Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #71279 > unrolled thread

Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 09:35 +1000
    Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Nelson Crosby <nelsoncrosby@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 21:16 -0700
      Re: Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 21:48 -0700
      Re: Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 00:36 -0500
      Re: Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-11 07:13 +0000
    Re: Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 01:25 -0500
    Re: Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 01:25 -0500

#71279 — Free vs proprietary (was Re: NumPy, SciPy, & Python 3X Installation/compatibility issues)

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> wrote:
> Proprietary code and systems will not survive the 21st century, you can be
> sure of that. 'We' can never allow another Microsoft to rule again; not
> google, nor canonical, nor oracle, nor anyone else. 'We' must have net
> neutrality, and software idea patents must die (world-wide).
>
> Go gnu/linux
>
> Go Python
>
> Go away, Microsoft, go away Oracle.

Actually, I'm not so sure of that. If all free software worked only
with itself, was GPL3'd to prevent non-free software from using it,
etc, the world would be a worse place. Part of what makes free
software so tempting is that it happily interacts with *everything*,
not just other free software. Otherwise, there'd be a massive gulf
between the Apple world, the Microsoft world, and the GNU world, with
minimal interoperability between them.

Instead, what we have is a world in which Python can be used to write
closed-source software, LibreOffice Writer will happily open a
Microsoft Word document, Samba communicates with Windows computers,
libc can be linked to non-free binaries, etc, etc, etc. Yes, that
means the open source community can't wield its weight against
closed-source. I am glad of that. Freedom means letting people choose
to be free, not forcing them to be free. (Don't get me wrong, forcing
someone to be free is better than forcing them to be enslaved. I don't
mind a preinstalled LibreOffice on someone's computer as much as I
would a preinstalled MS Office. But actually letting people choose is
better.)

Proprietary code and systems will continue to exist for as long as
people are willing to buy them. Maybe we'll see a shift away from
non-free desktop software, but cloud and mobile are still very much
the domain of closed source at the moment. There might be a shift
toward free mobile platforms, but I doubt the cloud will change. You
can run anything you like on a server, and people will use it if it's
useful. For one very very obvious example: you and I are both posting
from Gmail. :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#71286

I also believe in this more 'BSD-like' view, but from a business point of view. No one is going to invest in a business that can't guarantee against piracy, and such a business is much less likely to receive profit (see Ardour).

Don't get me wrong - I love free software. It's seriously awesome to she what a community can do. But at the same time, some people want to earn a living from writing code. That is simply not possible without proprietary software. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71287

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 9:46:06 AM UTC+5:30, Nelson Crosby wrote:
> I also believe in this more 'BSD-like' view, but from a business point of view. No one is going to invest in a business that can't guarantee against piracy, and such a business is much less likely to receive profit (see Ardour).
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I love free software. It's seriously awesome to she what a community can do. But at the same time, some people want to earn a living from writing code. That is simply not possible without proprietary software.

Whenever this (kind of) debate arises people talk of 'Free' vs 'OpenSource'
which then becomes an rms vs esr debate.
It seems to me that esr gets more press than is his due and the more 
significant ideological difference between rms and Torvalds gets neglected.

rms started working on hurd before Linus was a CS student. 
Its taken him a good 20 years to admit the mistake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd#cite_note-fsf-future-of-freedom-12

I believe that he still does not get it - that the mistakes were political more
than technical.

By contrast,
- the Linux kernel targeting hardware for which it was never intended
- perl running equally on DOS and unix, (with all due respect python, ruby etc 
just followed the lead)
- Samba talking to Windows as though it were Windows itself

all show that some amount of guerrilla mindset is necessary 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71291

On 5/10/14 11:16 PM, Nelson Crosby wrote:
> I also believe in this more 'BSD-like' view, but from a business
> point of view. No one is going to invest in a business that can't
> guarantee against piracy, and such a business is much less likely
> to receive profit (see Ardour).
>
> Don't get me wrong - I love free software. It's seriously awesome
> to see what a community can do. But at the same time, some people want
> to earn a living from writing code. That is simply not possible
> without proprietary software.
>

That's just the point...

The twenty-first century is not going to be about making money by moving
bits around a network, nor about making money writing code. It is going
to be about making money|living (whatever that means) by leveraging free 
networking (think libre box) and by leveraging free (as in libre) 
software and libre software engineering.

In other words, no longer are coders going to make a living writing 
proprietary code; rather, coders are going to make a living leveraging 
their skill writing libre software (in the specialized problem domain 
needing their resources --- free agents, have skill, will travel, or 
connect).

So, I go to work for some technical scientific research outfit that just 
got a federal grant for yadda yadda... and I bring in my toolkit|toobox 
(julia, haskell, python, C++ &c whatever) and I make a living coding 
within that specialized domain.  I don't market the app (& they don't 
either).  The killer app in the 21st century IS the unix distro 
(gnu/linux), and the toolbox is (mine, or yours).

We are going to stop purchasing software across the board, and we are 
going to share. In the process we are going to make our livings with our 
skills, services, innovations towards specialized problem domains 
through leveraged technical specialty, and by working together to better 
the whole.

This is already occurring.


marcus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71304

On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:16:06 -0700, Nelson Crosby wrote:

> I also believe in this more 'BSD-like' view, but from a business point
> of view. No one is going to invest in a business that can't guarantee
> against piracy, and such a business is much less likely to receive
> profit (see Ardour).

I think that's nonsense. Look at Red Hat, and Ubuntu. Their software is 
free to copy and free to distribute, although Red Hat does make it more 
difficult to copy actual RHEL, you can copy and distribute the re-branded 
RHEL known as Centos completely free of charge.

Selling physical product is not the only way to make money from software, 
and in fact, most programmers are not paid to write software for sale. 
They are paid to write in-house applications which are never distributed 
outside of the company paying for their labour.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71298

On 5/10/14 6:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Instead, what we have is a world in which Python can be used to write
> closed-source software, LibreOffice Writer will happily open a
> Microsoft Word document, Samba communicates with Windows computers,
> libc can be linked to non-free binaries, etc, etc, etc. Yes, that
> means the open source community can't wield its weight against
> closed-source.

Its not open source that's the big deal. Its freedom that's the big 
deal. Many have latched onto open source because its efficient. But that 
was the wrong reason to latch onto it!  Libre software is the ONLY way 
to fight NSA GCHQ. Libre software is the ONLY way to ensure privacy and 
interoperability --- its a huge paradox.

Libre software and libre Internet are absolutely paramount for the 21st 
century. I may not live to see it fully, but I have absolutely no doubt 
that its coming. There is going to be one whopping paradigm shift Chris.


marcus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71299

On 5/10/14 6:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Instead, what we have is a world in which Python can be used to write
> closed-source software, LibreOffice Writer will happily open a
> Microsoft Word document, Samba communicates with Windows computers,
> libc can be linked to non-free binaries, etc, etc, etc. Yes, that
> means the open source community can't wield its weight against
> closed-source.

Its not open source that's the big deal. Its freedom that's the big 
deal. Many have latched onto open source because its efficient. But that 
was the wrong reason to latch onto it!  Libre software is the ONLY way 
to fight NSA GCHQ. Libre software is the ONLY way to ensure privacy and 
interoperability --- its a huge paradox.

Libre software and libre Internet are absolutely paramount for the 21st 
century. I may not live to see it fully, but I have absolutely no doubt 
that its coming. There is going to be one whopping paradigm shift Chris.


marcus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web