Oh, the sillies...

[conuly]

The argument that "information wants to be free" made by the more radical wing of the technology community has always struck me as odd.

Wouldn't this approach lead to an environment where not just music, books and images are free, but also the very products upon which the industry relies for its main profits: computer software?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought that there was a huge overlap between the "I want free music!" communities and the "Let's all use open-source software!" communities. Open source, of course, meaning free.

Missing the point, much?

(I'm not getting involved in this debate, of course, only to mention that you should understand the positions of those *in* the debate before snarking at them. Unless I am the one missing something)

Comments

[satyrblade.livejournal.com]

There's a certain level of irony that this cut leads you to a "free" subscription to the New York Times. :-)

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

The zillions of adolescents ripping CDs off Napster were all using Unix boxen? Wow, why haven't we been told!

I mean, possibly it's true that the open sourcers are in a large part in favour of peer to peer sharing networks... But I don't think the reverse is true, most music sharers run off Microsoft and Apple OS.

Secondly, open source doesn't always mean freeware. Unless I am missing something :)

[conuly]

I thought open source was generally freeware. Or at least, not horrendeously copyrighted stuff.

And :P to you. I suspect that the people he's refering to are the programmers, who very likely do support open source software, from what I've been reading.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Open Source means the source code can be freely viewed and changed.

It does not, contrary to a mistake I made in an article I once wrote, mean $0. The "Free" in "free open source" means "freedom," not "cost-free."

Still, you can build an open source desktop or server system that costs nothing to install, run, or use. The more robust server stuff generally does cost a small amount to run, especially if you're a commercial entity.

[conuly]

Ah.

But if people can freely view it, can't they take it themselves, making it effectively free of cost?

[conuly]

I'm not being silly, I really hate not understanding stuff.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Simple example: Livejournal is open-source, but that doesn't stop you having a paid account. While a program may be open source and freeware, it doesn't mean the addons (or customer service, or subscriptions for updates, etc) are.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Sort of. Most open source (most, not all) is released under the GPL-- Gnu Public License. This license says, basically, you can take it, you can use it, but if you take and use it, you have to make whatever you create open source as well.

Free As in Freedom (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html) is the best explanation I can point to, and that page has links to probably every nuance of question you might think of relating to free software and open source software.

[satyrblade.livejournal.com]

There's a certain level of irony that this cut leads you to a "free" subscription to the New York Times. :-)

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

The zillions of adolescents ripping CDs off Napster were all using Unix boxen? Wow, why haven't we been told!

I mean, possibly it's true that the open sourcers are in a large part in favour of peer to peer sharing networks... But I don't think the reverse is true, most music sharers run off Microsoft and Apple OS.

Secondly, open source doesn't always mean freeware. Unless I am missing something :)

[conuly]

I thought open source was generally freeware. Or at least, not horrendeously copyrighted stuff.

And :P to you. I suspect that the people he's refering to are the programmers, who very likely do support open source software, from what I've been reading.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Open Source means the source code can be freely viewed and changed.

It does not, contrary to a mistake I made in an article I once wrote, mean $0. The "Free" in "free open source" means "freedom," not "cost-free."

Still, you can build an open source desktop or server system that costs nothing to install, run, or use. The more robust server stuff generally does cost a small amount to run, especially if you're a commercial entity.

[conuly]

Ah.

But if people can freely view it, can't they take it themselves, making it effectively free of cost?

[conuly]

I'm not being silly, I really hate not understanding stuff.

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

Simple example: Livejournal is open-source, but that doesn't stop you having a paid account. While a program may be open source and freeware, it doesn't mean the addons (or customer service, or subscriptions for updates, etc) are.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Sort of. Most open source (most, not all) is released under the GPL-- Gnu Public License. This license says, basically, you can take it, you can use it, but if you take and use it, you have to make whatever you create open source as well.

Free As in Freedom (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html) is the best explanation I can point to, and that page has links to probably every nuance of question you might think of relating to free software and open source software.