You don't lose anything. You can still sell free software. If that sounds weird to you, think free as in free speech, not as in free beer. It's about freedom, not free of cost.
Apart from the fact that I actually like free beer (ok, that was not the point, I know 
), there is actually a reason why companies don't release the source code... It's prevention against leechers. Once the source code has been released, any half-decent programmer can change some lines, the name and copyright information (perhaps add some adware), call the new software his own creation and make it freely available for download. Bye bye money for the inventors of the original software.
No you see, what you are describing there would be a violation of the GPL, and is just as bad as pirating software (legally at least, however I
personally believe it's ethically more wrong than that >_>).
The GPL requires that all derived software also is free (unlike the BSD licenses, however). The GPL also requires that all contributors are mentioned, if they like so (however, someone needs to own the copyright so the contributor would have to transfer it). This both has the purpose of crediting the contributors who wrote a good piece of code, and to curse the contributors who wrote a bad piece of code (we don't want to blame the wrong contributor
)
Since the GPL also requires that the source code is available people are free to remove the adware and every unwanted feature if they like so. If a feature is widely unwanted you can guarantee there will be a fork where this is removed so not every individual has to do it by themselves.
Of course, someone could just ignore the GPL. But hey, they are breaking the law in the process so you won't see much of it (and you really don't). There are organizations with the only goal to find violators.
http://gpl-violations.org/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.htmlI hope you realize now that just because GPL gives a lot of rights, freedoms and such it still has some requirements (in fact, it IS a copyright license from the view of the law). These requirements are there to prevent your scenario, or worse scenarios.
Free software was designed to not discriminate against any kind of user. If the user is a company, individual, government and so on does not make a difference. Everyone has equal rights under free software. They are only "restricted" to the degree that they want to restrict others.
Reread the last sentence in that quoted extract. It's a contradiction with the lines above it. Free software does not "by definition" refrain from 'discrimination' or whatever you like to call it; every developer sets his own priorities. If I were a developer of free software and were working on an update for my program, I'd first add the features that will be of use to the majority of my users. That'd mean, discriminating those who use it on obscure systems or for obscure purposes.
No you misunderstand. When I mean it does not do any discrimination is that it does not make difference whether the distributor is a user, company or a state-owned library, or if it's an alien even, and the same goes for the receiver and other "actors" described in the license. I did NOT mean that GPL tries to force programmers to not discriminate. Actually the GPL even says that the developer can't be held responsible for blah blah and blah (the usual AS-IS statement). If you are not happy with a free software program you are asked to fix it yourself or hire a programmer (alternatively ask a friend), you should not complain to any of the developers (of course you could ask them nicely or bribe them with money, but a no is a no).
I should add that proprietary software often also have an AS-IS statement. However when you complain to them that a feature is missing they won't say "you have the source code, fix it yourself", they would say "tough luck, give us $10000 and we might think about it for next decade's release" (great exaggeration, I know, but you get the point). And this is worse! Don't you think it's better from the point of view of the user to get a repose saying "fix it yourself" rather than "you'll have to wait and see"? I would prefer to have a bad option (which I can turn good) rather than NO option.
As an example to the original discussion, I think it would be completely fine if Flash was only programmed by Adobe for Windows and released as free software. Actually I'd rather have them do that than releasing it for every system in existence as proprietary software. The reason for that is that if it's free software the community can port the software to other systems, something not possible at all if it's proprietary software. However, since free software is important for more than that, even if they would release it for every system in existence as non-free software it would still not be acceptable.
Like I said before a pirated software is by default without any rights at all under the law. You have no license and without a license for a non-public domain software you have no rights at all!
I see, damn words with more than one meaning >_>
I know. I guess you mean the free as in freedom or free as in free of charge thing. That's why I prefer the words "libre" for freedom and "gratis" for free of charge. They are however not widely used and I find it better to be careful when explaining, and making sure my debate-friends understand what definition of the word I'm using every time. If you prefer I can use libre and gratis instead.
Another annoying thing in these debates are that most people don't realize there's a difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software". I don't know if I said it before, but Open Source tends to value source code available for technical reasons; they believe it makes better software (they might even prefer a particular proprietary program if it's unique or if it happened to be better technically than free/open alternatives). Free Software activists however don't see that as the primary goal; they see source available as one of the rights that are important for users' freedom when using software (
definition of Free Software). They value freedom over technical advantage, and they think free software is important and essential for a free and *real* democratic society.
I'd prefer that when you are putting a name on my opinion (I know how awkward that sounds) you call it "Free Software", not "Open Source", since I only support the former, not the latter. But that doesn't change the fact that I won't find it acceptable if you would say something false about free software (because you might accidentally mix it up with open source or for some other reason).
Read more if you like:
Why “Free Software†is better than “Open Source†by Richard StallmanWhy “Open Source†misses the point of Free Software by Richard Stallman(yes, you might notice a lot is written by Richard Stallman, a.k.a. RMS, it's because he was the guy who started the movement back in '83!)
And let's say you bank uses proprietary software (they probably do). Now they find a little security hole in the software. Are you really asking them to reverse engineer the whole thing (which might be illegal as well) just so they can protect their customers? Wouldn't it be more right that they had this permission and the possibility (i.e. with the source code) by default? And the counter-argument with "they can just wait for the next release." won't work because in that time every customer might have their money stolen! With free software they hire a programmer to fix the security hole for them. He takes the source code which is freely available, makes the change and recompile the thing. The programmer gets paid, the bank gets their money from the customers and so on. Everyone is happy, everyone is free. This is not possible with proprietary software, however.
You've got a point there. These kind of security-related programs are what I would make an exception for on my stance that free software should not be obligatory. Things like firmware for voting machines (in elections) and software for financial or privacy-related matters would be best off with open source programs.
Ironically, a lot of people (even open source enthusiasts!) think free software and open source software should not be used in security critical systems. These people falsely believe it's easier for a hacker to enter a system with the source code available. They however miss one thing and that is the fact that security holes are found even in proprietary software. However, you can't fix that software as I described before. As long as you keep the software up to date you are really not in more threat than using proprietary software. If you hire a hacker team (a
white-hat one) and using free software you can be in theory invulnerable (well, no that's false, you can NEVER be
) if they fix the holes as soon as they are made public (and subscribing to the sometimes available paid support from an original distributor you might even get information not released to the public yet, and this is because when it's public it's also available for potential malicious people).
Your missing one thing though, however. EVERYTHING is security and privacy related. Let's say you use a free software financial program, BUT you use a proprietary operating system, or you might just use some small unrelated proprietary program. What if the security hole is in THOSE programs, and you can't fix them. Then you render your freedoms in the financial program completely useless! You might be able to fix the security holes there, but if they can get in through another way where you can't fix it you are completely helpless again! That's why ALL software should be free. If you want to read more:
Why Software Should Be Free by Richard StallmanI agree with Venus. I use proprietary software occasionally, but I wouldn't say that I like it. I use avoid proprietary software for use as a typical application (like browser, IDE, etc.) unless the task is essential and there is no free alternative yet (games and drivers are also ok). I don't like using proprietary software, though, because it isn't truly mine, I can't learn from it, and it's also usually low quality unless expensive (especially on GNU), among other reasons. However, I'm not one of those people who think that proprietary software has a "place" or don't care about it (like Linus Torvalds).
Your reason for not liking proprietary software because 'you can't learn from it' is not universal, since not everyone is a programmer. It's a valid reason why one could prefer free software on a personal basis, but it's not a reason why proprietary software should be banned or completely replaced by its free equivalent.
Anyway, judging from your post you agree as much with me as with Venus because you don't refuse proprietary software on principal.
You have a point. The study/learn part might only be important for a programmer. However, it's a right and freedom that every individual ought to have and thus it's an important part for free software. That said, we shouldn't ask them what they are going to use their freedoms for or if they are going to use them at all; because that's rude
(j/k)
And this might be THE longest post I've ever made on ZFGC O_O;; I need to archive this one for personal reasons.
Author
Topic: New Job: YouTube Watcher (Read 8332 times)