Discussion August 2001

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

48 participants
69 discussions

Re: Ri:Re: valinux goes propietary?
by MJ Ray 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

"smaffulli(a)inwind.it"<smaffulli(a)inwind.it> writes: > Again, make believe it: one thing that everybody says is "sell > services on open source (or free software)" and VA just said they > can't. Did VA's background as a hardware company influence this? Is their setup so tuned towards selling products that they can't sell services? On a more general point, I think we need a "Linuxmanship"-style page for free software. I'm off to see what's out there... any got some suggestions? (Basic question: how do we promote free software to each class of user? There's the business markets at each level and the users of each type.)

1 0

Ri:Re: valinux goes propietary?
by smaffulli＠inwind.it 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

Giovanni Biscuolo: > Maybe one day users will realize all that, and to sell free software > will be much more convenient than proprietary one. The key point here is exactly in your words: "one day". What upsets me with this VA thing is that the "one day" when the users will realize that software libre is better for them is now more in the future than before. Like it or not, the general mid-manager perceives Open Source movement and Free Software movement as the same thing. Or worse, some of them have even assimilated the concept of the marketing term Open Source! With VA giving up their Open Source "faith" and start following the classic path, lots of mid-managers (call them IT ignorants, if you want: it won't change their decisions) will say: "aha -nelson style-! Told ya, it's never gonna work". Read the following (and the related articles): http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2781558,00.html The point I am trying to make is: after VA's decision and ESR's declaration of defeat (I agree that's what it is, basically) how can we reply to the "nobody gets fired for installing 'put-your-favorite-brand-name-here'"? > The moral of the tale is that free software freedoms are convenient to > the users, while taking away that freedoms is convenient to those who > like to make money on the lack of that freedoms. It's up to the users to > understand what free software freedoms really means. Make me believe that, after one of the most famous companies, with a leader of some religious-like movement in its board, gives up and says "we can't do business with Open Source, we start selling old proprietary stuff to suit you better". And don't use the argument "free software =! open source" since for me (acting like a mid-manager") it's all the same religious-like stuff. I (myself) know the differences, I am just playing advocate's devil here. > Im am also persuaded that in a free software environment thare are still > very much ways to do business. Again, make believe it: one thing that everybody says is "sell services on open source (or free software)" and VA just said they can't. > > Even animals, at a very basic level, learn by reward. VA closes app, VA gets > > a cookie as a reward. Good VA. Investors want more of the same. They want > > more cookies. > > Users decides to give or not to give the money for that cookies. Users also buy Oracle, Microsoft, Solaris, even they buy Caldera and probably VA's Sourceforge Ent. Ed. Users buy what they hear from the marketing people and managers buy what other buy (remember, nobody gets fired for installing Oracle or M$). > > Sad, very sad. > > The very problem is to increase the overall information tecnology > culture. > > Hard, very hard ;-) You hit the nail :-)) I am trying to figure out what to say in the upcoming conference in november about Free software in business. Am I goingo to say to all the audience (mid-managers) that they are a bunch of ignorants that listen and follow the marketing hype? That there are alternatives? Which ones? Cannot see many now: php 4 is not GPL anymore, VA sells proprietary additions, Eazel went belly up, what else, Caldera screams against the GPL as a business solution? I only have Red Hat on the other side of the barricades and some more little companies. I still did not understand HP and IBM's thoughts about the GPL, if anyone can explain I am willing to hear comments about it. Cheers stef -- Stefano Maffulli aka Reed | Milano Linux User Group http://www.zoomata.com a close-up on italy | http://www.milug.org GPG key fingerprint: E052 1B13 EB1A A246 A32D D672 FD30 E9D9 C436 BDCE To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password.

1 0

Re: valinux goes propietary?
by MJ Ray 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

"Ludovic PENET" <lpenet(a)cubicsoft.com> writes: > IMHO, its real conccurents are tools like Perforce. And compared to > Perforce, it lacks one main thing: working lists. I hope to have time to > implement them in CVS, one nice day... :-) It's probably better to look towards subversion, http://subversion.tigris.org/ for new features, isn't it?

2 1

valinux goes propietary?
by Wim De Smet 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

As reported on cnet: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6954900.html VA Linux is going to sell propietary modules in the SourceForge Enterprise Edition. I guess this is pretty bad for free software, just wanted to alert people of it. cya, Wim

5 5

Re: valinux goes propietary?
by smaffulli＠inwind.it 27 Aug '01

27 Aug '01

> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 07:37:23PM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote: > > > Good analisys, but there is something missing, the problem is not "yeah > > > my company is doing free software so the investors are preoccupied", the > > > problem is that the "old economy" is trying to put the "free software > > > economy" out of his market (this is a big problem and not only on the > > > software). > > Off course, it also has something to do with the fact that numerous > > companies went out of business the past months. Investor trust is hard to > > find, and a conservative business model is the way VA Linux is trying to > > convince them to stick with it. > > Am I the only one not scared by this? I agree with your technical analysis, > but there are some profound implications. I found ESR's explanation poor to > the point of me losing what little respect I have left for his ideas, in > that I find his arguments weaken with every thing he publishes (the idea of > furbage I thought missed the point and begged the question; his explanation > of VA's 'change of tactic' is little more than a tacit admission of defeat). > > What is particularly galling is that no-one seems to be coming out saying > how bad this is - OSDN in particular (vested interests, I know) seems to be > becoming more and more anti-Free Software. The fact of the matter is that to > attempt to please investors, VA are developing closed applications. Let's > buy ESR's explanation, and call it proprietary tinsel. And let's assume it > does very well. What do investors learn from this lesson? That closing > software makes more money. So the pressure to produce more closed apps will > be applied: investors will see no line, no law of diminishing returns. They > will keep pressing for more closure until they stop seeing the benefits, and > probably beyond. This was and still is my fear! I am tremendously worried by this, I can see all the people I talked to (some were starting to be doubtful about the "classic" software business models) starting to giggle "good guy, but such a dreamer!" And it's not just a question of personal proudness :-)) I read ESR's comments, and while I agree that he doesn't need to be replied for every paper he writes, I think this time we should all stand together and shout how BAD this example from VA is. It is going to support the Caldera's and Love's theories (Free Software is good, as open standards are good: you can use them to build your proprietary stuff on top). I think about all the people (I know personally a couple of them) that were investigating the possibility to release their new software under the GPL: our arguments are still valid, but the not-yet-convinced guys will interpret VA's move as symptom that Free Software simply cannot work as a business model. When Eazel went belly up I was not upset at all, but now with VA it's different. I thought VA had a solid business plan: they used to sell hardware and services, mostly. > Even animals, at a very basic level, learn by reward. VA closes app, VA gets > a cookie as a reward. Good VA. Investors want more of the same. They want > more cookies. Sad, very sad. I would add: worrying, very worrying :) Regards, -- Stefano Maffulli aka Reed | Milano Linux User Group http://www.zoomata.com a close-up on italy | http://www.milug.org GPG key fingerprint: E052 1B13 EB1A A246 A32D D672 FD30 E9D9 C436 BDCE To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password.

5 4

notice from your webhost
by webhost_special＠altavista.com 26 Aug '01

26 Aug '01

This email is being sent to you on behalf of your current webspace provider. This message is not a spam or junk email, your email address was supplied to WebHosting.com You will not receive any more messages from WebHosting.com this is a one time special offer notice. WebHosting.com is offering a selected number of webhost's member's the following special offer. This offer is not available on our website at www.webhosting.com or anywhere else, this is a special offer and is valid only for a limitied time. Read on to learn more about this amazing offer. For only $6.25 (one time fee) you can get: > 500mb webspace > unlimited pop3 email addresses > cgi-bin > full ftp access > php, ssi, my-sql, asp support > mySQL database > FREE DOMAIN REGISTRATION (.com .net .org) > unlimited bandwidth > miva merchant account > secure server for transactions > accept credit cards > 24hour technical support You did read it right, all this will only cost you $6.25. There are no monthly fees or any other costs. You are probably wondering how WebHosting.com can offer all this for the very low price of only $6.25, the answer is that WebHosting.com will make a lot of revenue from extra webspace charges - people wishing to have more than 500mb can pay $10 per 10mb per month. If you would like to receive this excellent offer all you have to do is send your details to the following email address and your username and password will be emailed to you within 5 business days. Then you will be able to login at the members area of WebHosting.com and configure your account (add domains, setup scripts etc.). Please send all of the following details: Your Full Name Your Full Address Your Phone Number Your Email Address Your Credit Card Number Your Credit Card Expiry Date Your Credit Card Type (eg. visa, mastercard etc.) Send all of the above to webhost(a)techie.com Thank you and I hope you enjoy this very special offer John Simmons Head of Special Promotions, Webhosting.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WebHosting.com is a member of the CNS International Internet Businesses Association

1 0

Ordering GNU books in Europe
by Philippe Martin 26 Aug '01

26 Aug '01

Hello, Someone told me once that there exists a reseller of GNU manuals in Europe (Belgium as I can remember). Is it a urban legend, because I cannot get the info anywhere, nor in gnu.org nor in fsfeurope.org. If this info is true, it could be very interesting for the FSFs to make this info visible somewhere. Thanks, - Philippe

3 2

Re: LWN's comments on RMS and Freedom
by MJ Ray 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

Bernhard Reiter <bernhard(a)intevation.de> writes: > http://lwn.net/2001/0823/ > Is worth a read, because they give their opinion on terminology > in the Free Software community and RMS' behaviour. Try not to get as irritated by the poor use of English as I did, though. Ahem. Oops.

1 0

LWN's comments on RMS and Freedom
by Bernhard Reiter 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

http://lwn.net/2001/0823/ Is worth a read, because they give their opinion on terminology in the Free Software community and RMS' behaviour. We can all learn how actions might be perceived by a broader public. Note that LWN is very careful in the glibc Drepper debate which shows their journalistic instincts. | It could also have been motivated by a desire for less conflict | with glibc maintainer Ulrich Drepper, who is also not always | considered to be one of the easiest people to get along with. Unless | Mr. Stallman acknowledges that this "hostile takeover" attempt truly | happened, and explains his reasoning, it will be hard to understand | what is really going on. Also note that they implicitly equal FSF and the GNU-Project. This paragraph shows that the people believing in the need for a modern role for the FSF do have a strong point. The FSF and the FSFE do a lot more than just running the GNU-Project. They provide a base for all Free Software development. | But much of the work has been done outside of the GNU project's | organization since the beginning, and the proportion of non-GNU work | is only increasing. Richard Stallman remains the head of the Free | Software Foundation, but, if the larger Linux and free software | movement has a head at all, it's not him. They come to an interesting conclusion on "Should we be talking about freedom?" which shows me that LWN editors actually have understood more than most people: | There is a claim LWN would like to put forward, however, made up of | two parts: | | 1. The concept of freedom is a crucial, inseparable part of what | makes the free software movement vital and important. It may make | life easier to sweep the concept under the rug at times, but that is | a temptation that should be resisted. | | 2. Richard Stallman has been one of our most articulate, vocal, | and persistent proponents of software freedom for almost two | decades. It is important that he not stop. Bernhard -- Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net) The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org) Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org) FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

1 0

Re: Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW)
by Joerg Schilling 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

>From: Reinhard Mueller <reinhard.mueller(a)bytewise.at> >> On 18 Aug 2001 18:38:16 +0200, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >>> This sentence allows the following scenario: >>> >>> - you make modifications >>> - you assign copyright to MITRE >>> - MITRE releases your modifications under a non free software license >>> and publish them on their web site >>> - you are not allowed to use your own code >>> - you have to remove your own modifications from your machine >>> >>> I know this is unlikely but it's permitted by the license. Therefore >>>the freedom to modify the software is crippled, hence the license is not >>>Free Software. >>> >>> Do you see any flaw in this logic ? >>> >>> >> The license is free software, just like the BSD license (without the >> advertising clause). What it does not do is to enforce that the future >> versions of the software will stay free software, but neither does GPL. >> If the FSF ever is taken over all the GNU project could be transformed >> into proprietary software because the GNU project has a similar clause: >> all the software must have its copyright assigned to the FSF. >This is not really true. >* It's not true that all GNU projects _must_ have copyright assigned to >FSF. However, you are asked to do so, and it's a good choice to do so if >you want your software to be incorporated into the official GNU system. It seems that you are badly informed.... I _have_ been in discussion with FSF about this topic when talking about 'star' ~ 3 years ago. After several other points have been agreed on, they told me that I am requested to transfer the copyright to FSF. After I told them that I will not do this but I will allow FSF to _add_ their copyright notice to mine, they stopped with the discussion. It seems that at least for core programs FSF insists in this point which from point of view reduces freedom. Jörg EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling(a)fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

5 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion August 2001