Showing messages 1 through 9 of 9.

• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-04 20:45:20  chexsum [View]
  
  
  I am sorry that you cannot live in a world of Free Software but you have to take the bad with the good.
  
  I cannot enjoy a world of proprietory software as a hobbyist programmer. I do not make money out of software so do not know the industry you work in. I do think it is sad that you think you will have no food on the table if your source code is available for others to fix to their liking but that is how I would like the industry to be.
  
  Consider that you have more experience than I (and no doubt many other hobbyists) do and you want to make money out of programming then rethink your views if you really want to (it may be a need one day as you say but for now you have a chance to see why I choose Free Software).
  
  Free Software is not about putting businesses out of business. I despise people who view things in term of money even if they are in business but I would never want to hurt anyone because they have that flaw. In a world of Free Software anyone can program but only the best make money out of it.
  
  I hope you read this Brett Glass.
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-04 22:26:55  brettglass [View]
  
  
  You write:
  
  > I cannot enjoy a world of proprietory software
  > as a hobbyist programmer.
  
  The correct world is "commercial," not proprietary.
  (The FSF's propaganda misuses the word
  "proprietary" so as to take advantage of the word's
  negative connotations of incompatibility and
  "lock-in.")
  
  > I do not make money out of software so do not
  > know the industry you work in.
  
  Then how can you presume to understand my
  situation?
  
  > I do think it is sad that you think you will
  > have no food on the table if your source code
  > is available for others to fix to their liking
  
  It is possible for programmers to make a living
  in the presence of software for which source code
  is publicly available. However, the GPL
  attacks programmers by destroying their markets
  *and* by denying them access to the source code.
  (If a programmer so much as looks as GPLed code
  when writing his own products, he must, according
  to the license, give them away.)
  
  > but that is how I would like the industry to
  > be.
  
  Sorry, but there will be no industry if the GPL
  achieves its purpose.
  
  > Free Software is not about putting businesses
  > out of business.
  
  Yes, it is. Richard Stallman, the author of the
  GPL, specifically said so in his "GNU Manifesto."
  He claimed that good-paying jobs for programmers
  should be "banned," and set about attempting to
  make this happen by launching the FSF. The FSF's
  propaganda, some of which is included in the GPL
  itself, has duped many programmers into destroying
  their profession.
  
  > In a world of Free Software anyone can program
  
  Anyone can program anytime. In the FSF's world,
  however, no one can make money from it.
  
  > but only the best make money out of it.
  
  Not true. In the FSF's world, no one can sell
  software for money. The best one can do is
  work for some large corporation -- doing menial
  administration and programming tasks and being
  poorly paid for it.
  
  So much for "flow." How can one achieve or
  maintain "flow" when programming is a part-time
  hobby? When one can't dive into a project
  full-time, spending whole weeks (or longer!)
  honing one's work to make it the best it can
  be? When one has to stop -- for weeks or months --
  to work at a different job to put food on the
  table?
  
  Programmers' sense of craftsmanship and
  professionalism has always been developed --
  that's why we have so many poorly designed
  abominations in the software world. The spread
  of the GPL may well ensure that truly professional
  code will be LESS available in the future.
  been
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-05 05:44:58  chexsum [View]
  
  
  The correct world is "commercial," not proprietary.
  
  You are telling me what I am thinking? I know the difference between Commercial and Proprietory and I only dislike Proprietory programs. Commercial programs can be used alongside Free Software. Commercial Software is sometimes a necessity and is sometimes better.
  
  Then how can you presume to understand my situation?
  
  I do understand part of your situation but as I stated, I do not work in the industry, I am only giving you my opinion about why I choose Free Software. I have programmed for a long time, I started when I was ~10 years old and grew out of it at ~17 as it wasnt morally and financially viable to pursue my hobby further (read: Profession). I did not presume anything about you that you didnt write in your comment, you said you may not have any food as a result of your code being GPLed. I think it is safe for me to 'assume' that you are a Programmer of Proprietory Software.
  
  You claim the GNU Operating System cannot exist and that Free Software cannot have a 'professional image'. In the real world GNU runs alot of the Internet and is starting to run alot of Workstations not to mention alot of embedded devices. A lot of your comments are pure propaganda (read: FUD) and your views are tainted by money from what I have read. I am very open to learning and you taught me nothing today that I didnt already know.
  
  Insert coin to play again.
  
  PS. I work in the Automotive Industry, I am not exactly putting an industry out of business when I fix a car at home. I hope to work with computers one day as that is where my talents are, sure I can get a panel straight as a rule but I can also fix a problem with a computer in less time than most people. I would never want to make more than enough money to put food on the table and to support my few hobbies. You probably are overpaid and underworked but I do not make assumptions and I do not seek to change your situation.
  
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-05 12:07:58  brettglass [View]
  
  
  You write:
  
  > You are telling me what I am thinking?
  
  No, I'm telling you that you're misusing
  terminology in a way that's intended to confuse
  and mislead.... Just as the FSF does in its
  propaganda. If you're smart, you won't be fooled
  by that propaganda.
  
  > I know the difference between Commercial and
  > Proprietory and I only dislike Proprietory
  > programs.
  
  If that were true, then you would not support
  the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is to destroy
  vendors and authors of *commercial* software.
  
  > You claim the GNU Operating System cannot exist
  
  No, I did not claim that. However, I do state
  that the GPL is unconscionable (and likely
  unenforceable) and that such code should be
  licensed under a truly free license -- not one
  which makes the code very un-free as the GPL
  does. (I note that you use the term "Free
  Software", with initial caps, indicating that
  you may have swallowed the FSF's propaganda hook,
  line and sinker. I hope that this is not the case.
  
  > A lot of your comments are pure propaganda
  
  Not so at all. They're supported, 100%, by fact,
  and their purpose is to expose the FSF's
  misleading and deceptive propaganda.
  
  > and your views are tainted by money from
  > what I have read.
  
  I see. You claim that you work as a mechanic.
  Does that mean that if you believe that you
  should be paid for your work your views are
  "tainted by money?"
  
  > Insert coin to play again.
  
  No thanks. You sound too much like a broken
  record -- parroting the FSF's "party line" --
  already.
  
  --Brett Glass
  
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-22 07:54:49  cortlandt [View]
  
  
  Thank You Brett,
  
  I don't know what to believe yet, but I think you have made some good points here and I sympathise with the effects to you personally.
  
  What little I have done I've given to the public free for whatever use is desired and if this article's survey is accurate, that's the way it should be.
  
  Chexsum. Given your motivations, do you see any reason not to use the BSD license instead of GPL?
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-09-02 05:14:25  chexsum [View]
  
  
  I don't know what to believe yet, but I think you have made some good points here and I sympathise with the effects to you personally.
  
  "For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction." -- author unknown.
  
  Its sad that people are hurt by natural forces. =\
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-09-02 04:35:43  chexsum [View]
  
  
  Given your motivations, do you see any reason not to use the BSD license instead of GPL?
  
  Yes.
  
  Firstly, I do not program much anymore and do not program many tools that satisfies other peoples needs or which dont already have a tool that does the job. If I was to release an original or better method of performing a task as a program I have more motivation to do it if the methods or outcome could be exploited as freely as possible (without it being exploited in a proprietary way).
  
  Secondly, I believe it is a requirement that a programs source code be released in the definition described at www.opensource.com if the software industry (or an institution that relies on that software) is to be benefitted by a method that a program performs or by the programs output when the intent of producing the method is to benefit the software industry (or an institution which relies on that software).
  
  In my youth I would give code away (it was not hard to commit to this when you programmed in C=64 machine code) without caring about copyrights, licenses or monetary returns. Others put a notice asking for a donation of $1 or something similar and some people copyrighted their code and some people also asked for money only when their creation was commercialized. I enjoyed using the public domain software and contributed back any improvement and useful code which I created.
  
  The BSD License is OK but it isnt my first choice in licenses to use to protect my motivation to program. I do use FreeBSD and I use FreeBSD without using its ports system as the BSD system works well. If I was to write a free tool for BSD to replace a GNU tool which BSD did not have I would license it under the BSD License as it would possibly be beneficial to BSD (the BSD License isnt too intrusive to my well being). If I was to enhance a BSD tool I could not think about not licensing it under the terms of the BSD license.
  
  All licenses are evil to someone who codes for fun but the GNU GPL protects ones freedom and motivation to program (and other peoples involvement in this) more than all other licenses which are known by me. I do like the Artistic, GPL, LGPL and BSD licenses more than any other software license but the choice of which one to use depends on the function of the software.
  
  PS. It is true that the GNU GPL is harsh in todays business world but it protects the software industries ecology. If I was to choose ONE license for all facets of software which need protection from demotivational exploitation I would choose a GNU license.
  
  NB. I am not a lawyer, programmer, businessman, professional or tradesman. I enjoy all facets of computing as computing is a hobby which I pursue. GNU/Linux is a great system and I love participating in the community that the GNU GPL helped to evolve and hope an industry continues to evolve with it.
  
  *one hour of editing for this one post - sheesh*
• Woops, wrong URI in my post!!!
  2002-09-02 05:20:29  chexsum [View]
  
  
  www.opensource.com should be http://www.opensource.org. =)
  
  Grrr@RedCrap!!!
  
  Over and out.
• I love to program, too. But...
  2002-08-08 02:22:02  chexsum [View]
  
  
  http://www.adti.net/html_files/defense/need%20to%20purchase%20opensource%20white%20paper.pdf is an interesting read.