Hi All,
As you may know I started a topic on Richard Stallman, thank you for your discussions =96 was most interesting.
I have restarted this thread with a new title as in I want to retrain this back on to topic.
There was a lot of different arguments from people and there opinions. One or two of the interesting was =93Yes, I like GPL but my boss doesn=92t=94
Over the discussion online and I have watched these two videos -- links:
The fist two is most interesting talk and question session with Richard Stallman in the UK and the second is his views on DRM.
One thing that was not clear in the last discussion was Richards definitions of what makes software =91Free=92 as opposed to =91proprietary= =92 in the terms and eyes of the FSF. Here they are:
Freedom level 0 =3D Run the program as you wish Freedom level 1 =3D Study the source code and change it Freedom level 2 =3D Freedom to help your neighbour (ability to distribute as is) Freedom level 3 =3D Help your community (ability to distribute your modification).
He sees there four freedoms are as he says essential on moral grounds, and if you do not have these he hopes your software fails and dies.
He also sees software with DRM restricts users (your friends) freedom and therefore is immoral. Suggesting that people who say that sharing of copyright media is called =91Piracy=92 and that is a false analogy. Additionally he states that software with DRM violates freedom level
0, since the software does not do what you want, in fact it he calls it =91Defective by Design=92 with Windows Vista at the pinnacle of this.The way that Richard sees software developers getting paid is through a number of people or organisations requiring modification of software going to a development house and asking to share the cost of getting development done.
My points I want to make is this:
- Software with freedom levels 0, 1, 2 (and usually under a variety of GPL) is often popular in the general developer=92s community as they are seen to be flexible.
However Freedom level 2 and 3 often can be seen as a way of cannibalising any routes to make the software attractive for an organisation to accept. Additionally it is very hard for an organisation to fully support and state freedom level 0 without risk. Freedom level 1 is very common in =91proprietary=92 software. For example many RTOS vendors allow you to have the source code (level 1) and you can use it however you like as long as it on a single product (partial level 0), freedom level 2 and 3 is possible with OEM license deals.
This gives rise to a number of developers on these forums saying =93yes I like the GPL but my boss does not accept it=94
- Richard S skirts around the issue of software on devices often and I think here is where the GPL really does not fit, as embedded systems often have a very common components but what really makes it into a functioning device is the software. This gives rise to the popularity of GPL on general computing applications but use of GPL in embedded is much lower and the abuse of GPL is pretty high.
- Richard S assumes that most software with GPL is on a PC and therefore will not do bodily harm, when it comes to (say avionics) he is happy to say his assumptions are not valid and therefore its up to the user to be careful. These kinds of safety systems are not dealt with by GPL.
- Richard S =91development scheme=92 is fine and dandy and it is called a pyramid. What he is suggesting is that the pyramid develops from the bottom up (from users requests to developer). What he assumes that all users of software have some knowledge that they can instruct some developers and not get overcharged by finding the best group. Of cause when you find the best developers to do it you will find they have created a business out of software manufacture, and they might have even already done a modification which they are happy to sell off- the-shelf at a cheaper cost. This makes the developers a =91vendor=92 and as they are running a business feels the need to start protecting its off-the-shelf software leading to =91proprietary=92. I think he underestimates the fact that these =91proprietary=92 software houses are the outcomes of the schemes he presented in the first place.
- The development schemes that he suggests lead to diversification in software and this leads to different versions and revisions each very good at particular functions, but very much separate with each other. Diversification rather than unification (simplification) which again goes against the principle idea of FSF is to make software tools accessible for all.
On a personal level I have been involved recently in case where I was made aware of a consultant (one man band type) who put un-licensed =91proprietary=92 software in to a vendors product which is designed for very high volume production. I am still unsure to flag this fact with the product vendor as it would put a very poor light on the consultant however I do have the evidence to case the recall of 100s thousands of devices.
Anyhow it made me think how often this happens with GPL products, by development firms who have made choices or not explained fully to clients (TomTom?)
That=92s enough typing for one day.....