Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Google Chrome Operating System

Reply
Thread Tools

Google Chrome Operating System

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Allistar wrote:

> Will Spencer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:21:47 +1200, Peter wrote:
>>
>>> Could this challenge Microsoft's dominance of the desktop?

>>
>> No but it should do a good job of killing of the penguin.
>>
>> Bye bye Linux.

>
> Isn't is based on Linux?


Some of us were enjoying the laugh.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2009

"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> vitw wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:06:06 +0000, impossible wrote:

>>
>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>
>>> The way to ave real freedom of choice in computing is to have the source
>>> code for the software available, and to be not encumbered by patents.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please post links to all the software you've developed, Allistar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, wait....no, you're a proprietary developer who just fancies the
>>>>> free code and applications that others contribute. Hypocrisy runs
>>>>> deep!
>>>>
>>>> Allistar, is that true? If so, not a very consistent state of affairs.
>>>
>>> I said "the way to have freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>> course
>>> code for the software available, and not to be encumbered by patents". I
>>> happen to develop open as well as closed source software. I see no
>>> hypocrisy. The people who buy my software are perfectly free not to, and
>>> to
>>> go elsewhere. They have that freedom. *They* make that choice.
>>> --

>>
>> Please post links to all the open-source software you've developed,

>
> Why?
> --


Because you've stated that "the way to [sic] ave real freedom of choice in
computing is to have the source
code for the software available..." Because you're a developer with the
freedom to choose how you make a living and advance the cause of freedom as
you've defined it, I'd like to see what open source software you've actually
developed yoursel. Thing is, I suspect you merely have a selective interest
in the "freedom" you always prance around this newsgroup chanting -- If
someone is willing to develop free open-source tools that you can use, then
freedom of choice is great. But when it comes to your own income, you want
all the licensing protections that any other proprietary developer wants so
that you and you alone have the freedom to make money from that software.
Is that about it? Your freedom of choice then can only be maximized by
limiting the freedom of choice that others have to exploit your work. Is
that about right?

In any case, if you have actuallydeveloped open-source applications, as you
continually say, then I'd just like to know where I can go to get the source
code.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2009
On Jul 9, 7:21*am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Could this challenge Microsoft's dominance of the desktop?http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/...chrome-os.html
>
> I hope so. *The only real protection us users have is freedom of choice, and
> this hasn't really been available on PCs. *Maybe Google can change this a
> bit.
> (Of course, replacing one monopoly with another doesn't really help.)


huh?

You have the choice of; quite a few versions (say of Linux, 3 of
xBSD, Open Solaris.....

Then there is also an Apple....choice is there if you choose to make
it.

regards

Thing




 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2009
On Jul 9, 7:21*am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Could this challenge Microsoft's dominance of the desktop?http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/...chrome-os.html
>
> I hope so. *The only real protection us users have is freedom of choice, and
> this hasn't really been available on PCs. *Maybe Google can change this a
> bit.
> (Of course, replacing one monopoly with another doesn't really help.)


If you read the txt, its pretty clear that the OS actually does not
matter, what is important to ppl is the applications, and the
interconnectability. You could take Linux or BSD and customise it to
do this.....indeed Apple already have with the iPhone version of
OSX....as a common example.....and the iphone's presence on the web is
noticable....catching up to Linux....0.8% I think v 1%...

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2009
Hi there,

impossible wrote:
>
> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could this challenge Microsoft's dominance of the desktop?
>>>>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/...chrome-os.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope so. The only real protection us users have is freedom of
>>>>> choice,
>>>>> and
>>>>> this hasn't really been available on PCs. Maybe Google can change
>>>>> this
>>>>> a bit.
>>>>> (Of course, replacing one monopoly with another doesn't really help.)
>>>>
>>>> The way to ave real freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>>> source
>>>> code for the software available, and to be not encumbered by patents.
>>>
>>> Please post links to all the software you've developed, Allistar.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait....no, you're a proprietary developer who just fancies the free
>>> code and applications that others contribute. Hypocrisy runs deep!


Hypocrisy? It is *you* who are the hypocrit, because time and again
all you can do when someone condones open source software is use the
same old tired thick-as-pigshit argument you always dredge up, that
people are taking advantage of OSS authors like its a bad thing.

Those authors *want* people to take advantage of their software. I
believe that shits you, although I'm completely at a loss to figure
out why it does. Maybe your shrink could fill us in.

>> I have contributed to open source applications.
>>
>> I develop software for a living. I do so mostly as "work for hire" which
>> means the license used with the software is not a decision I can make.
>> For
>> software I develop and sell myself, why would I give it away for
>> nothing? I
>> have mouths to feed. There is no hypocrisy here.

>
> Fair enough. But then why would you state that "real freedom of choice
> in computing is to have the source code for the software available...".
> You've made a free choice to develop proprietary software to earn a
> living. Obviously, you share no source code for any of that. Yet you
> take full advantage of the open source tools devleoped by others without
> compensating anyone. Hardly seems fair.


What is unfair is that people like you impose their fascist idiom on
others. Anyone wanting to suggest the use of free software gets the
same tired old tirade of abuse from you about the alleged lack of
quality in free software, that its not the de-facto standard, and
the same oft-repeated anal passage emission from you about how you
think "free" means "useless".

People like you are why I prefer to use free software where possible.
The OSS guys give me real choice, not just a choice of where to spend
my money on software, but whether I need to spend money on software to
get done daily tasks. All but the most niche tasks I accomplish without
feeding the gravy train that you seem to want us all to be a part of.

You're a fascist. Simple as that.

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Wilkinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2009
Hi there,

geoff wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Allistar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Will Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:21:47 +1200, Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could this challenge Microsoft's dominance of the desktop?
>>>> No but it should do a good job of killing of the penguin.
>>>>
>>>> Bye bye Linux.
>>> Isn't is based on Linux?

>> Some of us were enjoying the laugh.

>
> No, just one.


Er, I had a wee giggle. Guess that makes 2...

Will appears to have had some sort of brain-fart at
around the time he wrote his snide little remark.

That to me was worthy of a short cackle...

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2009

"Chris Wilkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4a58064e$0$1060$(E-Mail Removed)4all.se ...
>
> You're a fascist. Simple as that.
>


Wilkie the Wanker -- eloquent as always.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2009

"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> vitw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:06:06 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The way to ave real freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>>>> source code for the software available, and to be not encumbered by
>>>>> patents.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please post links to all the software you've developed, Allistar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, wait....no, you're a proprietary developer who just fancies the
>>>>>>> free code and applications that others contribute. Hypocrisy runs
>>>>>>> deep!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allistar, is that true? If so, not a very consistent state of
>>>>>> affairs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said "the way to have freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>>>> course
>>>>> code for the software available, and not to be encumbered by patents".
>>>>> I happen to develop open as well as closed source software. I see no
>>>>> hypocrisy. The people who buy my software are perfectly free not to,
>>>>> and to
>>>>> go elsewhere. They have that freedom. *They* make that choice.
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Please post links to all the open-source software you've developed,
>>>
>>> Why?

>>
>> Because you've stated that "the way to [sic] ave real freedom of choice
>> in
>> computing is to have the source
>> code for the software available..." Because you're a developer with the
>> freedom to choose how you make a living and advance the cause of freedom
>> as you've defined it, I'd like to see what open source software you've
>> actually developed yoursel.

>
> The only cause of "freedom" I have an interest in advancing is the freedom
> of people, not the "freedom" of software. So long as people are still
> free
> to choose what software they use, I have no problem with proprietary
> software.
>


That makes no sense. All software licences impose proprietary restrictions
on the freedom of users. Yours included.

>> Thing is, I suspect you merely have a
>> selective interest in the "freedom" you always prance around this
>> newsgroup chanting -- If someone is willing to develop free open-source
>> tools that you can use, then freedom of choice is great. But when it
>> comes
>> to your own income, you want all the licensing protections that any other
>> proprietary developer wants so
>> that you and you alone have the freedom to make money from that
>> software.

>
> Those people are free to use (or not) my software. THAT is the freedom I
> think is most important.


Nah, you said access source code was the freedom you considered to be most
important. So where's yours?

> A builder builds a house for money, and sells that
> house to someone. Commercial software is no different, except that it can
> be built once and sold many times.
>
> Should a builder build a house and give it away for free?
>
>> Is that about it? Your freedom of choice then can only be maximized by
>> limiting the freedom of choice that others have to exploit your work. Is
>> that about right?

>
> I am free to choose what license or model I develop software under. You
> (and
> everyone else) should be perfectly free to use (or not) that software. So
> long as there is no coercion or compulsion, I don't see a problem.
>


What if I want to "use" the source code? Doesn't the integrity of your
development business depend on compelling people not to steal it? Your
freeedom grows only by limiting the freedom of others.

>> In any case, if you have actuallydeveloped open-source applications, as
>> you continually say, then I'd just like to know where I can go to get the
>> source code.

>
> I'm not going to give out any information that potentially exposes any
> anonymity I have. Especially not to someone who has made there way in and
> out of my killfile over the past couple of years.
>
> Here's the key: There is nothing inconsistent with someone who like the
> open
> source development model and the flexibility who also develops commercial
> software.
> --


I agree. But then you shouldn't go arouynd preaching that free and open
source code is the only way a developer can support fredom.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2009

"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>> vitw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:06:06 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way to ave real freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>>>>>> source code for the software available, and to be not encumbered by
>>>>>>> patents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please post links to all the software you've developed, Allistar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait....no, you're a proprietary developer who just fancies
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> free code and applications that others contribute. Hypocrisy runs
>>>>>>>>> deep!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Allistar, is that true? If so, not a very consistent state of
>>>>>>>> affairs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I said "the way to have freedom of choice in computing is to have
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>> code for the software available, and not to be encumbered by
>>>>>>> patents". I happen to develop open as well as closed source
>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>> I see no hypocrisy. The people who buy my software are perfectly
>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>> not to, and to
>>>>>>> go elsewhere. They have that freedom. *They* make that choice.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please post links to all the open-source software you've developed,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because you've stated that "the way to [sic] ave real freedom of choice
>>>> in
>>>> computing is to have the source
>>>> code for the software available..." Because you're a developer with the
>>>> freedom to choose how you make a living and advance the cause of
>>>> freedom
>>>> as you've defined it, I'd like to see what open source software you've
>>>> actually developed yoursel.
>>>
>>> The only cause of "freedom" I have an interest in advancing is the
>>> freedom
>>> of people, not the "freedom" of software. So long as people are still
>>> free
>>> to choose what software they use, I have no problem with proprietary
>>> software.

>>
>> That makes no sense. All software licences impose proprietary
>> restrictions
>> on the freedom of users. Yours included.

>
> Have I ever stated anything to the contrary? Some licenses are less
> restrictive than others.
>


Then you agree that you impose restriction on freedom, like any other
software vendor. Yes?

>>>> Thing is, I suspect you merely have a
>>>> selective interest in the "freedom" you always prance around this
>>>> newsgroup chanting -- If someone is willing to develop free open-source
>>>> tools that you can use, then freedom of choice is great. But when it
>>>> comes
>>>> to your own income, you want all the licensing protections that any
>>>> other proprietary developer wants so
>>>> that you and you alone have the freedom to make money from that
>>>> software.
>>>
>>> Those people are free to use (or not) my software. THAT is the freedom I
>>> think is most important.

>>
>> Nah, you said access source code was the freedom you considered to be
>> most
>> important. So where's yours?

>
> I was referring specifically to the operating system source code, as
> that's
> the foundation for all other applications to run on.
>
> As I said previously: so long as people have the freedom to choose what
> software they use, I see no problem. Some of my favourite software is
> proprietary. I use it because it does the job I want it to do. I can say
> the same of open source software too.
>
>>> A builder builds a house for money, and sells that
>>> house to someone. Commercial software is no different, except that it
>>> can
>>> be built once and sold many times.
>>>
>>> Should a builder build a house and give it away for free?

>
> Should they?
>


That's up to the builder.

Should a software developer develop softweare and give it awy for free?
Apparently, you don't think so. Yet you happily snag every free offering out
there and use it to build software that is not free -- either in terms of
price or the availability of source code.

>>>> Is that about it? Your freedom of choice then can only be maximized by
>>>> limiting the freedom of choice that others have to exploit your work.
>>>> Is
>>>> that about right?
>>>
>>> I am free to choose what license or model I develop software under. You
>>> (and
>>> everyone else) should be perfectly free to use (or not) that software.
>>> So
>>> long as there is no coercion or compulsion, I don't see a problem.

>>
>> What if I want to "use" the source code?

>
> Then you and I would negotiate the terms on which you can do that. But you
> would have known full well upon purchasing my softare that the source code
> is not available.
>


In denying me access to the source code, you have denied me the very freedom
you have defined as being essential. What gives with that?!

>> Doesn't the integrity of your
>> development business depend on compelling people not to steal it?

>
> I wouldn't use the word "integrity", but yes, I would be more than annoyed
> if people found a way around my copy protection mechanisms and starting
> using the software without having paid for a license.
>

You be more than annoyed. If you're source code were freely distributed
without your permission, you'd be out of business.

>> Your
>> freeedom grows only by limiting the freedom of others.

>
> Not at all - those people are still perfectly free to not use my software.
> I
> am not compelling them to. They are making a conscious decision to.
>


Don't play wioth words. If these people eant to use your source code, thjey
can't -- full stop -- because you ahve prohibited them from doing so and
under penalty of law have compelled them to obey your command.

>>>> In any case, if you have actuallydeveloped open-source applications,
>>>> as
>>>> you continually say, then I'd just like to know where I can go to get
>>>> the source code.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to give out any information that potentially exposes any
>>> anonymity I have. Especially not to someone who has made there way in
>>> and out of my killfile over the past couple of years.
>>>
>>> Here's the key: There is nothing inconsistent with someone who like the
>>> open
>>> source development model and the flexibility who also develops
>>> commercial
>>> software.

>>
>> I agree. But then you shouldn't go arouynd preaching that free and open
>> source code is the only way a developer can support fredom.

>
> I don't. Please show me one post where I have said that.
> --


http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....8e1d70fa8e7043

impossible said...
"Fair enough. But then why would you state that "real freedom of choice in
computing is to have the source code for the software available...".

....and Allistar replied...

Because that's what I believe. That real freedom of choice is to have the
source code available. By that I mean that people are then free to modify
and extend the OS as much as they like.

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2009

"Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>>>> vitw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:06:06 +0000, impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Allistar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The way to ave real freedom of choice in computing is to have the
>>>>>>>>> source code for the software available, and to be not encumbered
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> patents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please post links to all the software you've developed,
>>>>>>>>>>> Allistar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, wait....no, you're a proprietary developer who just fancies
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> free code and applications that others contribute. Hypocrisy
>>>>>>>>>>> runs
>>>>>>>>>>> deep!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Allistar, is that true? If so, not a very consistent state of
>>>>>>>>>> affairs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I said "the way to have freedom of choice in computing is to have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>> code for the software available, and not to be encumbered by
>>>>>>>>> patents". I happen to develop open as well as closed source
>>>>>>>>> software.
>>>>>>>>> I see no hypocrisy. The people who buy my software are perfectly
>>>>>>>>> free
>>>>>>>>> not to, and to
>>>>>>>>> go elsewhere. They have that freedom. *They* make that choice.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please post links to all the open-source software you've developed,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you've stated that "the way to [sic] ave real freedom of
>>>>>> choice in
>>>>>> computing is to have the source
>>>>>> code for the software available..." Because you're a developer with
>>>>>> the freedom to choose how you make a living and advance the cause of
>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>> as you've defined it, I'd like to see what open source software
>>>>>> you've
>>>>>> actually developed yoursel.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only cause of "freedom" I have an interest in advancing is the
>>>>> freedom
>>>>> of people, not the "freedom" of software. So long as people are still
>>>>> free
>>>>> to choose what software they use, I have no problem with proprietary
>>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> That makes no sense. All software licences impose proprietary
>>>> restrictions
>>>> on the freedom of users. Yours included.
>>>
>>> Have I ever stated anything to the contrary? Some licenses are less
>>> restrictive than others.
>>>

>>
>> Then you agree that you impose restriction on freedom, like any other
>> software vendor. Yes?

>
> I do not force anyone to do anything they don't agree to do - so in that
> regard no, I don't limit anyone's freedoms. People make an uncoerced and
> consensual choice to use my software, and they know what the restrictions
> of using that software is. THEY choice to limit their own "freedoms", and
> they choose to do that willingly.
>


And by imposing restrictions on freedom in your license, you choose to limit
the choices that users have and so limit their freedom. You could choose
otherwise -- you could choose to make the source code freely available --
but you don't. Nothing wrong with that, it's your choice, but let's be
consistent. Freedom of choice sometimes means choosing to limit the freedom
of others.

>>>>>> Thing is, I suspect you merely have a
>>>>>> selective interest in the "freedom" you always prance around this
>>>>>> newsgroup chanting -- If someone is willing to develop free
>>>>>> open-source tools that you can use, then freedom of choice is great.
>>>>>> But when it comes
>>>>>> to your own income, you want all the licensing protections that any
>>>>>> other proprietary developer wants so
>>>>>> that you and you alone have the freedom to make money from that
>>>>>> software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those people are free to use (or not) my software. THAT is the freedom
>>>>> I think is most important.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, you said access source code was the freedom you considered to be
>>>> most
>>>> important. So where's yours?
>>>
>>> I was referring specifically to the operating system source code, as
>>> that's
>>> the foundation for all other applications to run on.
>>>
>>> As I said previously: so long as people have the freedom to choose what
>>> software they use, I see no problem. Some of my favourite software is
>>> proprietary. I use it because it does the job I want it to do. I can say
>>> the same of open source software too.
>>>
>>>>> A builder builds a house for money, and sells that
>>>>> house to someone. Commercial software is no different, except that it
>>>>> can
>>>>> be built once and sold many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should a builder build a house and give it away for free?
>>>
>>> Should they?

>>
>> That's up to the builder.

>
> Of course it is. Just as it is up to the software developer.
>
>> Should a software developer develop softweare and give it awy for free?

>
> That's entirely up to them.
>


Good. So a software developer can freely choose to limit the freedom of
others by requiriung them to pay for something before taking possession of
it. Is that right?

>> Apparently, you don't think so.

>
> How do you come to that conclusion? I have on numerous occasions supported
> the free software model.
>
>> Yet you happily snag every free offering out there and

>
> Every free offering? I'm pretty sure I only use a very small percentage of
> the free software that is out there. Why the obviously false hyperbole?
>
>> use it to build software that is not free

>
> Most of the software I build I build with proprietary software development
> tools.
>


That's not what you've claimed elsewhere when you've tried to make the case
that open-source software applications met all your needs as a developer.
Which is it?

>> -- either in terms of price or the availability of source code.

>
> Which people are perfectly free to use, or to not use.1
>


No one is free to use source code that you prohibit them from using under
terms of your license.

>>>>>> Is that about it? Your freedom of choice then can only be maximized
>>>>>> by limiting the freedom of choice that others have to exploit your
>>>>>> work. Is
>>>>>> that about right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am free to choose what license or model I develop software under.
>>>>> You
>>>>> (and
>>>>> everyone else) should be perfectly free to use (or not) that software.
>>>>> So
>>>>> long as there is no coercion or compulsion, I don't see a problem.
>>>>
>>>> What if I want to "use" the source code?
>>>
>>> Then you and I would negotiate the terms on which you can do that. But
>>> you would have known full well upon purchasing my softare that the
>>> source
>>> code is not available.

>>
>> In denying me access to the source code, you have denied me the very
>> freedom you have defined as being essential.

>
> I haven't defined "access to source code" as an essential freedom. Not
> ever.
> Not once.
>


< Sigh> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....8e1d70fa8e7043

>> What gives with that?!

>
> Sounds like a strawman to me.
>

Sounds like you've changed your story now.

>>>> Doesn't the integrity of your
>>>> development business depend on compelling people not to steal it?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't use the word "integrity", but yes, I would be more than
>>> annoyed if people found a way around my copy protection mechanisms and
>>> starting using the software without having paid for a license.
>>>

>> You be more than annoyed. If you're source code were freely distributed
>> without your permission, you'd be out of business.

>
> Well, no, since most of my business is doing "work for hire", but yes, I
> understand the point you are making. Which is precisely why I do not
> release my source code.
>


You do not release it -- ergo, you prevent people from using. IOW,m you
l;imit the freedom of others in order to protect your own.

>>>> Your
>>>> freeedom grows only by limiting the freedom of others.
>>>
>>> Not at all - those people are still perfectly free to not use my
>>> software. I
>>> am not compelling them to. They are making a conscious decision to.

>>
>> Don't play wioth words. If these people eant to use your source code,
>> thjey
>> can't -- full stop -- because you ahve prohibited them from doing so and
>> under penalty of law have compelled them to obey your command.

>
> They *agreed* to that condition when they made an uncoerced decision to
> use
> my software. It was a choice that *they* made. Consciously.
>
>>>>>> In any case, if you have actuallydeveloped open-source applications,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> you continually say, then I'd just like to know where I can go to get
>>>>>> the source code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not going to give out any information that potentially exposes any
>>>>> anonymity I have. Especially not to someone who has made there way in
>>>>> and out of my killfile over the past couple of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the key: There is nothing inconsistent with someone who like
>>>>> the
>>>>> open
>>>>> source development model and the flexibility who also develops
>>>>> commercial
>>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. But then you shouldn't go arouynd preaching that free and open
>>>> source code is the only way a developer can support fredom.
>>>
>>> I don't. Please show me one post where I have said that.
>>> --

>>
>> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz....8e1d70fa8e7043
>>
>> impossible said...
>> "Fair enough. But then why would you state that "real freedom of choice
>> in
>> computing is to have the source code for the software available...".
>>
>> ...and Allistar replied...
>>
>> Because that's what I believe. That real freedom of choice is to have the
>> source code available. By that I mean that people are then free to modify
>> and extend the OS as much as they like.

>
> I didn't say that "free and open source code is the only way a developer
> can
> support freedom". I made a statement of "freedom of choice". And also note
> that I was specifically talking about operating system code.
> --


If you don't make your source code available to people, then how can you say
that " real freedom of choice is to have the source code available". Just
wondering. Oh, and what on earth could possibly be the difference, from the
perspective of "real freedom", between application source code and os
sourece code.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Chrome OS, Odds are stacked against Chrome OS's success Max Burke NZ Computing 1 07-11-2009 04:38 AM
Google Chrome crashes on Windows XP x64 Jean-Baptiste Faure Windows 64bit 12 12-23-2008 01:10 PM
Google Chrome JohnO NZ Computing 2 09-07-2008 12:40 AM
Google's new Chrome browser Roedy Green Java 32 09-06-2008 08:50 AM
Google Chrome Browser - Very Early Observations cwdjrxyz HTML 7 09-03-2008 12:51 PM



Advertisments