All they know is Fortran and Waterfall models. Did you at least search for the terms that I wrote online to know what I am referring to? I know you didn't. Try "topology Oracle" or "topology spatial databases", etc. By the way, I would hope you are not serious about your original comment and that they don't tell you that - if so - run my friend, because they are full of BS in that regard. > "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. > Meh, save me the propaganda slogans along with the explanation of how the license works. There is no misunderstanding whatsoever. I already know what you are saying and you don't need to explain it to me. Free software is a *movement*. I know, I get it. I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar and many other books and resources related to the matter. However, I also tend to read about different points of views around the subject of Open Source and business. I recommend to you Matt Assay - and excellent writer on this topic http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10420976-16.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TheOpenRoadFunny Enough, he has an article about licensing from a few days back. Going back to the Free Software movement, like any movement, I repeat, it has a goals and agendas to meet those goals. > > "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. You are mixing LGPL with GPL. In "full GPL mode" (latest version) it is not just the changes, it is ALL your code that links in specific ways that has to be transformed to GPL. LGPL is the license that says what you stay state above. > 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"? It is "freedom" *for the user* because the user can do whatever the hell he/she wants with the code (still having to attribute the original writer with credit). BSD/Apache give you a "no strings attached" approach. GPL doesn't. That is why **I** think one is "freer" than the other. > That is like > plagiarizing a novel and either adding a chapter or changing the > characters' names so that you can be the author. > That is a terrible analogy. Novels are written from scratch. Software is built by combining building blocks together to make any significant. I don't reinvent a web server, math libraries, string manipulation, GUI toolkits or an Operating System to start a new project! You need to have preexisting components - with a compatible license towards your goals - to do so! Clearly, your idea of freedom is different than my idea of freedom. At the core, you claim that GPL is protecting the *user*'s freedoms. I disagree, and think that GPL is actually a much more restrictive license for the *user* and that it is actually protecting the original software developer's intentions. That's totally fine by the way. I believe that if the user cannot do whatever he wants with the code (including distribution) without having to convert entirely to GPL, that he is restricted, and it is my opinion that it doesn't give him "freedom". The *user* is far "more free" with other licenses like BSD. You disagree, since *you* think that this use case is less important. Making all software GPL is guaranteeing other freedoms. I disagree. OK, fine. > "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::. > > Yeah, and for some cases, this is the best course of action. For others, my customers will laugh at my face (understandably). > "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:: > > OK, they don't call it explicitly "bad", they say "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next Library" in GNU site FAQ. I interpret that as "bad". You don't. My bad. > "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. That is *one* open source business model. There are many other open source models. Open Source business models have evolved this year incredibly. Look around you. Google is the king of monetizing open source. > 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. > Oh, I knew that eventually there was going to be some comments about M!cr$$OfT and $EVIL$ empire. ha ha. amusing. I don't understand what GPL/BSD licensing has to do with Window$ 7. The same comment applies to most software companies out there - but 666 M$ is your obvious choice. LMAO > > "People that want to tinker with the code (i.e. the user), are free to > do so - provided they convert to "GPL mode." For that particular usage > there is no monetary gain nor business in mind for the *user*; it is > just about building things. A business wants more people to use their > software so that people become very familiar with it. Perfect." > > It is not just about "users" being more familiar with a business's > software. This is the old "Enterprise and Community edition" trick. > Companies write code and open the source to "users" as you suggest. > The Company then lets the "users" find bugs and make changes. The > Company then incorporates the useful changes and fixes found by the > "users" in both the Enterprise and Community edition thus making money > off the "users" work. The "users" are lucky if the Community edition > is not full of restrictions and lacking in features contained in the > Enterprise edition. The users are also lucky if the project keeps a > community edition for very long. It makes sense to charge users for > support and even more sense to GPL your code. > Sigh. I guess trying to make money whatsoever from software is an $$EVIL$$ endeavor. Even when you have an Community Edition! Universities can get money from grants, the state, school fees, etc. Sadly, businesses have to be $$EVIL$$ and suck the blood-covered money out of their victims. ::grin:: > > "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. > > GPL is like the plague within Microsoft. > 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. You said it yourself. How significant can that change be? If it is, then I think they should be able to sell. The communities are the important parts in open source - not the source code itself. Forking, doesn't clone or steal community contributors. Why are all these Apache and BSD projects so successful? Do you see many companies taking advantage of all of them as you claim? Yes, there are companies that pre-bundle, say an Apache server, and make money of it. I don't see anything wrong with that. You do. You know, many people and businesses to contribute to communities because they *want* to. I do. Even when I make a significant contribution, I honestly don't care if someone takes it and makes a buck out of it. The community at large can still benefit from it - which was my original intention. No strings attached. Use it. Love it. Hate it. When I choose GPL, it legally *forces* you to abide by my rules. So much for "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." > > I believe I have clearly stated why these alternative licenses are not > in the best interest of the users and the community. > > > So have I :-) Many people agree with you and share your ideals. Many people agree with me and see things from a different perspective, too. Fine. Let's leave it at that. Interestingly enough, you will not see many projects, like the Linux kernel, convert to GPLv3 anytime soon (ahem **ever**). Why? Because them (like me) think that the GPLv3 is too restrictive for certain use cases of businesses - and they don't want to alienate all businesses. - I like to carry around a cell phone. Mine is an iPhone. it is actually pretty kick-ass *without* jail breaking. - I don't care how my NVIDIA software drivers work. I just want them to work. NVIDIA can keep it closed sourced for all I care. - Miguel de Icaza is doing great contributions to *free* people by giving them platform options for their pre-existing infrastructure (God forbid why they chose that M$$$ $stack - they should suffer because of that choice, right? righttttt). I don't use Mono, but I am glad it exists. I do use GNOME everyday. Thank you Miguel. - It is OK if someone checks my ID at the airport. Please do it. - I think it is OK to make money of selling software even if the entire codebase is not Open Source. Stallman (and thus the GNU Foundation) think these statements are blasphemy. Horrendous things that eat children at night. Meh. Guess what? I contribute money to GNU every year. I also have contributed fixes to GPLed software this year (and others). I believe that without Stallman many projects that we love would not exist - perhaps even open source software itself. I think GCC (and not the Linux kernel) is the greatest contribution to Open Source. I like to have crazy guys like Stallman running around creating chaos since they are like predators - essential beings that help balance the ecosystem. I like the Free Software Foundation, I just don't buy the entire enchilada and see it with very different eyes. We need crazy wackos dancing to Soulja Boy with MIT students http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C6r6fG4k40 . And I sincerely do mean that with the best of intentions. - Ragi
_______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
