Can someone explain the FOSS philosophy to me? Why shouldn't I be able to produce software that I do not want changed, forked, modded, or otherwise investigated? If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't do with it?
I know this thread has the potential to start a turmoil but please be civil about it. I'm genuinely interested in your input.
>>55208091
Open-source part is understandable,it leads to faster technological progress and freedom.I can provide arguments if its not clear.
>>55208091
Sure go for it. I won't be interested in your PoS program though.
>>55208091
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#FOSS
>write software for free when you're unemployed
>write your github on your resume so get you a job
>female HR thinks you're a turbo nerd and won't hire you
>realise you wasted your time and that FOSS has zero advantages
My foray into FOSS.
I'm basically coming to realise there's very little you can do to make yourself more employable as a fresh graduate, unless you transition so you can get the diversity hire.
Female HR are basically unimpressable. If you're a white male, you're either not good enough to justify being hired instead of the diversity hire, or you're too good and they think you're not a safe bet or think you'll easily get a job elsewhere and so hire the diversity hire anyway.
>>55208091
>If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't do with it?
NO
You can do whatever you want, the point of FOSS is that it's a good way to develop software.
>>55208448
If you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, why don't you shut up instead of misinforming people?
>>55208281
Idk about other part but the last passage is unfortunately true.
>>55208091
but you didn't really "make" anything
software isn't a physical product so there isn't a production cost. it's just a set of instructions. you just ordered them in a specific way. same reason you shouldn't be able to sell music, you aren't really "making" anything, just putting things in a certain order and then trying to put your name on it.
>>55208091
The development is faster and of higher quality, because you instandly get feedback, suggested bugfixes and additional ideas, while developing in a small group, you're slow and oversee errors.
>>55208091
>If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't do with it?
That's a violation of the endusers freedom to use software on his computer the way he wants to.
>>55208091
>If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't do with it?
horrible religious parents use this argument too "it's my kid i can teach them what i want" when in reality we need to protect those kids and give them all the information we can about the world. we need to share information, and by trying to prevent your code from being changed at all, you are preventing people from learning things so fuck you
>>55208563
He' right, idiot.
>>55208091
The FOSS argument is that people have a right to know what software is doing on a computer they own and modify that software to do what they want. I partially agree with this, because it encourages people to actually find out what is going on in their computer, not unlike drawing a diagram of how your house is wired. The problem is that most people really don't care as long as it works and will get someone else to fix it if it breaks.
It really doesn't work as a model for selling software. You can work around this with some software, like making an open source game engine with proprietary assets. Not everyone is eager to do this though, and with game engines becoming a product in and of itself I don't see that changing.
>>55208202
Fuck you, it's FOSS. Bloody autistic Stallmanites.
>>55208640
THIS
>>55208615
That reasoning can be applied to anything. You didn't really make a sand castle, you just organized the sand particles.
>>55208091
The user is then enslaved. The moment you hand it off to another they should be free to do with it what they want.
Mostly I just think they shouldnt be able to sell it.
>>55208640
>That's a violation of the endusers freedom to use software on his computer the way he wants to
Intel's that case the end user has the freedom to do one of two things; either use the software as is or don't use it.
>>55208652
It's also the argument used against teaching terrible religious ideas to children. The argument itself is dependant on the context, your straw man is not valid.
>>55208690
>Mostly I just think they shouldnt be able to sell it
Too bad Stallman encourages people to sell FOSS software. Free as in freedom != free as in beer.
>>55208615
>>55208679
Yeah, I don't agree with this. Just because it isn't a physical product doesn't mean there isn't a production cost (e.g. labor). The dividing line between what counts as a creation and what doesn't shouldn't be whether you can physically hold it or not.
>>55208615
There is a production costs just not entirely in monetary terms as in the hardwork, time and the stuff like electricity wasted
>FOSS
>>55208281
>write your github on your resume so get you a job
I could have told you from start that this was a bad idea. If it wasn't a big, successful project that made you kind of famous, it isn't verifyable as your coding work and/or organizational effort.
>>55208091
>Why shouldn't I be able to produce software that I do not want changed, forked, modded, or otherwise investigated?
You are able to do that, but if you distribute that software, you are unethical.
>If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't do with it?
It's my system, shitstain. IKEA doesn't come to your home and tell you what you can and can't do with your fucking chair.
>>55209726
you're right but its still a good idea since employers usually ask for sample code.
It doesn't make you money, but it enables a lot of cool things. It's like environmental protection. Doesn't make anyone money but still a necessary thing.
>>55208091
>Why shouldn't I be able to produce software that I do not want changed, forked, modded, or otherwise investigated?
You are free to use whatever the fuck license you want.
If you are using someone else's software, you use their license. If this is a problem, write your own goddamned software.
Why is this so fucking hard to understand?
>>55208615
this has to be the stupidest post i've ever seen on /g/.
local anon discovers one weird trick, proves that microsoft, kfc, bmw and more can't exist because they aren't """"making"""" anything. big businesses hate him!
>>55208091
>Why shouldn't I be able to produce software that I do not want changed, forked, modded, or otherwise I investigated?
You should be able to, and you are.
>If I created it, shouldn't I be able to say what you can and can't so with it?
Absolutely, as long as you are complying with the licenses of any projects you may have used.
OP, you seem to misunderstand what the FOSS is. FOSS stands for Free and Open Source Software. It's two distinct philosophies - the open source philosophy and the free software philospphy. Neither say that proprietary software should not exist (open source advocates typically believe in both FOSS and proprietary software working side by side whereas Free software advocates believe that a user should choose to only use free software to maximize liberty), which is what you seem to imply with your questions
itt: a whole heap of dummies
PLEASE NOTE: REPLYING TO THIS POST MAKES YOU A DUMMY. REPLYING IN ANY WAY, DIRECT OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE HELD AS AN ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS
>>55209751
>IKEA doesn't come to your home and tell you what you can and can't do with your fucking chair.
No but every/most chipsets you ever owned was/is proprietary in nature.
>>55211103
>No but every/most chipsets you ever owned was/is proprietary in nature.
Then why can I solder stuff on my motherboard and GPUs if I want to?
Proprietary is fine, the issue with proprietary software is not that it is proprietary. It is that you open up your system completely to the control of the developer
>>55211239
Well, that's just the same argument as saying you can decompile any code to assembly and then do whatever with it.
That said, soldering things onto manufactured boards is probably way harder still. Motherboards have multiple layers of digital circuits running everywhich way. You'd have to know the internal schematics and logic to do anything meaningful.
>>55211356
>Well, that's just the same argument as saying you can decompile any code to assembly and then do whatever with it.
But you can't actually, according to the EULAs.
>That said, soldering things onto manufactured boards is probably way harder still. Motherboards have multiple layers of digital circuits running everywhich way. You'd have to know the internal schematics and logic to do anything meaningful.
It's not "way harder" when even 14 year olds are able to solder on a resistance onto their GeForce cards in order to turn them into their professional "counterparts"
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hacking-nvidia-cards-into-their-professional-counterparts/
Dear lord, is everyone here 12?
Open source, or free (as in freedom), software is the result of Stallman's frustration when dealing with closed source products.
Here's how the story goes. It's 1867 and you're running some proprietary shit on your PDP-11. It's not working right. And since it's 1867 it's not like the code is comparable to today's browser code (quadrillion of lines of code) it's probably more like 400. However reverse engineering the binary would take too long and is especially frustrating since, you being a programmer, would fix the issue in under 5 minutes then spend 5 hours compiling the code.
But you don't have the code.
So you come up with this idea that the source code MUST be available for everyone to FIX THE PROBLEM without waiting for the original author to read through "C# in 21 days". You also don't care about the cost of the product, since the University pays for it anyway. You just want the code.
So you ditch BSD license (credit is fine, but credit does not guarantee source code availability) and come up with a license that mandates the code must be made available by any dickhead who'd want to hide it.
Today, 99% of computer users couldn't care less about the code. They are however interested in the price of beer. And since having the source gives you "instant binary" if you pipe it through /usr/bin/cc, they're all FOR FOSS! Because beer.
Therefore it's your call. Will you provide support for your program? Yes? Keep it closed and sell it. If you can.
You want others to optimize your code? Want people to make their own adjustments? You too fix others' code if the programs are not working right for you? Then you understand and your choice may be different.
>>55208281
I guess it depends a lot where you're from. Where I live I had no problem doing code monkey (but still code) jobs like webdev starting with my first year in uni
and yes, HR ladies are fucking retarded. Same goes for most female PM's. incredibly irascible / toxic.
>>55208640
If he installed it on his own accord, then how did I violate anything? By installing my software on his PC, he has a chance to agree or disagree with my terms of use.
I didn't violate anything by writing software, which I put time and effort in, and selling the end product to other people who proceed to buy it without being forced to.
>>55208726
Selling FOSS defeats its own purpose, because some smartass can just distribute the same software (a source code copy) for less, putting the other guy out of business.
FOSS is communism that doesn't work as soon as one person decides to violate the rules.
https://audio-video.gnu.org/
>>55211870
You mean the way centos is putting redhat out of business?
1.5 billion USD revenue
230 million USD operating income
8 300 employees
>>55211829
>by using this chair you agree to give me a key to your front door
A user-agreement cannot have "whatever the developer feels like" in it. It's not valid in the eyes of the law.
>>55211103
>No but every/most chipsets you ever owned was/is proprietary in nature.
Every chair I've bought from IKEA was/is proprietary in nature. They had copyright, trademark and in some cases patents on it.
>>55211870
>Selling FOSS defeats its own purpose, because some smartass can just distribute the same software (a source code copy) for less
This is true. Selling libre software was quite a different proposition when the GPL was written, back before the web.
>>55212040
>patented furniture
They are hardly legal anywhere outside the US of A.
Also,
>thinking trademarks and copyrights are the same as proprietary
The very reason why, for example, the GPL works is because it is a copyright.
>>55212122
>They are hardly legal anywhere outside the US of A.
Obviously you can't patent a chair itself, but I'm fairly sure things like the la-z-boy reclining mechanism was valid outside the US.
>Also
It was copyrighted and unlicensed, i.e. proprietary by default.
>>55212178
In anycase, you should not confuse the following:
>copyrights
>trademarks
>patents
>open source
None of these are (inherently) incompatible with free and libre open source software.
because it's on my computer, and I should be able to do whatever I want to files on my computer. Would it be reasonable to forbid deleting a file? To forbid compressing it?
Why shouldn't I be able to open it up and see what's inside? If I buy a computer, isn't it my right to open it up and see what's inside, and to change components around if I so choose?
>>55212353
Not if you are using somebody else's software to do it.
>>55212461
>somebody else's
If I buy a piece of software, is it not mine to do with as I please?
If you buy a chair, are you not allowed to put it where you want, modify it how you like (aka paint it red), tell your friends how you painted it red or even loan it out or give it away to your friends?
You are free to do so OP, but then it will not be as cool as free software, because you limit its development only to yourself.
Someone else could do impressive things with it, something you would like yourself, but you will be unable to experience that.
Also, when you start writing other software, it will not become deadware because you abandoned the project, someone may take over and improve on what you did keeping the project alive.
I'm not a proprietary software hater, but free software gets bonus points for being cool in my book.
>>55212524
>You are free to do so OP, but then it will not be as cool as free software, because you limit its development only to yourself.
Well, he could offer a service on a platform he hosts himself, that's fine. Stallman doesn't go around calling websites "proprietary" just because they don't release their code. As long as they don't require any non-free software to be run client-side, there is no problem.
Cloud-computing removes the question surrounding the ethicality of proprietary systems completely. Offer a free and libre client, your back-end can be as closed down and proprietary as it wants.
>>55212555
Yes, but cloud computing has its own problems. What if I want to process data that I do not want to upload to the Internet? Then cloud computing is out of the question. Also, what if for some reason there is a problem with connecting to the network? This is another risk factor. Your point however is completely right, as long as the software is run on a remote server and does not require that you run a proprietary client then it is all good with free software ideology.
>>55212622
>Your point however is completely right, as long as the software is run on a remote server and does not require that you run a proprietary client then it is all good with free software ideology.
Yes, from a privacy point of view, I agree, cloud computing definitively has its issues. But yeah, as you said a lot better than me, from a pure free software point of view, it's not an issue.
>>55212513
>If I buy a piece of software, is it not mine to do with as I please?
No, you are buying a license in order to use it, you can't do anything with it.
>>55212749
>No, you are buying a license in order to use it
But I'm not leasing it, I have to physically install it on my system.
>you can't do anything with it.
Why would I buy something I can't do anything with? That sounds stupid.
>>55212792
Thats how the laws work, fight it, become Stallman's apprentice.
>>55208091
>Can someone explain the FOSS philosophy to me?
There's lots of resources about the topic on tech-related websites as well as on FSF.org itself due to Stallman being severely autistic and explaining every single sentence of the GPL in a separate article.
If you struggle with reading you probably won't grasp the philosophy of "free software".
> why shouldn't I be able to produce software that I do not want changed
Nobody said this. The GPL is there to empower the user rather than restrict the original creator of the software. If you want to make nonfree software, there are plenty of licenses to choose from or you could make your own.
The better question is, why would you not want your software to be changed, forked, modded or otherwise investigated? Do you have something to hide in your source code, maybe code snippets that collect user data and send it to you?
>>55212122
>They are hardly legal anywhere outside the US of A.
Go ahead, try to produce copies of Ikea furniture. Better yet, try to take on the Vitra design museum. They'd love to drag you through the German court system.
>>55213570
>Go ahead, try to produce copies of Ikea furniture. Better yet, try to take on the Vitra design museum.
You're confusing "patent" with "copyright"; they are not the same thing.
FOSS isn't anti-copyright, nor anti-patent. In fact, copyright laws are the reason why free licenses work in the first place, and there are plenty of free software that is also patented but are royalty-free (such as a bunch of video encoding/decoding stuff in FOSS browsers and in ffmpeg).
>>55213603
>>55213570
For example, no one can stop me from making a chair. But they can stop me from making a chair that looks exactly like some branded chair IKEA makes. That's copyright and trademarks though, not patents.
