1. <Manoj> more revisionism on the lists about OSS and free software [00:08]
  2. * * You are no longer marked as being away
  3. * * jace (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has joined channel #linux-india
  4. <jace> what is it with http://t3.dotgnu.info/blog/rants/slings-of-irc.html ? [00:09]
  5. <Casanova> DollarCulprit: Vint Cerf's talk at Google B'lore [00:10]
  6. * DollarCulprit is in chennai [00:12]
  7. <DollarCulprit> jace - demonstration of the evils of a lack of a sense of humour?
  8. <v3rmap> Manoj: "as long as the sources are continued to be distributed with no additional restrictions (ie, made less open)." The same applies to making it "more open" too, i.e. you can't do that either. [00:13]
  9. <DollarCulprit> doesnt that invalidate the BSD license?
  10. <v3rmap> DollarCulprit: no, why? [00:14]
  11. <DollarCulprit> under BSD i can modify and redistribute commercialy without giving the source (or at least, I think I can)
  12. <v3rmap> Let the initial state of Openness be 'X'. No derivative of the original code can have a value of openness which is different from that of the original code. [00:15]
  13. <jace> DollarCulprit: correct
  14. * * pradeepto (n=pradeept@dialpool-210-214-13-249.maa.sify.net) has quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
  15. <jace> this post is tosh: http://t3.dotgnu.info/blog/observations/lessons-in-negotiations.html
  16. <Manoj> v3rmap: I guess that depends on what your subjective perception is of making things more open. I consider BSD to be less open than the GPL, for example, since BSD licensed code can be made propreitary. BSD license proponets woud be violently opposed to my viewpoint
  17. * jace is pro-BSD [00:16]
  18. * DollarCulprit considers GPL more restrictive than BSD
  19. <Manoj> but, in general, I can take a BSD licensed program, and add changes released under the GPL, the derived works must then be released under the GPL [00:17]
  20. <DollarCulprit> Manoj: you attended that meeting?
  21. * * tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has quit: Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)
  22. <v3rmap> interesting
  23. <jace> i consider the GPL to be like reservation policy. it's good when you're trying to uplift a community, but it has to be done away at some point to let the community find its own momentum.
  24. <Manoj> DollarCulprit: OSI was discussed at one of the ALS meetings by various people, iwj, perens, esr, and rms, in a bof meeting [00:18]
  25. <DollarCulprit> cool - i can dine out on that
  26. <Manoj> jace: I dunno. when I write code, I don't want it to be salted away in some propreitary software in the future, locking away any improvements
  27. <Manoj> jace: me, I want improvements to be made available back to me as well, so I use the gpl [00:19]
  28. <jace> neither do i, but the key ingredient is trust, not threat of legal recourse
  29. <Manoj> nah, trust is over rated.
  30. * * tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has joined channel #linux-india
  31. <Manoj> I trust uhman nature to always be selfish
  32. <jace> the GPL is great. it allowed a community to grow under threat of being ripped off
  33. <v3rmap> Yes, legal recourse is a must
  34. <DollarCulprit> and i feel that one should never release code under GPL unless the code is longer than the GPL ;-) [00:20]
  35. <jace> but the GPL is also restrictive. it hinders growth
  36. <Manoj> I see no reason to ever release my code under the bd license; and I suspect lots of people feel like I do
  37. <jace> GPL recognises only one form of contribution: open code
  38. <DollarCulprit> Manoj: and a lot of other people feel the other way
  39. * * PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has joined channel #linux-india
  40. <DollarCulprit> PowerPork
  41. <Manoj> jace: I haven't seen the gpl as hindering people from contributing to the projects I have been involved with, so I am not yet buying that [00:21]
  42. <jace> but open source can also benefit significantly from non-open contributions: they may not do much for the code, but they get people into the project who can independently contribute open code.
  43. <PowerPork> DollarCulprit :O
  44. <Manoj> sure. these people can contibue to release under the BSD, until I can find enhancements I can make that are persuasive :)
  45. <jace> i've seen enough to never use the GPL unless i have a vested interest in retaining control over the code.
  46. <jace> LGPL at best, if worried about a fork.
  47. <Manoj> I don't want users, really
  48. <v3rmap> GPL can also be misused by corporations. As can BSD. Just testifies to the selfish human nature I guess. [00:22]
  49. <Manoj> I don't care two hoots about the sheer numbers contributing -- I want collaborators, not people who sometimes contribute, but are looking to make a fast buck
  50. <jace> that's short sighted. look at how successful the internet itself is regarding open vs closed protocols.
  51. <Manoj> in the longrun, I feel I, and the community, are better off without these shadowy contributors [00:23]
  52. <jace> imagine if TCP/IP came under the GPL, requiring all use of it to be GPLed
  53. <v3rmap> Look at MySQL: Wants code contributions in their own license. Manage two trees - one with proprietary license and release code from that tree into a GPL tree. Thus they retain control and keep competitors in check.
  54. <mary> erf - there is no one answer - its the same old K-armed bandit problem [00:24]
  55. <jace> it took AOL, Yahoo and MSN's proprietary IM protocols to create the open XMPP. without it, we'd still be stuck with crappy IRC.
  56. <Manoj> I mean, I want the community to be built of people whith similar interests, and am not interested inc onning people who don't think like me into helping out when they dont feel like it. I mean, sure, hte short term gains exist, but we are then somehiw taking advantage of these folks
  57. <Manoj> jace: I see no problem with a tcp/ip implementation under the gpl
  58. <Manoj> indeed, there is some: the linux tcp/ip stack is under the gpl
  59. <jace> Manoj: not implementation. protocol. ie, you can't make anything that rides on tcp/ip that is not gpl itself. [00:25]
  60. <DollarCulprit> Manoj: i dont know if you have seen the django community - totally built round a BSD app
  61. <Manoj> you can't copyright ideas, you can only copyright code
  62. * * pradeepto (n=pradeept@59.161.3.107) has joined channel #linux-india
  63. <jace> ideas, code, just different semantics.
  64. <DollarCulprit> or ASF or PSF
  65. <Manoj> protocols can only be copyrighted as to their wording, and modifications; the ideas that the standards document represents are not subject to copyright law
  66. <Manoj> patent law, perhaps
  67. <Manoj> but the GPL is not a patent license.
  68. <Manoj> and no, ideas are not code. saying so and comingling them is just sloppy thinking [00:26]
  69. <jace> i'm not referring to the fact of whether yahoo im is an open protocol or not, but the effect of its proprietary nature on its userbase and the resultant motivation for an open protocol. [00:27]
  70. <jace> non-gpl code can work the same way.
  71. <Manoj> actually, I prefer IRC to crappy IM :)
  72. <jace> not the code itself, but the motivational effect it has.
  73. <jace> the gpl is stuck in a mindset of code and nothing else.
  74. <Manoj> I am rarely motivated by propreitary code, so I am sure I can't say
  75. <Manoj> the GPL _is_ a software license, so I can see how it is stuck in code -- well, duh. [00:28]
  76. <Manoj> I mean, what else would a software license be stuck in?
  77. <jace> BSD is also a software license, but it isn't stuck the same way.
  78. <Manoj> the BSD license is indeed stucj with software too
  79. <Manoj> by definition
  80. <Manoj> and, anyway, the BSD license is less open [00:29]
  81. <jace> in letter, not in spirit.
  82. <jace> in spirit, it is more open.
  83. <Manoj> heck no. It allows improvements to code to locked away, made less open, so it is in itself a less open license
  84. <Manoj> openness is not about ability to do things in an unfettered manner [00:30]
  85. <Manoj> just like freedom does mnot include the freedom to enslaveother people
  86. <jace> i'm not sure we interpret english the same way, but the keyword is "allows". BSD does, GPL doesn't. there BSD is less restrictive.
  87. * * mbuf (n=mbuf@c-24-8-52-216.hsd1.co.comcast.net) has quit: "shakthimaan.com"
  88. <jace> you're confusing freedom with fundamental rights. rights are a lower layer.
  89. <Manoj> (which the deep south in the US argfues about, saying that the emancipation proclamation abolishing l=slavery restricted freedoms snice people could not longfer enslave other people, and took away the property of saome folks) [00:31]
  90. <Manoj> me, I think the BSD folks who talk about the right to make things propreitary are like the confedrates, prattling about the right to enslave software
  91. * * v3rmap (n=chatzill@unaffiliated/v3rmap) has quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.73 [Firefox 1.5.0.9/2006120612]"
  92. <jace> software is not a legal person. people and corporations are. you're mixing up different metaphors. [00:32]
  93. <Manoj> so yes, the BSD licesne allows you to enslave improv4ements to software, the GPL says software, and improvemnets, must remain free
  94. <jace> as long as we're talking about licenses that deal with law, let's not mix up what the law recognises and what it does not.
  95. <Manoj> oh, do keep up
  96. <Manoj> I am talking about the software license allowing legla persons to enslave improvements to the software, or not [00:33]
  97. <jace> your fundamental rights are more fundamental than freedom. your constitutionally granted freedom is defined on the basis of your rights.
  98. <Manoj> the BSD license allows people to enslave derived software, the GPL does not allow legal persons to enslave improvments
  99. <jace> "enslaving software" is not a violation of the constitution.
  100. <Manoj> hence my analogy
  101. <jace> therefore applying that argument to GPL vs BSD is invalid.
  102. <Manoj> so you are reduced to talking about constitutionality of the BSD license? heh [00:34]
  103. <Manoj> anywy, it's getting late. And we are going around in circles -- do you have anything new to add?
  104. <jace> isn't that what both GPL and BSD define themselves on the basis of?
  105. * * Hobbes` (n=calvin@59.92.207.111) has joined channel #linux-india
  106. <Manoj> If not, we are unlikely to convince each other, and we should stop hogging the channel
  107. <jace> well, i didn't hear much new from you either, just the tired argument about how GPL is mysteriously more open.
  108. <Manoj> not mysterious [00:35]
  109. <Manoj> I gave hte slavery analogy, which I thought might open a new perspaective
  110. <jace> that analogy does not parse.
  111. * DollarCulprit goes to join the Q for sait sunday special mutton biriyani
  112. <jace> i'll give you my affirmative action theory for how GPL is only good in the short term and that term is nearing end. [00:36]
  113. <Manoj> I think it does, actually. You got around to non sequitors in attacking it -- obviously my analogy is not enshrined in the constitution
  114. * * unmadindu (n=sayamind@gnu-india/admin/unmadindu) has joined channel #linux-india
  115. <jace> neither is mine. i just don't buy that GPL is more open because it prevents closing code.
  116. <Manoj> free software is usually superior to propreitary code (believe me, I have seen instances of both), so the affirmative action analogy falls there [00:37]
  117. <jace> the gpl is built to counter a legal framework, which it does a brilliant job of.
  118. <jace> but the legal framework isn't the only one.
  119. <Manoj> we are not trying to get free software up to a certain quota.
  120. <jace> i'm not claiming that.
  121. <Manoj> All I am saying is, you use my code, you can't hide away improvements
  122. <empty_mind> jace, then how to ensure more open behaviour of GPL ? [00:38]
  123. <Manoj> don't like that, done leech off my work
  124. <jace> i'm claiming that freedom can be protected by means other than the legal framework, which the gpl refuses to recognise.
  125. <Manoj> jace: how?
  126. <jace> the bsd, on the other hand, does not prohibit such recognition.
  127. <Manoj> can you show me an instance of improvements to the code and derived code remaining free? Or d you apply the streetcar named desire approach? [00:39]
  128. <jace> try the social framework. say, this irc channel. anyone misbehaving here could get tossed out by dint of social pressure, without a law in place.
  129. <empty_mind> jace, but legal protection is equally important isnt it ?
  130. <jace> but that only works when you have a social framework in the first place.
  131. <jace> empty_mind: yes it is
  132. <Manoj> social pressure does not prevent the derivatives from going propreitary [00:40]
  133. <jace> it may not in all conditions,
  134. <empty_mind> jace, social framework is not in place and $$$ corporates will not let them be in place
  135. <Manoj> far too much code out there is clsoed, so social pressure is non existen on people who just leech off free software
  136. * * tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)
  137. <Manoj> they are not part of the community, just parasitic growths off it, so the social pressure of the community do not apply to them
  138. <jace> empty_mind: that's for now. it may not always be so, right?
  139. <Manoj> when the utopia arrivews, let us know [00:41]
  140. <Manoj> I doubt it ever will
  141. <Manoj> too many people are content to be leeches
  142. <jace> (neither with the everything GPL utopia)
  143. <jace> s/with/will/
  144. * * tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.15) has joined channel #linux-india [00:42]
  145. <Manoj> no one is trying for an all GPL utopia
  146. <Manoj> all we are trying for is a OS that works, with all the tools one might need that are fee
  147. <jace> nor am i saying the non-gpl utopia will arrive.
  148. <Manoj> the rest of the closed source system can go to the dogs (or not) on its own
  149. <Manoj> which is why I have no interest in fighting MS or getting users
  150. <Manoj> not the goal
  151. <jace> even if much of the existing GPL software is inspired by closed source? [00:43]
  152. <Manoj> as long as I have an OS that does what I want, I don't care what people use
  153. <Manoj> that is buying the MS market spin
  154. <jace> disprove it then
  155. <Manoj> I work on things liek LaTeX, emacs, and SELinux -- none of which MS have ever come close to cfreating
  156. <Manoj> the C compilers were free long before there were commerial versions [00:44]
  157. <jace> are you saying there is no GPL code that does things that are very obviously inspired by closed source?
  158. <Manoj> the LAMP paradigm came from free software -- the comemrcial ventures tryign to do the same fizzled and failed
  159. <jace> please answer with a yes or no. [00:45]
  160. <Manoj> I am saying that not all innovation is closed source
  161. <jace> there, point made.
  162. <jace> i'm saying the closed source was good for open source because it inspired someone to write that open source.
  163. <empty_mind> jace, Manoj is correct and asking yes or no is narrowness. Not everything is a boolean logic several things are fuzzy too
  164. <Manoj> indeed. there are theories that once a critical mass is reached in free software, innovation outpaces closed source innovation
  165. <jace> Manoj: i'm not disagreeing with that.
  166. <Manoj> and I think that closed source software was initially inspired by free and public funded research [00:46]
  167. <empty_mind> Manoj, what i think is that the presentation of OSS doesnot comes close to closed source system
  168. <jace> empty_mind: my question asked for clarification on an absolute.
  169. <Manoj> I see far too many things funded by the public, and then they are exploited by commercial companies
  170. <empty_mind> Manoj, that is the reason though OSS has far superor quality but not that good looking face
  171. <Manoj> empty_mind: presentation?
  172. <jace> Manoj: as i see it, the two-way inspiration is good and necessary.
  173. <empty_mind> Manoj, the frontend and easability to use [00:47]
  174. <Manoj> jace: nah. we should cut out the money grbbing middlemen
  175. <empty_mind> Manoj, frontend+ usability = presentation
  176. <jace> this is the point that we disagree on then.
  177. <Manoj> I find linux to be far more usable than any commercial OS i have seen
  178. <Manoj> and multics was probably better than linux in a lot of areas
  179. <Manoj> empty_mind: and I am not sure what you mean by front end, really [00:48]
  180. <Manoj> empty_mind: I do find my shell ui to be better than the pointy clickey madness that modern commercial OS's foist on one [00:49]
  181. <jace> as i see it, the GPL philosophically refuses to recognise the inspirational effect of closed source on open source, which is why i find the GPL harmful. it's tunnel vision, looking only at closed source taking from open.
  182. <Manoj> I have worked in software since '85
  183. <Manoj> I have very rarely been inspired by commerical products [00:50]
  184. <jace> the BSD doesn't bother itself with this.
  185. <Manoj> by a lot of research projects, yes
  186. <Manoj> and if there were no closed source, I don't think it would be a loss at all
  187. <Manoj> economically speaking, the writing may be on the wall for closed source software development, once critical mass is reached in the field with free software -- so I am not really all that worried about closed source software. [00:51]
  188. <Manoj> I'll keep plugging away at GPL'd improvements, and sooner or later, the viral nature of the GPL shall do the rest [00:52]
  189. <empty_mind> Manoj, you find it easy that doesnot mean everyone finds it easy. If you make a software for your own use gr8, you are free to do whatever you want to but in case you are making a softwae for general public you have to think from customer point of view
  190. <Manoj> as long as people like my GPL'd improvements, it does not matter that the code I expand used to be the BSD ")
  191. <Manoj> empty_mind: I have no interest in making software for the public [00:53]
  192. <empty_mind> Manoj, sure ?
  193. <jace> Manoj: you're picturing the same "utopia" as me when you say "economically speaking, the writing may be on the wall for closed source software development, once critical mass is reached in the field with free software"
  194. <Manoj> empty_mind: As I said here before, I see free software as the dining philosophers solution
  195. <jace> i say when you get to that point, the gpl becomes the bottleneck because it prevents short-term closed extensions that cause a burst of progress and return to open source.
  196. <Manoj> empty_mind: so, I write code for myself. It is my version of picking up the fork. [00:54]
  197. <empty_mind> Manoj, but not everyone is this world has hig enough IQ to solve dining philosophers problem
  198. <Manoj> empty_mind: I don't care for the people who are not helping out the people feeding each other here in the dining room
  199. <empty_mind> Manoj, accept that there are people who have IQ lower than yours and people with IQ higher than your.
  200. <Manoj> empty_mind: sure, there are some people who only eat, and never help feed the rest of us. I'll accept that as cost of the dining experience [00:55]
  201. <Manoj> empty_mind: I am not hung up on people's IQ, so I don't really care about the IQ spectrum
  202. <empty_mind> Manoj, it is not about helping others. Problem is several people have not reached a stage where they can understand something
  203. <Manoj> empty_mind: why should I care about them? [00:56]
  204. <Manoj> empty_mind: what's in it for me?
  205. <empty_mind> Manoj, fine dont care about them. Commercial vendors care about them and thats why closed source software has a critical mass behind them
  206. <Manoj> empty_mind: as I said, I have no interest in what commercial vendors and their users do [00:57]
  207. <empty_mind> Manoj, pls explain me given this situation how do you expect free software to reach critical mass
  208. <empty_mind> Manoj, i agree commercial vendors are of no interest to you. But are masses also not critical to you ?
  209. <Manoj> there are enough of us creating software for each other, that soon all the things one might want to do has been worked uipon by some of us [00:58]
  210. <Manoj> once we have snough people picking up the forks and feeding each other, we will reach critical mqss
  211. <Manoj> the people who and on for a free lunch can benefit, but don't really help
  212. <Manoj> the thing is, he hanger on's might find it is easier to eat our food than pay for their own propreitary lunch [00:59]
  213. <empty_mind> Manoj, had this hypothtical equation ben true even once in history of mankind we would have seen a beautiful world
  214. <empty_mind> Manoj, philosophy has only thinking and theories/doctrines bu no real solution [01:00]
  215. <Manoj> the fact that people hanging on the fringes getting a free lunch see that as an easy solution, in that they don';t have to pay for lunch, puts a pressure on the high proced restaurants
  216. <Manoj> empty_mind: it has happened before. Look at the amish. read about community barn raising
  217. <empty_mind> Manoj, whos amish ? [01:01]
  218. <Manoj> and I know it goes agains the grain of indian philosophy, but the past is not always prologue
  219. <Manoj> there are new things under the sun
  220. <Manoj> the renaissance changed the world -- though people at the begining might have talked about how there are always king and feudal systems -- that too came to pass [01:02]
  221. <empty_mind> Manoj, your new things might turn out be another silver bullet
  222. * * jace_ (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has joined channel #linux-india
  223. <Manoj> so no, just because the changes in information technology has brought around the zero cost of delata increase in supply for the first time, we can too see new economic models emerging because of this
  224. <Manoj> once created, a digital copy has zero cost [01:03]
  225. <Manoj> this has never been true in the past
  226. <empty_mind> Manoj, renaissance is did nothing. Do a research in history about the people who bought renaissance. You will withdraw you r argument
  227. * * jace (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has quit: Nick collision from services.
  228. * * jace_ (n=jace@202.56.231.116) is now known as jace
  229. <Manoj> a copy of a spoon or a table has a materials and manufacturing cost
  230. <empty_mind> Manoj, but you cant eat with copy
  231. <Manoj> so, we are talking about turning the old supply and demand on its head -- since there is no real scarcity, just a potential artificial one [01:04]
  232. <Manoj> and free software makes it very hard to create artificial scacities
  233. <empty_mind> Manoj, i have to run for ilugd meeting, incase you are here after 1.5 hrs i would discuss further. Right now i might get late and miss the real world
  234. <jace> Manoj: you're ignoring the framework of property rights, which brought economic incentive in the past.
  235. <Manoj> look up wikipedia and the slow bankruptcy of the britannica
  236. <jace> the deal here is not about the cost of reproduction, but of finding a substitute for intellectual property rights [01:05]
  237. <jace> which everyone agrees is both broken and very necessary.
  238. <Manoj> how it went from a position of strenght, and spurned encarta; and now the the wikipedia has brought a much profitable company to its knees
  239. <empty_mind> DollarCulprit, are you logging this convesation ?
  240. <KillerX> Damn Django
  241. <Manoj> jace: SELinux is an example of innovation with no propreitary insipration [01:06]
  242. <Manoj> and we are making progress there -- despite a total lack of "property"
  243. <jace> Manoj: funded by taxes from proprietary innovation.
  244. <Manoj> funded by taxes. [01:07]
  245. <jace> the "property" is very much there, just earlier in the cycle.
  246. <Manoj> but not all taxes fcome from propreitary innovation
  247. <Manoj> I pay taxes
  248. <jace> your taxes are a negligible fraction of what the proprietary corporations pay.
  249. <Manoj> never had to write closed source code -- well, not in the last 18 years or so
  250. <Manoj> actually, personal income taxes are more than 2/3rd of the revenue of the US gummint [01:08]
  251. <empty_mind> anyone logging the converstation ? so that i can go to ilugd meet in peace
  252. <Manoj> corporations pay a smaller fraction of the remaining one thirds
  253. <jace> and all those personal taxpayers do non-proprietary work?
  254. <Manoj> it is past 1am
  255. <Manoj> I need to go to bed
  256. <KillerX> I can copy-paste the conversation somewhere
  257. <jace> just because you found a niche in the system that allows you to live in an ideal state doesn't mind it can work for everyone.
  258. <Manoj> jace: most of the tax payers deal with real goods
  259. <empty_mind> KillerX, start logging [01:09]
  260. <jace> rather, your state exists *because* others don't live in it.
  261. <Manoj> carpenters are not so much into intellectual property law
  262. <Manoj> my plumber pays taxes
  263. <jace> the making of those real goods involves intellectual property.
  264. <Manoj> car comapnies make money selling cars, not by black marlketing knowledge
  265. <KillerX> Manoj: How long do you think it will take for an organization like Red Hat to earn as much as Microsoft or even Apple?
  266. <jace> the design of a spanner may not be patented, but the design of the machine that molded it is.
  267. <Manoj> most of the taxes in the us come from real goods and services, not by hoarding knowledge [01:10]
  268. <Manoj> lawyers make money from something that is not secret at all -- the law is out there for anyone to look up
  269. <jace> and it takes hoarded knowledge to produce those real goods and services.
  270. <KillerX> Manoj: In other words, do you think any FOSS based corporate can actually make it to the Forbes list? Is FOSS a practical business model?
  271. * empty_mind remembers US != Rest of the world
  272. <Manoj> lawyer fees are higher than surgeons charges
  273. <Manoj> nah. no hoarded knowledge to fix my pipes
  274. <Manoj> or to repair my roof [01:11]
  275. <Manoj> or to build a house
  276. <empty_mind> Manoj, OMFG! you want us to become lawyers
  277. <jace> just because a lot of that knowledge is stuck in people's heads in the form of their experience, without a license to it, doesn't mean it's not intellectual property.
  278. * * bluesmoon (n=bluesmoo@203.187.208.29) has joined channel #linux-india
  279. <mary> hmm - i wonder how long before this digresses into one of the familiar "whether sth is ethical ?" pathi t so far so good
  280. <Manoj> empty_mind: I think software creation could be closer to law than black marketeering, yes
  281. <KillerX> mary: sth?
  282. <jace> KillerX: "something" [01:12]
  283. <KillerX> oh :)
  284. <Manoj> mary: I have never played the immoral card
  285. <Manoj> anyway
  286. <Manoj> g'nite, folks
  287. * * empty_mind (n=orion@59.176.111.177) has quit: "Leaving"
  288. <KillerX> Yeah well a lot of immoral things happen in the real world other than making proprietary software ;)
  289. <jace> none of what we're discussing here is a closed system where you can measure cause and effect precisely.
  290. <KillerX> 'Night Manoj
  291. * f3ew points out that the traditional scarcity models of economics don't apply where the cost of reproduction is low
  292. <KillerX> You didn't answer my question BTW
  293. <f3ew> KillerX, Microsoft is an anamoly [01:13]
  294. <jace> KillerX: me?
  295. <KillerX> jace: Nope, Manoj
  296. <Manoj> KillerX: which question?
  297. <KillerX> The question everyone asks is: Can I become as rich as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs by making Free Software [01:14]
  298. <f3ew> KillerX, yes
  299. * jace is blogging about microfinance in rural maharashtra.
  300. <jace> f3ew: examples?
  301. <Manoj> KillerX: Oh, closed source companies, by hoarding knowledge and creating artificial scarcities, and gouging people, are likely to be richer than companies that do not rely on artificial sca=rcities
  302. <KillerX> Manoj: In other words, do you think any FOSS based corporate can actually make it to the Forbes list? Is FOSS a practical business model?
  303. <f3ew> as long as you can tie it to your hardware, or cheat enough that you become a monopoly
  304. <jace> f3ew: examples please [01:15]
  305. <f3ew> jace, note the second part
  306. <jace> f3ew: or we'll consider that a theoretical yes.
  307. <KillerX> Manoj: Leaving aside the "moral" rightness. Every business plays dirty; lawyers included!
  308. <Manoj> but the comapanies that make money hand over fist get the moeny from hapless end users -- and I think that people are better off retaining their money and not enriching red hat
  309. <f3ew> Tivo is probably a good example of locking software to hardware
  310. * * PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has quit: "Leaving"
  311. <KillerX> Manoj: That answer sounds like "playing the immoral card" to me :) [01:16]
  312. <f3ew> GOOG is an example as well
  313. <Manoj> so, I would much rather keep my money to go eat out rather than pay MS thousands of dollars for the software I use which I get free from my fellow fork-weilers at debian
  314. <f3ew> KillerX, how much money do you actually need?
  315. <Manoj> KillerX: so I don't think I see making it into the forbes list as something desirable -- since makeing it to the forbes list means people like my mom had to shell out money for software, which people like me provide for the picking for no investment [01:17]
  316. <KillerX> f3ew: Hmm, I'm already convinced about FOSS, but I have trouble convincing my greedy peers ;)
  317. <f3ew> KillerX, why do you want to convince them?
  318. <Manoj> KillerX: so, ideally, a FOSS company should not be striving to reach the forbes 500
  319. <Manoj> KillerX: nothing immoral about making money [01:18]
  320. <KillerX> Manoj: Now, that's a better answer :)
  321. <Manoj> I just don't want me and mine to be shelling out the money these companies make
  322. <f3ew> unless you become a robber baron
  323. <KillerX> f3ew: @ why I want to convince other people to use FOSS: because we can have more contributors that way
  324. <KillerX> The first step for someone to become a developer is being a user first, no? [01:19]
  325. <f3ew> no
  326. <KillerX> So you can developer Free Software without even using Free Software in the first place? [01:20]
  327. <f3ew> yes
  328. <KillerX> s/developer/develop
  329. <Manoj> KillerX: not having to shell out money for windows, office, IIS, sqlserver, VPNM's, forewalls, radius servers, blogging software, enterprise monitoring systems --- sounds like lotsa incentives right ehre for people who are likely to become contributors (which means they are technically competent)
  330. <dalias> f3ew, are there actual cases of that??
  331. <KillerX> technically, you can. But you wouldn't no what to make
  332. <dalias> someone who's not already a FS user, developing FS?
  333. <f3ew> dalias the FSF
  334. <Manoj> add to it PBX's liek asterix, mythtv ....
  335. <dalias> the FSF is both user and developer
  336. <f3ew> FOSS is great for infrastructure at the moment [01:21]
  337. <KillerX> I develop FOSS on the Mac
  338. <dalias> they were FS users before there was a special name for FS..
  339. <f3ew> dalias, look at history
  340. <Manoj> Emacs was and gcc were first developer on non-free systems
  341. <dalias> back in the day, software was "de facto" free because there was no industry around it
  342. <KillerX> But that's because I was using FOSS before
  343. <f3ew> What FOSS isn't great for is business systems, like ERP applications
  344. <dalias> when it became non-free, they refused to go with the trend but instead made new FS
  345. <Manoj> so sure, one can develop free software while running on propreitary systems; RMS has already demonstrated that
  346. <dalias> they did temporarily use proprieatry systems [01:22]
  347. <dalias> however
  348. <KillerX> You can, but the question is whether you would want to?
  349. <dalias> they were FS users long before that
  350. <Manoj> dalias: well. that was a very long time ago
  351. <dalias> they already had experience as FS users
  352. <dalias> and knew how the freedoms "should be"
  353. <KillerX> Heh, the ilug-bom ML has gone mad
  354. <KillerX> Never thought a "Scilab workshop" topic would spark so much [01:23]
  355. * * gora (n=gora@59.176.103.149) has joined channel #linux-india
  356. * KillerX reads spicy flame war
  357. <KillerX> gora
  358. <gora> KillerX: Hi
  359. <Manoj> It would be nice of the IRC log for the last 90 minutes can be condensed, cleaned up, and posted on the mailing lists :)
  360. <KillerX> Yeah
  361. <f3ew> jace, BTW, I don't use Linux because it's cool
  362. <gora> KillerX: Which spicy flame war?
  363. <KillerX> And stoke another Flame War ;)
  364. <jace> f3ew: ? [01:24]
  365. <KillerX> gora: ilug-bom: Scilab workshop
  366. <gora> I haven't read any of this. Please post logs
  367. <KillerX> My logs start at 11:55 a.m.: Manoj: but the GPL is not a patent license.
  368. <gora> By the way, this is live text streaming from the ILUG-Delhi meeting scheduled to start in an hour.
  369. <KillerX> Anyone running before that?
  370. <Manoj> KillerX: you missed about 15 minutes [01:25]
  371. <KillerX> The thing that I don't like about the FSF folks are that they are too conclusive [01:26]
  372. <jace> i have logs from the beginning of my discussion with Manoj.
  373. <dalias> conclusive?
  374. <KillerX> making statements like "stay away from Matlab"
  375. <KillerX> I mean something "I recommend you stay away from Matlab" would be better you know
  376. <KillerX> On another ML, somebody sent a mail from his blackberry
  377. ERC>
  378. <KillerX> and the FSF cavalry responded with "Is your mail client free software?" [01:27]
  379. <bluesmoon> hi
  380. <KillerX> I mean, come on. People using non-free software aren't demons
  381. <Manoj> hold on [01:28]
  382. <KillerX> hey bluesmoon
  383. <gora> KillerX: Yeah, but there *are* open-source alternatives to Matlab.
  384. <gora> bluesmoon: Hi. Coming to the ILUG-D meeting?
  385. <KillerX> gora: Lot's of areas in which they still can't beat Matlab. Ask anyone doing a masters course in Digital Signal Processing [01:29]
  386. * * brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has joined channel #linux-india
  387. <gora> tuxmaniac: Hi. Long time no see.
  388. <gora> KillerX: OK, but when I did DSP, most people rolled their own, at least for the class work.
  389. <KillerX> :)
  390. <bluesmoon> hi KillerX [01:30]
  391. <gora> KillerX: What specifically is lacking in DSP areas?
  392. <KillerX> Students are getting lazier I guess :)
  393. <bluesmoon> gora, when is it?
  394. <Manoj> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/india-irc.txt
  395. <gora> KillerX: I am sure that there is plenty of academic-licensed DSP code floating around that can be open-sourced.
  396. <KillerX> gora: You consider Scilab to be open-source, then no
  397. <gora> bluesmoon: (Just kidding.) It starts in an hour. [01:31]
  398. <Manoj> gora: that should contain all the information
  399. <gora> KillerX: Actually, I have no idea of the status of Scilab.
  400. <gora> Never had occasion to use it.
  401. ERC> /names
  402. * * Users on #linux-india: brainless gora bluesmoon jace tazz unmadindu Hobbes` pradeepto tuxmaniac KillerX kksm19820117 zubeen solar345 GabeW Funtoosh jayakumar_ z00dax G0SUB dalias fox2mike spo0nman Grub_Now war2 Casanova n3oo3n shehjart mehulved shres digen anurag mary codeshepherd ramky makuchaku sm|CPU f3ew bronze Manoj DollarCulprit
  403. <mary> hmm - lets muddle up things further.. [01:32]
  404. <Manoj> so, if someone wants to clean up that irc log, and post a synopsis of the arguments offered, that would be real nice.
  405. <f3ew> jace, you had claim that on another mailing list [01:33]
  406. <jace> f3ew: sorry, what? was away.
  407. <mary> is it okie if sth company X(which makes closed source RDBMS software - say) is allowed to sponsor an ILUGD event and have a stall demonstrating the software - with ILUGD setting up another stall close-by demonstrating the closest/equivalent FLOSS alternative ?
  408. <gora> Manoj: Sure. Post it on the linux-delhi lists. We have not had a good flame war in a while.
  409. <f3ew> jace, that I use Linux because it was cool [01:34]
  410. <KillerX> mary: you mean Oracle sponsoring Freedel with couple of talks on mySQL
  411. <jace> f3ew: i have no recollection of saying that. must have been ages ago.
  412. <gora> mary: I think that, at least at the moment, the ILUG-D consensus is no proprietary software demo/publicity at stalls.
  413. <dalias> hey
  414. <dalias> i bet someone here would know... [01:35]
  415. <mary> hmm - replace ILUGD with ILUGY
  416. <gora> mary: Sponsorship from proprietary companies is OK, at least by me.
  417. <dalias> is there anywhere i can get a generic x86-linux binary of firefox with complex text (pango or whatever) support?
  418. <f3ew> mary, is it all right for company Y, which makes closed source operating systems to sponsor an ILUGD event and have a stall demonstrating the software, with ILUGD have a sall close by demonstrating the closest FOSS alternative?
  419. <gora> mary: I would guess that it is up to the LUG to decide.
  420. <dalias> apparently the default builds dont have it :( :(
  421. <dalias> and slackware's packages dont either
  422. <bluesmoon> dalias, check indlinux [01:36]
  423. <KillerX> Manoj: I have another query. Suppose I have a great new idea for an OS. If I go via the Proprietary route, I can take a loan, hire 100 programmer and get the whole thing implemented in about a year. [01:37]
  424. <KillerX> Then I can sell it and repay the loan
  425. <Manoj> short term gains, yes
  426. <gora> dalias: Most newer distros automatically include Pango support. At least Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora do, as I have used them for Indian language text. Why do you ask?
  427. <KillerX> Now if I go the Free Software route, I can just tell my friends the idea. And they'll take 5 years to build it
  428. <KillerX> And I don't get any monetary gains either
  429. <gora> dalias: Which default builds? [01:38]
  430. <f3ew> KillerX, no
  431. <Manoj> in the long tem, much more could have come from people building on your ideas than you got from selling it
  432. <f3ew> you would build it
  433. <Manoj> Linux has thousands of people who have contributed at one time or the other
  434. <Manoj> way more people than the 100 guys you hired
  435. <f3ew> KillerX, are you looking at individual profit, or social profit?
  436. <f3ew> hint: they are not always the same
  437. <KillerX> f3ew: See, now that is the "morality" card. I'm not considering that at the moment [01:39]
  438. <f3ew> and definitely almost never with infrastructure projects
  439. <dalias> gora, the ones from getfirefox.com
  440. <Manoj> also, the people Linux has attracted have been more knowledgeable than the ones you can hire -- people who specialize in areas of research on operating systems
  441. <dalias> i'm using slackware
  442. <f3ew> KillerX, that isn't the morality card
  443. <dalias> which has crappy packages
  444. <KillerX> Because if you do; then there's no question that FOSS is always the "right thing to do"
  445. <gora> dalias: What distribution do you use?
  446. <f3ew> That's an economic card
  447. <dalias> gora, slackware
  448. <Manoj> look at plan 9 -- suppsedly agreat OS created by the same people who helped create UNIX. died. never went anywhere
  449. <f3ew> because I actually know of examples where things are better shared than unshared
  450. <f3ew> Manoj, not enough applications [01:40]
  451. <gora> dalias: Somewhere on the net, there is a HOW-TO on compiling Firefox with Indic support from scratch. Hang on, I will see if I can find it.
  452. <Manoj> Linux blew it away -- despite great innovative ideas, and competent programmers.
  453. <dalias> manoj, plan9 was an experiment, not a product
  454. <KillerX> Manoj: Then the reasons for Windows "success"? To some extent: OS X too?
  455. <dalias> and plan9 definitely went somewhere
  456. <dalias> lots of the modern things on unices came out of plan9
  457. <f3ew> KillerX, Windows succeeded because of Microsoft's monopoly deals
  458. <Manoj> since crowdsourcing works better than experts, according to some recent papers I read
  459. <dalias> even utf-8 was a result of plan9
  460. <dalias> if it weren't for plan9, we might very well be using windows...
  461. <KillerX> Windows + OS X = A lot more users than those of Linux
  462. <f3ew> KillerX, define user :) [01:41]
  463. <dalias> gora, yeah, compiling from scratch is hell tho...
  464. <dalias> i'm wondering if there's anywhere to get binaries
  465. <KillerX> f3ew: A user for an OS is anybody you uses a computer
  466. <f3ew> if you use Google to search, what are you using
  467. <dalias> stupid getfirefox.com should have working binaries...
  468. <KillerX> s/you/who
  469. <gora> dalias: Yeah, but, that is about your only option, unless you want to switch distros.
  470. <Manoj> KillerX: windows succeeded because they managed to greatly expand the userbase, way beond the competiion was trying to -- and windows opened the hardware, unlike apple at the time
  471. <f3ew> Manoj, Windows did NOT open the hardware
  472. <f3ew> That was Compaq
  473. <dalias> gora, they even have _localized_ firefox to several indian langs there
  474. <Manoj> by being more open than apple, ms succeeded -- even though apple was better than windows at being easy to use
  475. <dalias> but the damn rendering doesn't work! [01:42]
  476. * f3ew smacks Manoj
  477. <dalias> it works in the menus but not in the browser windows themselves, lol
  478. <gora> dalias: Actually, I have done it, and with a decent computer (I had a PIV) and adequate internet bandwidth (I had a dialup), it is not bad.
  479. <KillerX> Opened the hardware? That wasn't Windows doing!
  480. <f3ew> The PC won against the Mac
  481. <gora> dalias: Yes, I know, re localised firefox.
  482. <Manoj> f3ew: unlike apple, microsoft did not control hardware, did not restirc sound card/ mother boards, graphics cards
  483. <dalias> fucking idiots...
  484. <f3ew> Microsoft just rode on the coattails of that PC
  485. <dalias> why do they release a broken build that doesn't work?!
  486. <Manoj> f3ew: ms allowed any pc clone to run windows
  487. <KillerX> Okay the opened their software to Hardware
  488. <f3ew> KillerX, they didn't open the software [01:43]
  489. <gora> dalias: Here is a HOW-TO: http://developer.thamizha.com/index.php/How_to_build_firefox_with_indic_support
  490. <f3ew> they ran it on open hardware
  491. <f3ew> That's a big difference
  492. <KillerX> f3ew: I contrast with Apple whose software ran only on specific hardware
  493. <f3ew> Manoj, Micorosft never, ever controlled or owned the PC
  494. <gora> dalias: And, here they claim to have a version for download: http://thamizha.com/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=11
  495. <f3ew> KillerX, Apple is a hardware vendor, Microsoft isn't [01:44]
  496. <KillerX> f3ew: Hence Apple's software was "closed" to hardware, while Windows was more "open
  497. <dalias> also building takes about 1-2 gigs of space
  498. <Manoj> f3ew: exactly
  499. <dalias> my hd is <4gig and i have about 200 megs..
  500. <Manoj> f3ew: apple controlled everything, so apple lost
  501. <KillerX> 1-2 Gigs for Firefox? I don't think so
  502. <dalias> last time i tried it took that much
  503. <gora> dalias: Try the download at thamiza.com (second link I posted)
  504. <dalias> and then the resulting binary just sig11'd :(
  505. <dalias> gora, thanks
  506. <dalias> i'll check it out
  507. <f3ew> Manoj, my point is that you are giving MSFT credit which they don't deserve [01:45]
  508. <f3ew> there were multiple choices for DOS
  509. <Manoj> I am sayig why ms succeeded despite apple getting there first
  510. <bluesmoon> MS succeeded because they had smarter people (note I didn't say engineers)
  511. <Manoj> who gets the blame for ms making all the money is for others to determine
  512. <f3ew> oh, MSFT succeeded when they managed to get monopoly deals with PC makers
  513. <KillerX> Manoj: Moving on to DRM; how can I ensure that every copy of a song I make is being paid for?
  514. <KillerX> Manoj: Or do you think I shouldn't be paid for every copy of a song I make? [01:46]
  515. <Manoj> KillerX: not something I am interested in
  516. <f3ew> KillerX, why would you want to do that?
  517. <KillerX> f3ew: Well artists deserve monetary gains for their work, no?
  518. <bluesmoon> many of the best programmers in the world are opensource programmers, but that can also be said for many of the crappiest programmers in the world
  519. <KillerX> Manoj: Ok
  520. <Manoj> KillerX: and no, I don't think people should be paid for every copy, just like I am not paids for every copy of the code I write
  521. <f3ew> half my collection is because I borrowed music from someone, liked it, and went out to buy a copy
  522. <Manoj> KillerX: I get paid to write code. once written, the copies are free
  523. <f3ew> KillerX, no, they DESERVE nothing
  524. <Manoj> I am paid for my labour, not the product [01:47]
  525. <f3ew> Manoj, who pays for the cost of your labour though?
  526. <Manoj> a company called S/TDC
  527. <KillerX> So basically once you create something, anyone should be free to copy it?
  528. <bluesmoon> why would they pay you? [01:48]
  529. <bluesmoon> how do they benefit from what you did?
  530. <KillerX> f3ew: Now I'm not such a good person. All my music is borrowed from someone; and I kept those I liked
  531. <bluesmoon> why don't they ask you to write the software for free?
  532. <Manoj> KillerX: You can copy debian as many times as you want
  533. <Manoj> bluesmoon: they get the code written [01:49]
  534. <KillerX> Manoj: Yes. But what applies to software doesn't apply to every other field
  535. <Manoj> bluesmoon: until I wrote teh code, they had nada
  536. <KillerX> Manoj: Which is why I don't like FSF's stance on DRM so much
  537. <Manoj> KillerX: I don't think you have made your thesis
  538. <KillerX> Manoj: And Debian would fall if all it's developers were fired from their day jobs, no?
  539. <bluesmoon> Manoj, so now they have the code, why should they let anyone else get it for free? [01:50]
  540. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I cause I would write software I want to write, were I working for free
  541. <KillerX> Manoj: So essentially; some other companies are paying for Debian development even though they don't even know it
  542. <Manoj> bluesmoon: since they pay me, I write free software that they want me to write
  543. <Manoj> KillerX: umm, what?
  544. <mary> coming soon - the "choice" card
  545. <Manoj> bluesmoon: cause the software is written under the GPL [01:51]
  546. <f3ew> how do they recover the money they pay you?
  547. <bluesmoon> ok, so if they didn't pay you, would you write software?
  548. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I provide my own computer, my own office supplies --- and they get code faster, since I can base it off free software, and do not have to re-invent the wheel
  549. <KillerX> Manoj: No-one is being paid to work on Debian. Developer X works on Debian in his "free time", in the daytime he is paid by some Company Z.
  550. <KillerX> Manoj: Company Z is in someway responsible for the development of Debian, no? [01:52]
  551. <Manoj> f3ew: they need the software to eprform mission critical business functions
  552. <bluesmoon> KillerX, if Company Z did not pay the developer, then he wouldn't have free time to work on debian
  553. <f3ew> right
  554. <Manoj> f3ew: also, sometimes we sell the software and services
  555. <bluesmoon> he'd spend all his time trying to find food
  556. <KillerX> bluesmoon: exactly
  557. <bluesmoon> or sitting on the road with a big sign saying Will write HTML for food
  558. <Manoj> KillerX: in the same sense that copany X pays for some ski resort
  559. <KillerX> So in essence, all of Free Software relies on the fact that everybody has got some "free time"? [01:53]
  560. <bluesmoon> FWIW, all my opensource projects died when I got a high paying job
  561. <f3ew> on the other hand, if your employer were a software vendor, would they still be willing to spread the code?
  562. <Manoj> KillerX: if company X pays a developer, and his free time they go skiiing, the company is paying fro the ski resort?
  563. <f3ew> bluesmoon, and you got sucked into working 14 hours a day?
  564. <Manoj> so all restaurants rely on the fact that their customers are being paid by someone else?
  565. <f3ew> Manoj, indirectly yes
  566. * jace thinks the discussion has derailed.
  567. <Manoj> and all these companies are subsidizing the restaurants? [01:54]
  568. <f3ew> yup
  569. <bluesmoon> f3ew, no, i don't work more than 8 hours a day
  570. <bluesmoon> but I also have a personal life
  571. <f3ew> heh
  572. <Manoj> man, you guys hav4e a weird take on subsidies
  573. <f3ew> Manoj, they aren't subsidising
  574. <KillerX> Manoj: My point is, Free Software is something that takes and doesn't give. Free Software by itself doesn't pay, but it relies on other companies to pay for it's developers food.
  575. <f3ew> bluesmoon, so your work and NDAs cut into your free software development time?
  576. <Manoj> f3ew: my employers main business is writing code for other people, and providing support for that code
  577. <KillerX> Unless you can work out a business model wherein you can actually pay people to write free software [01:55]
  578. <bluesmoon> not my NDAs - they're fairly liberal
  579. <f3ew> Manoj, but not selling boxed software
  580. <Manoj> KillerX: no more than restaurants take and don't pay
  581. <Manoj> KillerX: I mean, if people did not get paid, they would not eat out, so ....
  582. <bluesmoon> the fact is that now I actually have 8 hours of work every day
  583. <Manoj> f3ew: no, we don't sell boxed software.
  584. <bluesmoon> in the past, I had maybe 3 hours of work every week [01:56]
  585. <dalias> gora, thanks, trying to satisfy dependencies now.. hope it works :)
  586. <Manoj> f3ew: I don't think I want boxed software to be sold, since I don't want my mom to have to poay for something that has 0 copy cost
  587. <KillerX> Manoj: So it all boils down to this: Writing free software is a _luxury_ like restaurants that only those who have good day-jobs can afford?
  588. * dalias grumbles somethning about how much nicer it would be if they made a static binary.. :)
  589. <Manoj> so, I'll help write software so pther people feel like writing software that replaces boxed software
  590. <bluesmoon> KillerX, and those who live off their parents' money [01:57]
  591. <dalias> lol
  592. <KillerX> bluesmoon: Or, that :)
  593. <Manoj> KillerX: well. for me writig software is something I'd do as a starving artist (the dutch painters felt compelled to paint, I feel compelled to write code)
  594. <Manoj> but yes, free software is a hobby
  595. <KillerX> Yep, it is a hobby :) [01:58]
  596. <Manoj> hobbies imply fr4ee time not grubbing for food, or finding shelter, or fighting off saber tootheed tigers
  597. <bluesmoon> Manoj, how will you write code when you have to sell your PC for food?
  598. <KillerX> Now, there are several who feel that it isn't just a hobby
  599. <bluesmoon> and in any case, how will you upload when the cable company knocks off your internet connection?
  600. <KillerX> And to convince them I will post a log of this chat :)
  601. <Manoj> now, if my hobby can help eliminate the money my mom has to pay for people who sell software based on artificial scarcity, that is great [01:59]
  602. <gora> dalias: Cool. Let me know if it doesn't, and I can build one for you.
  603. * f3ew notes that the Indian economy still isn't at a stage where leisure time is cheap
  604. <Manoj> bluesmoon: lawyers manage to make money though their source is free (law), and they can't resell briefs
  605. * f3ew looks for solar_ant
  606. <KillerX> Manoj: But when you are starving, Microsoft will come and offer you to buy the code that you wrote while you were starving for $100,000!
  607. <Manoj> I want to be paid for the labour, just like lawyers are
  608. <KillerX> Manoj: And to a hungry man, that's a lot of money for something you did as a hobby [02:00]
  609. <f3ew> Manoj, but if I can get the same thing out of a box for cheap, why would I not buy the box?
  610. <bluesmoon> Manoj, lawyers don't write the law, they use it
  611. <Manoj> KillerX: I am unlikely to be staring, given past experience, so this is a higy bizarre situation you are postulating
  612. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I use the language and code other people have written to build my constructs on, just like lawyers use precedence to create their briefs [02:01]
  613. <KillerX> Manoj: Not if all the companies in the world ensure that their employees don't write Free Software ;)
  614. <KillerX> In that case, Free Software is gone
  615. <f3ew> KillerX, not really [02:02]
  616. <KillerX> f3ew: Who would write Free Software then?
  617. <f3ew> you will still have academia and students
  618. <bluesmoon> Manoj, lawyers are consultants, so that may work for software consultants. Not everyone is a software consultant because not all software is custom built
  619. <Manoj> hell, a hungry man can do all kinds of things. like killing people. Seems like you put up strange siuations, you can postulate just about any action can be possib;e
  620. <bluesmoon> some software is service oriented and other software is commoditised
  621. <Manoj> like Sphies choice
  622. <KillerX> f3ew: Ah yes. Which reminds me, Summer of Code coming up :)
  623. <Manoj> KillerX: trying to prevent me writing code in my free time on my own equipment is illegal where I live. [02:03]
  624. <KillerX> Anyway the point I was making is that FOSS is not a 'career option'. It's just a hobby.
  625. <KillerX> Manoj: Agreed, that situation will never arrive.
  626. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I think with the coming of free software, non custome or non consulting job markets in software may face some contractions [02:04]
  627. <KillerX> In other words, a kid can't say "I'm going to write Free Software" when asked "What are you going to do when you grow up?"
  628. <Manoj> KillerX: highly unlikely to come, yes.
  629. <KillerX> Something like "I'm going to be a pilot, and I'll write Free Software in my free time!" is a better answer
  630. <Manoj> KillerX: err, when I was a kid I wantred to be an engine driver on a steam train [02:05]
  631. <KillerX> :)
  632. <Manoj> what kids think they want ot do when grown up does not worry me a great deal
  633. <KillerX> Well I wanted to be an Engine Driver too until recently
  634. * * shaitaan (n=shaitaan@59.161.114.93) has joined channel #linux-india
  635. <KillerX> "Free Software isn't against Business" in the context of "you can sell emacs if you want" is an incorrect opinion [02:06]
  636. <Manoj> bluesmoon: commodity software is going to face serious sompetition from free counterparts, which results in price pressure.
  637. <KillerX> By ensuring that the code is open, you also ensure that the software CAN'T be sold [02:07]
  638. <Manoj> KillerX: sure you can sell emacs if you want. heh heh heh/
  639. <mary> shaitaan bhaiyya - kaisan ho ?
  640. <bluesmoon> Manoj, the commodity layer moves upwards
  641. <bluesmoon> and there really aren't that many skilled programmers out there
  642. <KillerX> So indirectly, Free Software is _against_ selling software
  643. <KillerX> Which is why RHEL is such a mess when CentOS came along
  644. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I would like all the unskilled programmers to get out of the industry. less competition, more money for the rest of us. [02:08]
  645. <bluesmoon> KillerX, open source does not mean that it cannot be sold
  646. <Manoj> bluesmoon: open source means it is hard to sustain a scarcity
  647. <bluesmoon> Manoj, that isn't going to happen, and well, even if no one hires them, they can still write Free Software :D
  648. <KillerX> bluesmoon: That's just fine print. Tell me a way by which I can sell software and the code and still sell significant number of copies
  649. <Manoj> bluesmoon: so you can't make massive profits; since someone else can come in and try to seel the same software :) [02:09]
  650. <KillerX> Because as soon as I sell the first copy, someone will start offering it for free
  651. <bluesmoon> KillerX, just sell it
  652. <KillerX> Why buy when you can get it for free?
  653. <KillerX> bluesmoon: ^
  654. <bluesmoon> if you sell it, people will buy it
  655. <bluesmoon> the trick is in trademarking the name
  656. <Manoj> people pay through their noses for an OS when they can get one for free :P
  657. <bluesmoon> people will be forced to sell it under a different name
  658. <KillerX> bluesmoon: Not if someone else is offering the _exact_ product for free
  659. <bluesmoon> and it's the name that sells, not the software [02:10]
  660. <f3ew> KillerX, RedHat is profitab;e
  661. <Manoj> a little bit of FUD, and you are still in business
  662. <bluesmoon> KillerX, even then. Not a single user actually knows what features he's paying for
  663. <f3ew> no one ever got fired for buying IBM
  664. <Manoj> tell the customers the people not charging lots of money for the code can't be trusted
  665. <KillerX> f3ew: How long? And they aren't anywhere near being a "profitable" company
  666. <bluesmoon> you just need to be a good salesman
  667. <KillerX> f3ew: What's their index on NASDAQ? :)
  668. <Manoj> say things like "you get what you pay for, and I am charging amillion bucks"
  669. <Manoj> there is sucker born every minute
  670. <KillerX> :-D [02:11]
  671. <bluesmoon> it's not hard to make money selling free software. the reason most FOSS programmers don't is because they're just programmers and terrible communicators
  672. <KillerX> f3ew: Like Manoj says, Red Hat doesn't aim to be on the Forbes list. So, as a corporate it Sucks.
  673. <bluesmoon> when someone asks what the software does, they go into technical details [02:12]
  674. <Manoj> bluesmoon: not all of us programmers are poor communicators
  675. <bluesmoon> to sell your software, free or proprietary, you need to tell them what they want to hear
  676. <bluesmoon> Manoj, didn't you say that you make money?
  677. <Manoj> bluesmoon: it ight be something that does not interest us
  678. <Manoj> heck, my undergraduate taught me one thing: presentation is everything.
  679. <Manoj> presentation often trumps content [02:13]
  680. <bluesmoon> Manoj, if you're happy not making money, then that's fine, but then you shouldn't complain when you don't make it
  681. * * [1]brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has joined channel #linux-india
  682. * * brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)
  683. <Manoj> bluesmoon: depends on how much money, and what you have to do to make it
  684. <Manoj> bluesmoon: making money and being miserable while doing so because you can't do what you like doing is not really an improved lifestyle [02:14]
  685. <bluesmoon> Manoj, you have to sell your software, and by that I do not mean provide it at a cost
  686. <Manoj> I don't believe in selling software
  687. <bluesmoon> Manoj, you could hire a good salesman, and pay him a percentage of profits
  688. <Manoj> I believe in selling my services
  689. <KillerX> Manoj: Services aren't that convincing [02:15]
  690. <bluesmoon> Manoj, what if someone else is willing to provide the same services at a lower cost?
  691. <KillerX> Manoj: "services" implies that your product doesn't work well in the first place
  692. * * tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.15) has joined channel #linux-india [02:16]
  693. <Manoj> my services consist of systems analysis, design, architecture, and implementation
  694. <KillerX> So what people would think is that you made a product that is so horribly twisted that only you can understand and make it work
  695. <KillerX> which is why you charge for "services"
  696. <Manoj> you guys lack imagination in what ones services might be
  697. <KillerX> because you're sure no-one can make it work if they don't buy your services
  698. <KillerX> mwhahaha
  699. <Manoj> you sre stuck in miscrosoftism
  700. <Manoj> I don't have to make a lousy product for people to value my services [02:17]
  701. <Manoj> and services don't mean maintenance
  702. <KillerX> Scenarios otherwise?
  703. <KillerX> I'd be glad to hear
  704. <Manoj> err, I already said wht my services are:
  705. <Manoj> systems analysis, design, architecture, and implementation
  706. * * empty_mind (n=orion@59.176.103.149) has joined channel #linux-india
  707. <KillerX> brb [02:18]
  708. <Manoj> I might to deployment planning, training, etc, but not usually
  709. <bluesmoon> Manoj, anyone can claim to do that
  710. <Manoj> bluesmoon: they can
  711. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I have a portfolioo
  712. <bluesmoon> anyone can build a portfolio too
  713. * * codo (n=codo@122.167.83.151) has joined channel #linux-india
  714. <bluesmoon> there are always clients who will take on a fresher for a lower cost
  715. <Manoj> bluesmoon: the last consulting gig I had was to design and architect a medical transcription web application, complete with a blackboard pattern based scheduler, type enforcment based security, and turn around time measured in milliseconds [02:19]
  716. <Manoj> the system is written under the GPL [02:20]
  717. <Manoj> bluesmoon: sure. anyone can come up with a portfolio
  718. <Manoj> if your clients can't tell the quality of work you can do, you are doing a piss poor job of selling your services [02:21]
  719. <Manoj> people who talk to me about others who do the job for less, I drop like a hot potato
  720. <Manoj> And usually, when they come back to me, they fiund my rates have gone up, and I ask for a higher percentage up front [02:22]
  721. <KillerX> back
  722. <KillerX> Okay Services over Software is great
  723. <KillerX> My point is that when you say "Free as in speech" you automatically imply "Free as in Beer" [02:23]
  724. <Manoj> I solve probelms people have
  725. <Manoj> I do it by providing them free software solutions
  726. <bluesmoon> KillerX, no you don't
  727. <Manoj> but you hire me to solve your problems, not for the software I don't sell.
  728. <Manoj> red hat makes money selling free software [02:24]
  729. <bluesmoon> Manoj, so if someone else hired you to do exactly the same job, you'd charge them the same amount and just give them the already built software right?
  730. <Manoj> you pony up $100+ a pop for mostly free software
  731. <Manoj> as does Xandros, for one
  732. <Manoj> bluesmoon: nah. I give them the software already written [02:25]
  733. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I don't make money hoardig software.
  734. <KillerX> Manoj: Wait until CentOS catches up. Why should I pay for RHEL4 when I can exactly the same product for Free (as in price)?
  735. <Manoj> If you want changes made, though, you pay me for my time and effort
  736. <Manoj> KillerX: you might not. But I've paid money for a Xandros desktop product [02:26]
  737. <Manoj> and I'll do it again; it was easier for me to get a nicely put together mostly debian isntall for a relative then it would have been to go over there, and spend tiem setting it up [02:27]
  738. * * PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has joined channel #linux-india
  739. <bluesmoon> Manoj, so what if the first company comes back to you and claims that you're hurting their business because they now paid for software that is being used by a competitor?
  740. <KillerX> Manoj: Why did you do that?!
  741. <KillerX> Oh
  742. <KillerX> Now that's an idea :)
  743. <Manoj> I think enough people find the value added by Xandros good enough to fork over $100 for essentially a subset of debian
  744. * KillerX thinks of easy-install Gentoo and charging for it :-D [02:28]
  745. <Manoj> bluesmoon: the first company does not own the software. I do.
  746. <Manoj> bluesmoon: I provided them a solution, with free software
  747. <KillerX> Manoj: Why doesn't Debian "steal" Xandros' code and make it's own "nicely-put-together" version?
  748. * * shaitaan (n=shaitaan@59.161.114.93) has quit: Success
  749. <Manoj> they got the software under the GPL. They know what the GPL means
  750. <Manoj> KillerX: we are not interested?
  751. <KillerX> Erm, ok :)
  752. <KillerX> But only a matter of time before someone else does [02:29]
  753. <KillerX> And then Xandros is out of business
  754. <Manoj> KillerX: we are not interested in the limited choices xandros offers; we like having 11 arches, and 19000 packages
  755. <Manoj> KillerX: hasn't happened in like 10 years, unlikely to happen now
  756. <KillerX> I guess [02:30]
  757. <KillerX> So basically these companies are surviving on the fact that no-one has the time to actually do what they did and give it away for free :)
  758. * bluesmoon out [02:31]
  759. <KillerX> Manoj: Does Xandros also offer services similar to RedHat?
  760. <Manoj> KillerX: they are spending time and effort adding value to free software
  761. * * devmodem (n=ttyUSB0@gnu-india/admin/anurag) has joined channel #linux-india
  762. <Manoj> KillerX: doing what they do would require time and effort and judgement.
  763. <Manoj> KillerX: I have no idea i Xandros also offers services [02:32]
  764. <Manoj> I have not bought services from them
  765. <Manoj> just the desktop OS
  766. <KillerX> Manoj: Yep, but someone is also free to take whatever Xandros has already done and offer it for free
  767. <Manoj> I suppose. but they can't call it xandors, of course [02:33]
  768. <Manoj> by the time they get around to changing all the xandros branding, xandros is out with a new version :)
  769. <KillerX> That's too much of a risk if someone is trying to convince an entrepreneur to fund his FOSS based business :)
  770. <KillerX> Yep, much like the case with CentOS
  771. <Manoj> KillerX: you seem to be mostly interested in bilking money from users using free software
  772. <Manoj> KillerX: this is not a topic of much interest to me [02:34]
  773. <devmodem> right
  774. <Grub_Now> p4 3GHz HT, 512M ddr ram, sony 16x dvdrw, benq combo drive, 60+40Gig ata hdd, sata supported mobo
  775. <Grub_Now> how much for can i sell it for
  776. <KillerX> Manoj: Believe me, as a student, that's the last thing on my mind. I'm more interested in convincing a few people that you _can't_ make money with Free Software
  777. <Grub_Now> proc/mobo is 6-7 months old, rest is 3yrs old [02:35]
  778. <KillerX> Manoj: I'm totally in agreement with the view that Free Software is just a "hobby" and always will be
  779. <Manoj> well, tell that to red hat and Xandros [02:36]
  780. <Manoj> and linspire and canonical and Suse
  781. <KillerX> :)
  782. <pradeepto> heh
  783. <KillerX> Making Money != Just Surviving
  784. <KillerX> If you really _want_ to make money; don't go down the Free Software route because it won't get you far [02:37]
  785. <pradeepto> huh? really?
  786. <KillerX> And by far, I mean being a _successful_ company, not like Linspire, or Canonical, or Suse who are just about Ok. Making profits, but not nearly as much as "other" proprietary companies are.
  787. <gora> Shhh... The ILUG-D meeting is about to start. [02:38]