On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:14:50AM +0000, Diogo Santos wrote:
> > Copyright is irrelevant for the definition of Free Software. The fact is
> > that I use a software and I don't have the four freedoms, therefore it's
> > proprietary software, because all software that doesn't give me the four
> > freedoms is by definition proprietary software. It doesn't matter if it
> > is kept private or is released to the public.
>
> It's for the defenition, but no to apply it to the reality, and that's why
> we've copyright licenses.
>
> It is not reasonable, nor common sense, that you demmand the 4 freedoms for a
> software that you'r only accessing in someone else's computer. And altough that
> may no be the exact case of that software, because you also run client side
> code, to help presentation and other client side stuff, that is way more near
> to access remote software than using it in your computer.
I don't care if it is common sense or reasonable to you, to have the
four freedoms for every software I use (remotely or localy). I want
the four freedoms for every software I use, no matter if it runs on
my computer or the computer of someone else. I just matters that I
am a user and don't have the four freedoms.
> > I don't know the contents of this convention, but I searched through and
> > didn't find the word patent. Could you please point me to relevant
> > passage? Because this would mean that I can break any software patent by
> > just referring to this convention.
>
> I'm sory by confusion and lack of atention, I've mention the rong convention...
> I was actually refering to the article 52? of the European Patent Convention.
Either the European patents which are listed by the MPEG LA are illegal
(which I suspect) or they don't deal with software. In Europe some
companies have been sued because of these patents. At the moment
one of Germany's biggest discounters is being sued for not having
an MPEG licence, so I suspect that the MPEG LA would do this if they
had illegal or invalid patents.
> > According to one of the biggest online shops in the world, the product
> > sells quite well and has over 100 reviews there.
>
> Well I don't buy on-line, neither most of the general poppulation.
It depends on the country and person. I buy online very frequently
and I hardly remember when I bought electronic devices in a store.
> > Well, than 7digital has to make the negotiations with the music labels.
> > According to their website they offer only MP3, AAC and WMA. Canonical
> > must be a big customer of them to get all 8 Million tracks in FLAC and
> > OGG, if 7digital has them as WAV or similar already.
>
> Canonical said that the questing reallated with some proprietary and patented
> formats (and specified wma as an example) is being take careof. The
> availlability in tottaly free formats will be another question addressed when
> they can.
> So I guess they feel that have power to pressure 7digital to make music
> availlable in some formats, but not yet, to demmand files in the formats the
> community wants. Maybe they need the eight of users to do so.
Or maybe they just need to sell a lot music in patented formats. Just
because some users demand something, a company like 7digital won't
change something in their business model, if it already works and
there no great expectations for profit.
> > That means, you are suggesting to install proprietary Software on the
> > user's computer to convince the user that Free Software has the same
> > functionality and that proprietary software is a bad idea. That's
> > absurd!
>
> No I'm not!
> I wasn't sugesting nothing, I was recognizing that many people want to use
> proprietary software (no matter the reason), others will use it because they
> don't really have choice.
>
> What I was stating is, that it's not the exclusion of methods to install that
> non-free software, that will prevent people to do so, it will also not motivate
> people to use Free Software. If you belive it will, you're as fool, or much
> more naif, than people o create and deploy DRM to prevent people to be free.
>
> I think, altough it is bad that they use proprietary software (for them and for
> us due to it's network effect), it is preferable that they use it under a
> environment where there's much more Free than non-Free Software, where they can
> become more sensitive to freedom related questions, and change their previuos
> decision of using proprietary software.
>
> Making hard for people to use proprietary software, will only make them ungry
> at the Free Software Community, and drive them away from our ideals.
>
> I would never take the iniciative to sugest to install proprietary software
> other than the exclusively necessary to run the computer with a Free Software
> Operating System. And would never sugest to use a proprietary software
> application.
>
> I don't use proprietary software in any computer that it's my property (where I
> can allways choose to do so). I don't even accept to employment to work with a
> proprietary OS/environment on the workplace desktop/laptop and where the job
> isn't using or develloping with Free Software. Even more, I wouldn't work in
> IT, if I hadn't the chance to work this way. Therefore I would never sugest any
> other people to use proprietary for any other reason than enabling them to work
> in Free Software environment. And even on those cases I also sugest them more
> care in future hardware purchases (and tell them wat I do to avoid hardware
> problems/difficulties), and also sugest them that maybe they should complain to
> the hardware manufacturer for not respecting their freedom. But I understand
> that this is my personal ethics. I do demmand other people to have ethics, but
> not exactly the same as mine.
>
> I allways sugest first people to use Free Software only. But I accept, altough
> not be happy about it, that by now and in some cases, for some people, to use
> more Free than proprietary software, under a Free Software environment is
> better than using only proprietary software, or some Free Software under a
> proprietary environment. And I belive that people who do this compromise to use
> a Free Software environment are much closer to use only Free Software, than
> they would if we had made their lifes harder than it is by using proprietary
> software.
>
> So this is not a strategy I would promote, but in cases where necessary I
> do/will fall back it. Ubuntu and Canonical don't promote, or sugest, or even
> force, people to use proprietary software, but enable people who want to use
> it, to use it. That might be a small difference, but to me it's an important
> difference, it also enable people who don't have a choice to use what they have
> to.
I agree with you in a lot of places. But Canonical would just ignore
proprietary software and wouldn't include it, they would neither make
it hard or easy to install proprietary software. People who want
it, could still get it (the same as with Fedora). People who would
choose it, because they didn't think about something else to use,
would choose Free Software.
My problem is not that there are proprietary software repositories,
but merely that they are official and are accepted and intended
by Canonical.
Regards,
Matthias-Christian