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

C

Chris Angelico

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
 
N

Nelson Crosby

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.
 
R

Rustom Mody

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
 
M

Mark H Harris

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
 
M

Mark H Harris

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
 
M

Mark H Harris

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
 
S

Steven D'Aprano

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.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top