Hi all,
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia. http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736
I am interested in your opinion.
Regards, Matthias
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi all,
Hello Matthias!
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia. http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736
Thank you very much for the article, I was not aware of the deal yet!
I am interested in your opinion.
Indeed at the beginning I was quite happy of the decision, honestly is better for Qt, to be far from the rotten and infected nails of Microsoft.
I even thought that Nokia made a mistake giving it away to a small company, there are several examples of great works made by small companies in the Free Software scenes. So I screamed hooray! A new Trolltech!
But, unlucky, looking at the Digia history I cannot find out its commitment in the Free Software and/or Open Source, but just this news (16/02):
http://www.digia.com/C2256FEF0043E9C1/0/405002245
That sounds to me like lubricant to make it less painful, I hope you (all) get my point ;-(
So, yes, this is a nefarious news
We need a fork or forget Qt... Personally I'm trying to not use any Qt based application since few weeks.
Regards, Matthias
Regards Antenore
--
Antenore Gatta Free Software Foundation Europe FSFE fellow #1881 http://www.fsfeurope.org http://fslug.simbiosi.org
Am Montag, 14. März 2011 17:37:46 schrieb Antenore Gatta:
We need a fork or forget Qt...
There is no need to avoid Qt, on the contrary, the Nokia investment in it and the licensing change has made it a better technical product with a wider community. Read from someone who knows:
It's the Free Software, stupid! Submitted by mirko on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 20:59 http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/4394
What we must respond to is the crap about restrictions somewhere. We need to educate potential customers to demand Free Software services.
Best, Bernhard
Hiya, It's really sad what's happening with Nokia. To me it just proves the point that important FLOSS projects are best off being governed by an independent foundation. I'm not sure what this all means to the KDE QT Foundation (http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php ), but quite frankly I don't care much about the "commercial" side of things. I intentionally use the quotes, because I strongly agree with the FSF that "commercial" is a word to avoid (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial ). FLOSS can be commercial, but I don't agree with David Wheeler that it's (almost) always the case. It's too much a spin on words and definitions if you ask me. It's a typical problem when you hijack a word and mix it up with several legal viewpoints. This creates a big mush in which you can 'prove' almost anything. When you look at the legal definitions of a word, you can only and exclusively use those definitions inside the specific domain it applies to. Lifting it from its context and trying to prove a much larger, 'universal' point is generally a bad idea, because it can create much haziness which helps nobody.
Regarding Qt, I can say I never really warmed up to it. When Trolltech finally managed to fix the licensing issues I already turned my back to it and never really returned. However, it is a real important project, and I sincerely hope the development of Qt won't be depending on all the dark business voodoo that's going on around Nokia.
On the supposed restrictions on the use of FLOSS in defense & aerospace I call a big "crap alert". You only need to point to the programming language Ada, which is an international standard and its major implementation GNAT is Free Software. GNAT is part of the GNU Compiler Collection and is used widely among aerospace & defence around the world. You only need to remind someone that the DoD itself created the language in the first place and opened it up.
Thanks for the blog post, it's great food for thought!
Cheers, Jelle
On 2011-03-14 16:32:07 +0100 Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi all,
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia.
I am interested in your opinion.
Regards, Matthias
Hello Jelle,
* Jelle Hermsen jelle@fsfe.org [2011-03-14 20:17:36 +0100]:
I intentionally use the quotes, because I strongly agree with the FSF that "commercial" is a word to avoid (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial ). FLOSS can be commercial, but I don't agree with David Wheeler that it's (almost) always the case. It's too much a spin on words and definitions if you ask me.
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people are paid to develop it?
Does anybody here see a difference between the amount of - commercial non-free software and commercial Free Software or - non-commercial non-free software and non-commercial Free Software?
The only advantage in this case: you know that people have no clue about Free Software when they use commercial software as an antonym to Free Software.
Regards, Matthias
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:44 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people are paid to develop it?
I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if it pulls in a considerate amount each month.
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
* Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 08:02:02 +0000]:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?
Regards, Matthias
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 08:02:02 +0000]:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?
To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.
I also don't know where you'd draw the line. If Ubuntu is, is Kubuntu? Is Xubuntu? It doesn't work like that.
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial, sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True Scotsman fallacy.
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun "software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 09:07 +0000, Alex Hudson a écrit :
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it.
A transaction isn't always monetary. You can see a "contract" as a transaction too. The GPL can be seen as a transaction too.
Plus, you can pay to get a copy of Free Software by paying. As RMS puts it "Selling Free Software is OK!" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
I guess it proves there is no point in saying "commercial software" or "non commercial software". To me, all software is commercial unless forbidden (for instance, with creative commons non commercial, but that'd be silly). And the GPL does not forbid commercial use.
Best,
Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).
Free software would not be commercial because the grant of use and conveyance for the recipient does not require commercial consideration.
It would be commercial software because restricted administration of the rights of use and conveyance of software is the basis of commerce for the rights holder.
Sam
On 15/03/11 09:35, Hugo Roy wrote:
Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 09:07 +0000, Alex Hudson a écrit :
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it.
A transaction isn't always monetary. You can see a "contract" as a transaction too. The GPL can be seen as a transaction too.
Plus, you can pay to get a copy of Free Software by paying. As RMS puts it "Selling Free Software is OK!" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
I guess it proves there is no point in saying "commercial software" or "non commercial software". To me, all software is commercial unless forbidden (for instance, with creative commons non commercial, but that'd be silly). And the GPL does not forbid commercial use.
Best,
* Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com [2011-03-15 09:56:40 -0000]:
Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).
What commercial considerations should prevent the freedom to use and share?
Regards, Matthias
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 11:13 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com [2011-03-15 09:56:40 -0000]:
Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).
What commercial considerations should prevent the freedom to use and share?
Maybe someone should define what 'commercial' means in the context of software, and then you can check each case that matches.
But the problem of using the terms 'commercial software' is not in it's definition but in the fact that, when used as antonym for 'free software' it gives the idea that you cannot do commerce (ie make money) with free software.
This is certainly wrong, therefore from a free software activist point of view, using the term commercial software to identify proprietary software is counterproductive, as it puts the person you are talking to in the wrong state of mind with regard to the perception of free software as a valuable commercial tool.
Simo.
* Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 09:07:50 +0000]:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 08:02:02 +0000]:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?
To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.
(Still not satisfied with the answers, so I will continue to ask stupid questions.)
Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/ do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why wouldn't the software be commercial software?
About the 10%: If a company sells distilled water is this not a commercial product? Because it is less than 10% what they change?
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial, sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True Scotsman fallacy.
Why would that be a version of the true scotman? A lot of software is commercial software (be it non-free or Free Software). But I am sure we can find some examples of software which was developed by people who never got money for it. Several Free Software programs started as non-commercial software, but than turned into commercial software.
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun "software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.
So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?
Than the whole Ubuntu distribution consists of commercial software, because my parents once bought a PC with it preinstalled. And all the software from Debian, too because I friend of mine bought a laptop with Debian GNU/Linux preinstalled.
Regards, Matthias
On 15/03/11 10:34, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 09:07:50 +0000]:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 08:02:02 +0000]:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?
To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.
(Still not satisfied with the answers, so I will continue to ask stupid questions.)
Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/ do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why wouldn't the software be commercial software?
By your definition if I use some non-commercial software and then someone else starts selling it, then all of a sudden I am using commercial software.
That means it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software or not unless I know that no-one else in the world is selling it (or undertaking some qualifying commercial activity).
If it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software, then it becomes a useless definition in normal life.
About the 10%: If a company sells distilled water is this not a commercial product? Because it is less than 10% what they change?
Perhaps the argument is about the meaning of the word "software". You can point to a bottle of water and perhaps get some agreement on that particular bottle of water. But when we say "software" it is hard to tell if it means "specific installation of software on that computer" or not.
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial, sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True Scotsman fallacy.
Why would that be a version of the true scotman? A lot of software is commercial software (be it non-free or Free Software). But I am sure we can find some examples of software which was developed by people who never got money for it. Several Free Software programs started as non-commercial software, but than turned into commercial software.
And what if someone else turned it into commercial software (whatever that means) but the author/rights-holder did not? Is that possible under your meaning of commercial software?
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun "software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.
So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?
Than the whole Ubuntu distribution consists of commercial software, because my parents once bought a PC with it preinstalled. And all the software from Debian, too because I friend of mine bought a laptop with Debian GNU/Linux preinstalled.
But much of that software is available also non-commercially - I think so far we hinge on the use of the word "software" to mean specific installation or abstract package that is developed and available to be copied.
Sam
From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial
software" or "non commercial software" that isn't self referring (as in: all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non commercial license: which is a bad idea btw).
You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point?
Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial" software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right?
On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free Software from the marketplace.
On 15/03/11 11:03, Hugo Roy wrote:
From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial software" or "non commercial software" that isn't self referring (as in: all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non commercial license: which is a bad idea btw).
You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point?
Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial" software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right?
On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free Software from the marketplace.
If we learn from the weasels we need terms like commercial software that can mean what we like; that can include free software after the discussion is closed and the EU recommendations have been adopted.
Sam
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:51:50AM -0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
By your definition if I use some non-commercial software and then someone else starts selling it, then all of a sudden I am using commercial software.
That means it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software or not unless I know that no-one else in the world is selling it (or undertaking some qualifying commercial activity).
If it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software, then it becomes a useless definition in normal life.
That's true. The only use is of people who want to claim that Free Software would be an antagonism to "commercial software".
Best wishes Michael
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 11:34 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/ do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why wouldn't the software be commercial software?
Both these questions are answered by what I said previously:
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial, sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True Scotsman fallacy.
Because basically your argument here is reducing to "if I can find anyone gaining in some way by virtue of <product>, it is a commercial product" - and you then have nice malleable boundaries that you can stretch around anything.
Is Debian non-commercial? No true non-commercial piece of software could be _sold_ for _money_ !! ... (etc. etc.)
I'm just not sure I buy that logic, "non-commercial" ends up being the empty set.
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun "software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.
So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?
No. I would view Emacs as being commercial being (as was, at least) the FSF would sell copies of it. I view RHEL has being commercial. They're both free software.
Look, this whole thing is an attempt to divide software into two categories which aren't even mutually exclusive. Free vs. non-free _is_ mutually exclusive, so obviously you can't sensibly map from one to the other.
But that doesn't mean that "commercial" doesn't have a broad meaning which is understood in similar terms by most people: it does. And honestly, the argument that "all free software can be commercial!" which technically true is essentially an attempt to avoid a discussion about how people can earn money directly from software development without needing to resort to services/other ancillary offerings. Being honest, most free software isn't commercial, and authoring free software as a vocation is extremely difficult to turn into an earning job.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
Hi Alex,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:07:50 +0000 Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [2011-03-15 08:02:02 +0000]:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?
To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.
I think we have to differentiate. Talking about commercial software I see four kind of commercialization:
- development: software was developed in a commercial environment, paid programmers create Free Software during their day-to-day job - usage: the software is used in a commercial environment. For example a software company uses gcc to compile their software or LibreOffice to write their letters, etc. - distribution: software gets sold to customers. - support: you provide commercial support for your software
Of course you are not forced to do any of this activities commercially but Free Software is the only license model which always allows you to provide support, develop, use and distribute the software commercially. By contrast the proprietary license model knows a lot of exception, for example students versions often exclude commercial usage.
Therefore I would say that Free Software is the only license model which allows complete commercialisation and Free Software is the only software where you can be sure that you are able to leverage the full commercial potential.
Coming back to your statement about Debian I would say that Debian isn't a commercial distribution, doesn't have a commercial development process and don't provide commercial support. But the software distributed by Debian is (can be) commercial. We don't know the development process of every peace of software distributed by Debian but looking at the license it could be a commercial process, people are using Debian in commercial environments, several companies provide commercial support and there exist commercial distributions of Debian.
best wishes, Björn
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com writes:
I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if it pulls in a considerate amount each month.
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
So much for examples of things you exclude from “commercial software”. (Many of which I disagree with.)
What, then, is your definition of that term so we know what you *would* apply it to?
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:44 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people are paid to develop it?
I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if it pulls in a considerate amount each month.
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Bollocks.
Simo
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:37 -0400, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?
Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say "commercial software" I'm referring to the software.
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Bollocks.
Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?
If that's what you believe, fine.
Cheers,
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 12:55 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:37 -0400, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?
Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say "commercial software" I'm referring to the software.
I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is unlawfully copied ?
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Bollocks.
Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?
Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not Free Software ?
If that's what you believe, fine.
Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.
Simo.
I'm with Simo on this one. I don't think discussing commercial software when you don't agree on the definition is rather pointless. And yeah, RHEL is Free Software according to the (well-defined) definition.
Jelle -----Original Message----- From: simo idra@samba.org Sender: discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:36:15 To: Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com Cc: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 12:55 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:37 -0400, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?
Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say "commercial software" I'm referring to the software.
I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is unlawfully copied ?
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Bollocks.
Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?
Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not Free Software ?
If that's what you believe, fine.
Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.
Simo.
Errata: I DO think the discussion is pointless :) -----Original Message----- From: simo idra@samba.org Sender: discussion-bounces@fsfeurope.org Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:36:15 To: Alex Hudsonhome@alexhudson.com Cc: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 12:55 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:37 -0400, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 08:02 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu commercial.
They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?
Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say "commercial software" I'm referring to the software.
I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is unlawfully copied ?
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right 99.999% of the time.
Bollocks.
Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?
Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not Free Software ?
If that's what you believe, fine.
Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.
Simo.
Simo,
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 -0400, simo wrote:
Given RHEL is offered only after payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not Free Software ?
Given I have already stated my opinion on both those questions, twice now, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read my contributions to this thread.
It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss this, because you a) don't know my definition [because you didn't read it], and b) are asking me to defend points of view I don't hold [hence the false dichotomy above].
Again, for the record; Yes, I do say RHEL is commercial. No, I do not claim it is not free software.
Thanks
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 14:04 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Simo,
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 09:36 -0400, simo wrote:
Given RHEL is offered only after payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not Free Software ?
Given I have already stated my opinion on both those questions, twice now, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read my contributions to this thread.
It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss this, because you a) don't know my definition [because you didn't read it], and b) are asking me to defend points of view I don't hold [hence the false dichotomy above].
Again, for the record; Yes, I do say RHEL is commercial. No, I do not claim it is not free software.
Alex, the question was rhetoric and only meant to stress that "commercial software" is not an antonym to "free software", therefore discussing in those terms is pointless, and for a free software activist even harmful.
It isn't worthwhile to discuss because the discussion is pointless, as Jelle pointed out.
That was my point :)
Have a nice day.
Simo.
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 10:16 -0400, simo wrote:
Alex, the question was rhetoric and only meant to stress that "commercial software" is not an antonym to "free software", therefore discussing in those terms is pointless, and for a free software activist even harmful.
Attempting to shut down discussions, particularly on the basis of views which aren't even on offer, isn't a terribly polite thing to do.
I don't need protection from words, thanks, and I don't think using words which are in common parlance is particularly dangerous or harmful.
What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 03:09:43PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
I don't need protection from words, thanks, and I don't think using words which are in common parlance is particularly dangerous or harmful.
Words can be very harmful, even though they're used in "common parlance". Think about that conglomerate of different subjects thrown together as "intellectual property".
What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.
I see a real and great danger in the classification of software as "commercial" as every time I saw this phrase used, it was used to sell proprietary licences as "licences for commercial use". By the repeated use of phrases like that, the impression is built that commercial use is not possible with Free Software licences. So it _is_ harmful to try to classify software as "commercial" or not.
Best wishes Michael
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 12:02 +0100, Michael Kesper wrote:
What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.
I see a real and great danger in the classification of software as "commercial" as every time I saw this phrase used, it was used to sell proprietary licences as "licences for commercial use". By the repeated use of phrases like that, the impression is built that commercial use is not possible with Free Software licences. So it _is_ harmful to try to classify software as "commercial" or not.
Except that you're conflating two different things there.
Classifying software as either "free software" or "commercial" is simply factually wrong. I object to being lumped into that, and that's what I'm complaining about.
Classifying software as either "commercial" or "not commercial" is a matter of opinion. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. Having an opinion on the subject does not make one a free software supporter or not.
Saying you can't call software commercial because people might infer that you're saying free software is non-commercial, is a sad argument based on Orwellian new-speak.
It's not just "commercial". People label software licenses as "professional", or "enterprise", or "business", or any other number of terms. These words are _also_ not harmful!
What matters is if software is free or not. I use the word "free", even though in its regular use in English, 99% of people do not understand my meaning. So I explain it. If people have it explained _clearly_ to them, the commercial/professional/enterprise/whatever problem just doesn't come up.
Nokia have a table on their licensing page which helps explain the differences:
http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/
This whole topic was about whether they're spreading FUD. Actually, I think they do a pretty good job of saying "proprietary" in the right places.
Instead of all this argument to- and fro- about whether or not this word is harmful, or that word is harmful, why don't we just e-mail Nokia and suggest to them that under the "GPL" section of that licensing page they make clear that such applications could be sold commercially so long as the source is made available gratis?
Is there anything else missing/wrong with the page?
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:14:58PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Classifying software as either "commercial" or "not commercial" is a matter of opinion. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. Having an opinion on the subject does not make one a free software supporter or not.
I'm saying (and seem not to be the only one), that this classification makes no sense and is just used by people who want to sell proprietary licences.
Saying you can't call software commercial because people might infer that you're saying free software is non-commercial, is a sad argument based on Orwellian new-speak.
I'd rather say every software is commercial and so, as stated above, this classification makes no sense.
It's not just "commercial". People label software licenses as "professional", or "enterprise", or "business", or any other number of terms. These words are _also_ not harmful!
You say this is not harmful. For you and me, this may be true. But for people who don't know enough about freedom of software, all these labels can be used to create the impression that there are two different "kinds" of software: "commercial" vs. "free" "enterprise" vs. "hackerware" "business" vs. "hobbyist" etc. etc. So, these labels can (and I'd say _are_) used to create negative connotations for Free Software (resp. Free Software licences)
What matters is if software is free or not. I use the word "free", even though in its regular use in English, 99% of people do not understand my meaning. So I explain it. If people have it explained _clearly_ to them, the commercial/professional/enterprise/whatever problem just doesn't come up.
Yes, but if people already have got these false images, your work is harder.
Instead of all this argument to- and fro- about whether or not this word is harmful, or that word is harmful, why don't we just e-mail Nokia and suggest to them that under the "GPL" section of that licensing page they make clear that such applications could be sold commercially so long as the source is made available gratis?
They misnamed their proprietary licence as "commercial", that's the main mistake I see here. Probably _nobody_ would care about this licence if it wouldn't be named like that.
Best wishes Michael
Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software", and always use it when we also refer to free software?
If there is any confusion, the explanation that must follow will raise the image of free software among those who misunderstand it.
Sam
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 13:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software", and always use it when we also refer to free software?
I wouldn't go that far.
If people ask me about commercialism, I generally say that "Yes, it's commercial, anyone can use it and anyone who wishes to can sell it" (or along those lines). This gets across some important concepts:
* that free software doesn't have to be sold; * that were it is sold, the money doesn't always accrue to the author; * that even where it isn't sold it can be used in commercial contexts.
It also differentiates it from non-commercial software (which at least I believe exists; e.g. CC: BY-NC licensed software) in both copying and use restrictions.
I also think the pro-commercial aspects are one of the strongest arguments for free software. It's a mistake to ignore them imho. But equally, if you say it's commercial, you can imply restrictions which are not present.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On 16/03/11 14:32, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 13:36 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software", and always use it when we also refer to free software?
I wouldn't go that far.
If people ask me about commercialism, I generally say that "Yes, it's commercial, anyone can use it and anyone who wishes to can sell it" (or along those lines). This gets across some important concepts:
- that free software doesn't have to be sold;
- that were it is sold, the money doesn't always accrue to the author;
- that even where it isn't sold it can be used in commercial contexts.
It also differentiates it from non-commercial software (which at least I believe exists; e.g. CC: BY-NC licensed software) in both copying and use restrictions.
I also think the pro-commercial aspects are one of the strongest arguments for free software. It's a mistake to ignore them imho. But equally, if you say it's commercial, you can imply restrictions which are not present.
In my natural mind I agree with what you say.
But... by not letting the word commercial imply or stand-for those restrictions, then the restrictions get brought out into the open:
2 pieces of commercial software - one has restrictions, and folk re-learn what what proprietary really means
Closed-source software then becomes wrong footed because they can't use the respectable word commercial to cover their deficiencies.
Sam
Matthias Kirschner schrieb: ...
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people are paid to develop it?
Yes, I would disagree. People can and do develop free software as part of their jobs, e.g. the Linux kernel. This doesn't make the software commercial per se.
Does anybody here see a difference between the amount of
- commercial non-free software and commercial Free Software or
- non-commercial non-free software and non-commercial Free Software?
The only advantage in this case: you know that people have no clue about Free Software when they use commercial software as an antonym to Free Software.
Well you have made my head spin and I havn't a clue!
Theo Schmidt
* Theo Schmidt theo.schmidt@wilhelmtux.ch [2011-03-15 09:24:06 +0100]:
Matthias Kirschner schrieb: ...
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people are paid to develop it?
Yes, I would disagree. People can and do develop free software as part of their jobs, e.g. the Linux kernel. This doesn't make the software commercial per se.
Why isn't it commercial software, when a company sees commercial interest and pays for the development of the software? When would you say that something is commercial software?
Well you have made my head spin and I havn't a clue!
Sorry about that.
Regards, Matthias
Jelle Hermsen wrote:
It's really sad what's happening with Nokia. To me it just proves the point that important FLOSS projects are best off being governed by an independent foundation. I'm not sure what this all means to the KDE QT Foundation (http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php ) [...]
I feel that FLOSS projects are best off being governed by a contributor-led democratic association.
Foundations often either give special rights to the founders (like Nokia's two seats on the KDE Qt Foundation), or the organisation has a founding endowment which enables them more-or-less to ignore the wishes of contributors if its leaders decide to do that.
Isn't democracy usually a good way of ensuring enduring freedom?
Regards,
Στις 14/03/2011 05:32 μμ, ο/η Matthias Kirschner έγραψε:
Hi all,
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia. http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736
I am interested in your opinion.
Regards, Matthias
I wrote also the following as a comment on the blog but didn't appear.
The first problem is that many people don’t understand that Free Software is not a matter of price but freedom of software.
The second – and more serious argument regarding the "restrictions" – is that the model of Free Software cannot apply to mechanics software development because of the significance of its application on human life.
Although this second argument its not so justifiable as it seems I believe that the Free Software Community should answer. Also the creation of quality Free Software about architecture, design and aerospace could be a bomb to the foundations of mega corporations that now are monopolies on the market.
