more revisionism on the lists about OSS and free software [00:08] *** You are no longer marked as being away *** jace (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has joined channel #linux-india what is it with http://t3.dotgnu.info/blog/rants/slings-of-irc.html ? [00:09] DollarCulprit: Vint Cerf's talk at Google B'lore [00:10] * DollarCulprit is in chennai [00:12] jace - demonstration of the evils of a lack of a sense of humour? 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] doesnt that invalidate the BSD license? DollarCulprit: no, why? [00:14] under BSD i can modify and redistribute commercialy without giving the source (or at least, I think I can) 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] DollarCulprit: correct *** pradeepto (n=pradeept@dialpool-210-214-13-249.maa.sify.net) has quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) this post is tosh: http://t3.dotgnu.info/blog/observations/lessons-in-negotiations.html 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 * jace is pro-BSD [00:16] * DollarCulprit considers GPL more restrictive than BSD 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] Manoj: you attended that meeting? *** tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has quit: Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer) interesting 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. DollarCulprit: OSI was discussed at one of the ALS meetings by various people, iwj, perens, esr, and rms, in a bof meeting [00:18] cool - i can dine out on that 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 jace: me, I want improvements to be made available back to me as well, so I use the gpl [00:19] neither do i, but the key ingredient is trust, not threat of legal recourse nah, trust is over rated. *** tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has joined channel #linux-india I trust uhman nature to always be selfish the GPL is great. it allowed a community to grow under threat of being ripped off Yes, legal recourse is a must and i feel that one should never release code under GPL unless the code is longer than the GPL ;-) [00:20] but the GPL is also restrictive. it hinders growth I see no reason to ever release my code under the bd license; and I suspect lots of people feel like I do GPL recognises only one form of contribution: open code Manoj: and a lot of other people feel the other way *** PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has joined channel #linux-india PowerPork 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] 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. DollarCulprit :O sure. these people can contibue to release under the BSD, until I can find enhancements I can make that are persuasive :) i've seen enough to never use the GPL unless i have a vested interest in retaining control over the code. LGPL at best, if worried about a fork. I don't want users, really GPL can also be misused by corporations. As can BSD. Just testifies to the selfish human nature I guess. [00:22] 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 that's short sighted. look at how successful the internet itself is regarding open vs closed protocols. in the longrun, I feel I, and the community, are better off without these shadowy contributors [00:23] imagine if TCP/IP came under the GPL, requiring all use of it to be GPLed 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. erf - there is no one answer - its the same old K-armed bandit problem [00:24] 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. 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 jace: I see no problem with a tcp/ip implementation under the gpl indeed, there is some: the linux tcp/ip stack is under the gpl Manoj: not implementation. protocol. ie, you can't make anything that rides on tcp/ip that is not gpl itself. [00:25] Manoj: i dont know if you have seen the django community - totally built round a BSD app you can't copyright ideas, you can only copyright code *** pradeepto (n=pradeept@59.161.3.107) has joined channel #linux-india ideas, code, just different semantics. or ASF or PSF protocols can only be copyrighted as to their wording, and modifications; the ideas that the standards document represents are not subject to copyright law patent law, perhaps but the GPL is not a patent license. and no, ideas are not code. saying so and comingling them is just sloppy thinking [00:26] 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] non-gpl code can work the same way. actually, I prefer IRC to crappy IM :) not the code itself, but the motivational effect it has. the gpl is stuck in a mindset of code and nothing else. I am rarely motivated by propreitary code, so I am sure I can't say the GPL _is_ a software license, so I can see how it is stuck in code -- well, duh. [00:28] I mean, what else would a software license be stuck in? BSD is also a software license, but it isn't stuck the same way. the BSD license is indeed stucj with software too by definition and, anyway, the BSD license is less open [00:29] in letter, not in spirit. in spirit, it is more open. heck no. It allows improvements to code to locked away, made less open, so it is in itself a less open license openness is not about ability to do things in an unfettered manner [00:30] just like freedom does mnot include the freedom to enslaveother people 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. *** mbuf (n=mbuf@c-24-8-52-216.hsd1.co.comcast.net) has quit: "shakthimaan.com" you're confusing freedom with fundamental rights. rights are a lower layer. (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] 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 *** v3rmap (n=chatzill@unaffiliated/v3rmap) has quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.73 [Firefox 1.5.0.9/2006120612]" software is not a legal person. people and corporations are. you're mixing up different metaphors. [00:32] so yes, the BSD licesne allows you to enslave improv4ements to software, the GPL says software, and improvemnets, must remain free 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. oh, do keep up I am talking about the software license allowing legla persons to enslave improvements to the software, or not [00:33] your fundamental rights are more fundamental than freedom. your constitutionally granted freedom is defined on the basis of your rights. the BSD license allows people to enslave derived software, the GPL does not allow legal persons to enslave improvments "enslaving software" is not a violation of the constitution. hence my analogy therefore applying that argument to GPL vs BSD is invalid. so you are reduced to talking about constitutionality of the BSD license? heh [00:34] anywy, it's getting late. And we are going around in circles -- do you have anything new to add? isn't that what both GPL and BSD define themselves on the basis of? *** Hobbes` (n=calvin@59.92.207.111) has joined channel #linux-india If not, we are unlikely to convince each other, and we should stop hogging the channel well, i didn't hear much new from you either, just the tired argument about how GPL is mysteriously more open. not mysterious [00:35] I gave hte slavery analogy, which I thought might open a new perspaective that analogy does not parse. * DollarCulprit goes to join the Q for sait sunday special mutton biriyani 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] I think it does, actually. You got around to non sequitors in attacking it -- obviously my analogy is not enshrined in the constitution *** unmadindu (n=sayamind@gnu-india/admin/unmadindu) has joined channel #linux-india neither is mine. i just don't buy that GPL is more open because it prevents closing code. 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] the gpl is built to counter a legal framework, which it does a brilliant job of. but the legal framework isn't the only one. we are not trying to get free software up to a certain quota. i'm not claiming that. All I am saying is, you use my code, you can't hide away improvements jace, then how to ensure more open behaviour of GPL ? [00:38] don't like that, done leech off my work i'm claiming that freedom can be protected by means other than the legal framework, which the gpl refuses to recognise. jace: how? the bsd, on the other hand, does not prohibit such recognition. 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] 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. jace, but legal protection is equally important isnt it ? but that only works when you have a social framework in the first place. empty_mind: yes it is social pressure does not prevent the derivatives from going propreitary [00:40] it may not in all conditions, jace, social framework is not in place and $$$ corporates will not let them be in place far too much code out there is clsoed, so social pressure is non existen on people who just leech off free software *** tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.225) has quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) they are not part of the community, just parasitic growths off it, so the social pressure of the community do not apply to them empty_mind: that's for now. it may not always be so, right? when the utopia arrivews, let us know [00:41] I doubt it ever will too many people are content to be leeches (neither with the everything GPL utopia) s/with/will/ *** tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.15) has joined channel #linux-india [00:42] no one is trying for an all GPL utopia all we are trying for is a OS that works, with all the tools one might need that are fee nor am i saying the non-gpl utopia will arrive. the rest of the closed source system can go to the dogs (or not) on its own which is why I have no interest in fighting MS or getting users not the goal even if much of the existing GPL software is inspired by closed source? [00:43] as long as I have an OS that does what I want, I don't care what people use that is buying the MS market spin disprove it then I work on things liek LaTeX, emacs, and SELinux -- none of which MS have ever come close to cfreating the C compilers were free long before there were commerial versions [00:44] are you saying there is no GPL code that does things that are very obviously inspired by closed source? the LAMP paradigm came from free software -- the comemrcial ventures tryign to do the same fizzled and failed please answer with a yes or no. [00:45] I am saying that not all innovation is closed source there, point made. i'm saying the closed source was good for open source because it inspired someone to write that open source. jace, Manoj is correct and asking yes or no is narrowness. Not everything is a boolean logic several things are fuzzy too indeed. there are theories that once a critical mass is reached in free software, innovation outpaces closed source innovation Manoj: i'm not disagreeing with that. and I think that closed source software was initially inspired by free and public funded research [00:46] Manoj, what i think is that the presentation of OSS doesnot comes close to closed source system empty_mind: my question asked for clarification on an absolute. I see far too many things funded by the public, and then they are exploited by commercial companies Manoj, that is the reason though OSS has far superor quality but not that good looking face empty_mind: presentation? Manoj: as i see it, the two-way inspiration is good and necessary. Manoj, the frontend and easability to use [00:47] jace: nah. we should cut out the money grbbing middlemen Manoj, frontend+ usability = presentation this is the point that we disagree on then. I find linux to be far more usable than any commercial OS i have seen and multics was probably better than linux in a lot of areas empty_mind: and I am not sure what you mean by front end, really [00:48] 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] 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. I have worked in software since '85 I have very rarely been inspired by commerical products [00:50] the BSD doesn't bother itself with this. by a lot of research projects, yes and if there were no closed source, I don't think it would be a loss at all 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] 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] 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 as long as people like my GPL'd improvements, it does not matter that the code I expand used to be the BSD ") empty_mind: I have no interest in making software for the public [00:53] Manoj, sure ? 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" empty_mind: As I said here before, I see free software as the dining philosophers solution 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. empty_mind: so, I write code for myself. It is my version of picking up the fork. [00:54] Manoj, but not everyone is this world has hig enough IQ to solve dining philosophers problem empty_mind: I don't care for the people who are not helping out the people feeding each other here in the dining room Manoj, accept that there are people who have IQ lower than yours and people with IQ higher than your. 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] empty_mind: I am not hung up on people's IQ, so I don't really care about the IQ spectrum Manoj, it is not about helping others. Problem is several people have not reached a stage where they can understand something empty_mind: why should I care about them? [00:56] empty_mind: what's in it for me? Manoj, fine dont care about them. Commercial vendors care about them and thats why closed source software has a critical mass behind them empty_mind: as I said, I have no interest in what commercial vendors and their users do [00:57] Manoj, pls explain me given this situation how do you expect free software to reach critical mass Manoj, i agree commercial vendors are of no interest to you. But are masses also not critical to you ? 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] once we have snough people picking up the forks and feeding each other, we will reach critical mqss the people who and on for a free lunch can benefit, but don't really help 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] Manoj, had this hypothtical equation ben true even once in history of mankind we would have seen a beautiful world Manoj, philosophy has only thinking and theories/doctrines bu no real solution [01:00] 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 empty_mind: it has happened before. Look at the amish. read about community barn raising Manoj, whos amish ? [01:01] and I know it goes agains the grain of indian philosophy, but the past is not always prologue there are new things under the sun 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] Manoj, your new things might turn out be another silver bullet *** jace_ (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has joined channel #linux-india 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 once created, a digital copy has zero cost [01:03] this has never been true in the past Manoj, renaissance is did nothing. Do a research in history about the people who bought renaissance. You will withdraw you r argument *** jace (n=jace@202.56.231.116) has quit: Nick collision from services. *** jace_ (n=jace@202.56.231.116) is now known as jace a copy of a spoon or a table has a materials and manufacturing cost Manoj, but you cant eat with copy 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] and free software makes it very hard to create artificial scacities 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 Manoj: you're ignoring the framework of property rights, which brought economic incentive in the past. look up wikipedia and the slow bankruptcy of the britannica the deal here is not about the cost of reproduction, but of finding a substitute for intellectual property rights [01:05] which everyone agrees is both broken and very necessary. 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 DollarCulprit, are you logging this convesation ? Damn Django jace: SELinux is an example of innovation with no propreitary insipration [01:06] and we are making progress there -- despite a total lack of "property" Manoj: funded by taxes from proprietary innovation. funded by taxes. [01:07] the "property" is very much there, just earlier in the cycle. but not all taxes fcome from propreitary innovation I pay taxes your taxes are a negligible fraction of what the proprietary corporations pay. never had to write closed source code -- well, not in the last 18 years or so actually, personal income taxes are more than 2/3rd of the revenue of the US gummint [01:08] anyone logging the converstation ? so that i can go to ilugd meet in peace corporations pay a smaller fraction of the remaining one thirds and all those personal taxpayers do non-proprietary work? it is past 1am I need to go to bed I can copy-paste the conversation somewhere 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. jace: most of the tax payers deal with real goods KillerX, start logging [01:09] rather, your state exists *because* others don't live in it. carpenters are not so much into intellectual property law my plumber pays taxes the making of those real goods involves intellectual property. car comapnies make money selling cars, not by black marlketing knowledge Manoj: How long do you think it will take for an organization like Red Hat to earn as much as Microsoft or even Apple? the design of a spanner may not be patented, but the design of the machine that molded it is. most of the taxes in the us come from real goods and services, not by hoarding knowledge [01:10] lawyers make money from something that is not secret at all -- the law is out there for anyone to look up and it takes hoarded knowledge to produce those real goods and services. 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? * empty_mind remembers US != Rest of the world lawyer fees are higher than surgeons charges nah. no hoarded knowledge to fix my pipes or to repair my roof [01:11] or to build a house Manoj, OMFG! you want us to become lawyers 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. *** bluesmoon (n=bluesmoo@203.187.208.29) has joined channel #linux-india hmm - i wonder how long before this digresses into one of the familiar "whether sth is ethical ?" pathi t so far so good empty_mind: I think software creation could be closer to law than black marketeering, yes mary: sth? KillerX: "something" [01:12] oh :) mary: I have never played the immoral card anyway g'nite, folks *** empty_mind (n=orion@59.176.111.177) has quit: "Leaving" Yeah well a lot of immoral things happen in the real world other than making proprietary software ;) none of what we're discussing here is a closed system where you can measure cause and effect precisely. 'Night Manoj * f3ew points out that the traditional scarcity models of economics don't apply where the cost of reproduction is low You didn't answer my question BTW KillerX, Microsoft is an anamoly [01:13] KillerX: me? jace: Nope, Manoj KillerX: which question? The question everyone asks is: Can I become as rich as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs by making Free Software [01:14] KillerX, yes * jace is blogging about microfinance in rural maharashtra. f3ew: examples? 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 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? as long as you can tie it to your hardware, or cheat enough that you become a monopoly f3ew: examples please [01:15] jace, note the second part f3ew: or we'll consider that a theoretical yes. Manoj: Leaving aside the "moral" rightness. Every business plays dirty; lawyers included! 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 Tivo is probably a good example of locking software to hardware *** PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has quit: "Leaving" Manoj: That answer sounds like "playing the immoral card" to me :) [01:16] GOOG is an example as well 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 KillerX, how much money do you actually need? 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] f3ew: Hmm, I'm already convinced about FOSS, but I have trouble convincing my greedy peers ;) KillerX, why do you want to convince them? KillerX: so, ideally, a FOSS company should not be striving to reach the forbes 500 KillerX: nothing immoral about making money [01:18] Manoj: Now, that's a better answer :) I just don't want me and mine to be shelling out the money these companies make unless you become a robber baron f3ew: @ why I want to convince other people to use FOSS: because we can have more contributors that way The first step for someone to become a developer is being a user first, no? [01:19] no So you can developer Free Software without even using Free Software in the first place? [01:20] yes s/developer/develop 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) f3ew, are there actual cases of that?? technically, you can. But you wouldn't no what to make someone who's not already a FS user, developing FS? dalias the FSF add to it PBX's liek asterix, mythtv .... the FSF is both user and developer FOSS is great for infrastructure at the moment [01:21] I develop FOSS on the Mac they were FS users before there was a special name for FS.. dalias, look at history Emacs was and gcc were first developer on non-free systems back in the day, software was "de facto" free because there was no industry around it But that's because I was using FOSS before What FOSS isn't great for is business systems, like ERP applications when it became non-free, they refused to go with the trend but instead made new FS so sure, one can develop free software while running on propreitary systems; RMS has already demonstrated that they did temporarily use proprieatry systems [01:22] however You can, but the question is whether you would want to? they were FS users long before that dalias: well. that was a very long time ago they already had experience as FS users and knew how the freedoms "should be" Heh, the ilug-bom ML has gone mad Never thought a "Scilab workshop" topic would spark so much [01:23] *** gora (n=gora@59.176.103.149) has joined channel #linux-india * KillerX reads spicy flame war gora KillerX: Hi It would be nice of the IRC log for the last 90 minutes can be condensed, cleaned up, and posted on the mailing lists :) Yeah jace, BTW, I don't use Linux because it's cool KillerX: Which spicy flame war? And stoke another Flame War ;) f3ew: ? [01:24] gora: ilug-bom: Scilab workshop I haven't read any of this. Please post logs My logs start at 11:55 a.m.: Manoj: but the GPL is not a patent license. By the way, this is live text streaming from the ILUG-Delhi meeting scheduled to start in an hour. Anyone running before that? KillerX: you missed about 15 minutes [01:25] The thing that I don't like about the FSF folks are that they are too conclusive [01:26] i have logs from the beginning of my discussion with Manoj. conclusive? making statements like "stay away from Matlab" I mean something "I recommend you stay away from Matlab" would be better you know On another ML, somebody sent a mail from his blackberry ERC> and the FSF cavalry responded with "Is your mail client free software?" [01:27] hi I mean, come on. People using non-free software aren't demons hold on [01:28] hey bluesmoon KillerX: Yeah, but there *are* open-source alternatives to Matlab. bluesmoon: Hi. Coming to the ILUG-D meeting? 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] *** brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has joined channel #linux-india tuxmaniac: Hi. Long time no see. KillerX: OK, but when I did DSP, most people rolled their own, at least for the class work. :) hi KillerX [01:30] KillerX: What specifically is lacking in DSP areas? Students are getting lazier I guess :) gora, when is it? http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/india-irc.txt KillerX: I am sure that there is plenty of academic-licensed DSP code floating around that can be open-sourced. gora: You consider Scilab to be open-source, then no bluesmoon: (Just kidding.) It starts in an hour. [01:31] gora: that should contain all the information KillerX: Actually, I have no idea of the status of Scilab. Never had occasion to use it. ERC> /names *** 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 hmm - lets muddle up things further.. [01:32] so, if someone wants to clean up that irc log, and post a synopsis of the arguments offered, that would be real nice. jace, you had claim that on another mailing list [01:33] f3ew: sorry, what? was away. 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 ? Manoj: Sure. Post it on the linux-delhi lists. We have not had a good flame war in a while. jace, that I use Linux because it was cool [01:34] mary: you mean Oracle sponsoring Freedel with couple of talks on mySQL f3ew: i have no recollection of saying that. must have been ages ago. mary: I think that, at least at the moment, the ILUG-D consensus is no proprietary software demo/publicity at stalls. hey i bet someone here would know... [01:35] hmm - replace ILUGD with ILUGY mary: Sponsorship from proprietary companies is OK, at least by me. is there anywhere i can get a generic x86-linux binary of firefox with complex text (pango or whatever) support? 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? mary: I would guess that it is up to the LUG to decide. apparently the default builds dont have it :( :( and slackware's packages dont either dalias, check indlinux [01:36] 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] Then I can sell it and repay the loan short term gains, yes 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? 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 And I don't get any monetary gains either dalias: Which default builds? [01:38] KillerX, no in the long tem, much more could have come from people building on your ideas than you got from selling it you would build it Linux has thousands of people who have contributed at one time or the other way more people than the 100 guys you hired KillerX, are you looking at individual profit, or social profit? hint: they are not always the same f3ew: See, now that is the "morality" card. I'm not considering that at the moment [01:39] and definitely almost never with infrastructure projects gora, the ones from getfirefox.com 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 i'm using slackware KillerX, that isn't the morality card which has crappy packages Because if you do; then there's no question that FOSS is always the "right thing to do" dalias: What distribution do you use? That's an economic card gora, slackware look at plan 9 -- suppsedly agreat OS created by the same people who helped create UNIX. died. never went anywhere because I actually know of examples where things are better shared than unshared Manoj, not enough applications [01:40] 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. Linux blew it away -- despite great innovative ideas, and competent programmers. manoj, plan9 was an experiment, not a product Manoj: Then the reasons for Windows "success"? To some extent: OS X too? and plan9 definitely went somewhere lots of the modern things on unices came out of plan9 KillerX, Windows succeeded because of Microsoft's monopoly deals since crowdsourcing works better than experts, according to some recent papers I read even utf-8 was a result of plan9 if it weren't for plan9, we might very well be using windows... Windows + OS X = A lot more users than those of Linux KillerX, define user :) [01:41] gora, yeah, compiling from scratch is hell tho... i'm wondering if there's anywhere to get binaries f3ew: A user for an OS is anybody you uses a computer if you use Google to search, what are you using stupid getfirefox.com should have working binaries... s/you/who dalias: Yeah, but, that is about your only option, unless you want to switch distros. 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 Manoj, Windows did NOT open the hardware That was Compaq gora, they even have _localized_ firefox to several indian langs there by being more open than apple, ms succeeded -- even though apple was better than windows at being easy to use but the damn rendering doesn't work! [01:42] * f3ew smacks Manoj it works in the menus but not in the browser windows themselves, lol 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. Opened the hardware? That wasn't Windows doing! The PC won against the Mac dalias: Yes, I know, re localised firefox. f3ew: unlike apple, microsoft did not control hardware, did not restirc sound card/ mother boards, graphics cards fucking idiots... Microsoft just rode on the coattails of that PC why do they release a broken build that doesn't work?! f3ew: ms allowed any pc clone to run windows Okay the opened their software to Hardware KillerX, they didn't open the software [01:43] dalias: Here is a HOW-TO: http://developer.thamizha.com/index.php/How_to_build_firefox_with_indic_support they ran it on open hardware That's a big difference f3ew: I contrast with Apple whose software ran only on specific hardware Manoj, Micorosft never, ever controlled or owned the PC dalias: And, here they claim to have a version for download: http://thamizha.com/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=11 KillerX, Apple is a hardware vendor, Microsoft isn't [01:44] f3ew: Hence Apple's software was "closed" to hardware, while Windows was more "open also building takes about 1-2 gigs of space f3ew: exactly my hd is <4gig and i have about 200 megs.. f3ew: apple controlled everything, so apple lost 1-2 Gigs for Firefox? I don't think so last time i tried it took that much dalias: Try the download at thamiza.com (second link I posted) and then the resulting binary just sig11'd :( gora, thanks i'll check it out Manoj, my point is that you are giving MSFT credit which they don't deserve [01:45] there were multiple choices for DOS I am sayig why ms succeeded despite apple getting there first MS succeeded because they had smarter people (note I didn't say engineers) who gets the blame for ms making all the money is for others to determine oh, MSFT succeeded when they managed to get monopoly deals with PC makers Manoj: Moving on to DRM; how can I ensure that every copy of a song I make is being paid for? Manoj: Or do you think I shouldn't be paid for every copy of a song I make? [01:46] KillerX: not something I am interested in KillerX, why would you want to do that? f3ew: Well artists deserve monetary gains for their work, no? 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 Manoj: Ok 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 half my collection is because I borrowed music from someone, liked it, and went out to buy a copy KillerX: I get paid to write code. once written, the copies are free KillerX, no, they DESERVE nothing I am paid for my labour, not the product [01:47] Manoj, who pays for the cost of your labour though? a company called S/TDC So basically once you create something, anyone should be free to copy it? why would they pay you? [01:48] how do they benefit from what you did? f3ew: Now I'm not such a good person. All my music is borrowed from someone; and I kept those I liked why don't they ask you to write the software for free? KillerX: You can copy debian as many times as you want bluesmoon: they get the code written [01:49] Manoj: Yes. But what applies to software doesn't apply to every other field bluesmoon: until I wrote teh code, they had nada Manoj: Which is why I don't like FSF's stance on DRM so much KillerX: I don't think you have made your thesis Manoj: And Debian would fall if all it's developers were fired from their day jobs, no? Manoj, so now they have the code, why should they let anyone else get it for free? [01:50] bluesmoon: I cause I would write software I want to write, were I working for free Manoj: So essentially; some other companies are paying for Debian development even though they don't even know it bluesmoon: since they pay me, I write free software that they want me to write KillerX: umm, what? coming soon - the "choice" card bluesmoon: cause the software is written under the GPL [01:51] how do they recover the money they pay you? ok, so if they didn't pay you, would you write software? 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 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. Manoj: Company Z is in someway responsible for the development of Debian, no? [01:52] f3ew: they need the software to eprform mission critical business functions KillerX, if Company Z did not pay the developer, then he wouldn't have free time to work on debian right f3ew: also, sometimes we sell the software and services he'd spend all his time trying to find food bluesmoon: exactly or sitting on the road with a big sign saying Will write HTML for food KillerX: in the same sense that copany X pays for some ski resort So in essence, all of Free Software relies on the fact that everybody has got some "free time"? [01:53] FWIW, all my opensource projects died when I got a high paying job on the other hand, if your employer were a software vendor, would they still be willing to spread the code? KillerX: if company X pays a developer, and his free time they go skiiing, the company is paying fro the ski resort? bluesmoon, and you got sucked into working 14 hours a day? so all restaurants rely on the fact that their customers are being paid by someone else? Manoj, indirectly yes * jace thinks the discussion has derailed. and all these companies are subsidizing the restaurants? [01:54] yup f3ew, no, i don't work more than 8 hours a day but I also have a personal life heh man, you guys hav4e a weird take on subsidies Manoj, they aren't subsidising 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. bluesmoon, so your work and NDAs cut into your free software development time? f3ew: my employers main business is writing code for other people, and providing support for that code Unless you can work out a business model wherein you can actually pay people to write free software [01:55] not my NDAs - they're fairly liberal Manoj, but not selling boxed software KillerX: no more than restaurants take and don't pay KillerX: I mean, if people did not get paid, they would not eat out, so .... the fact is that now I actually have 8 hours of work every day f3ew: no, we don't sell boxed software. in the past, I had maybe 3 hours of work every week [01:56] gora, thanks, trying to satisfy dependencies now.. hope it works :) 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 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? * dalias grumbles somethning about how much nicer it would be if they made a static binary.. :) so, I'll help write software so pther people feel like writing software that replaces boxed software KillerX, and those who live off their parents' money [01:57] lol bluesmoon: Or, that :) 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) but yes, free software is a hobby Yep, it is a hobby :) [01:58] hobbies imply fr4ee time not grubbing for food, or finding shelter, or fighting off saber tootheed tigers Manoj, how will you write code when you have to sell your PC for food? Now, there are several who feel that it isn't just a hobby and in any case, how will you upload when the cable company knocks off your internet connection? And to convince them I will post a log of this chat :) 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] dalias: Cool. Let me know if it doesn't, and I can build one for you. * f3ew notes that the Indian economy still isn't at a stage where leisure time is cheap bluesmoon: lawyers manage to make money though their source is free (law), and they can't resell briefs * f3ew looks for solar_ant 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! I want to be paid for the labour, just like lawyers are Manoj: And to a hungry man, that's a lot of money for something you did as a hobby [02:00] Manoj, but if I can get the same thing out of a box for cheap, why would I not buy the box? Manoj, lawyers don't write the law, they use it KillerX: I am unlikely to be staring, given past experience, so this is a higy bizarre situation you are postulating 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] Manoj: Not if all the companies in the world ensure that their employees don't write Free Software ;) In that case, Free Software is gone KillerX, not really [02:02] f3ew: Who would write Free Software then? you will still have academia and students Manoj, lawyers are consultants, so that may work for software consultants. Not everyone is a software consultant because not all software is custom built 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 some software is service oriented and other software is commoditised like Sphies choice f3ew: Ah yes. Which reminds me, Summer of Code coming up :) KillerX: trying to prevent me writing code in my free time on my own equipment is illegal where I live. [02:03] Anyway the point I was making is that FOSS is not a 'career option'. It's just a hobby. Manoj: Agreed, that situation will never arrive. bluesmoon: I think with the coming of free software, non custome or non consulting job markets in software may face some contractions [02:04] 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?" KillerX: highly unlikely to come, yes. Something like "I'm going to be a pilot, and I'll write Free Software in my free time!" is a better answer KillerX: err, when I was a kid I wantred to be an engine driver on a steam train [02:05] :) what kids think they want ot do when grown up does not worry me a great deal Well I wanted to be an Engine Driver too until recently *** shaitaan (n=shaitaan@59.161.114.93) has joined channel #linux-india "Free Software isn't against Business" in the context of "you can sell emacs if you want" is an incorrect opinion [02:06] bluesmoon: commodity software is going to face serious sompetition from free counterparts, which results in price pressure. By ensuring that the code is open, you also ensure that the software CAN'T be sold [02:07] KillerX: sure you can sell emacs if you want. heh heh heh/ shaitaan bhaiyya - kaisan ho ? Manoj, the commodity layer moves upwards and there really aren't that many skilled programmers out there So indirectly, Free Software is _against_ selling software Which is why RHEL is such a mess when CentOS came along 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] KillerX, open source does not mean that it cannot be sold bluesmoon: open source means it is hard to sustain a scarcity Manoj, that isn't going to happen, and well, even if no one hires them, they can still write Free Software :D 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 bluesmoon: so you can't make massive profits; since someone else can come in and try to seel the same software :) [02:09] Because as soon as I sell the first copy, someone will start offering it for free KillerX, just sell it Why buy when you can get it for free? bluesmoon: ^ if you sell it, people will buy it the trick is in trademarking the name people pay through their noses for an OS when they can get one for free :P people will be forced to sell it under a different name bluesmoon: Not if someone else is offering the _exact_ product for free and it's the name that sells, not the software [02:10] KillerX, RedHat is profitab;e a little bit of FUD, and you are still in business KillerX, even then. Not a single user actually knows what features he's paying for no one ever got fired for buying IBM tell the customers the people not charging lots of money for the code can't be trusted f3ew: How long? And they aren't anywhere near being a "profitable" company you just need to be a good salesman f3ew: What's their index on NASDAQ? :) say things like "you get what you pay for, and I am charging amillion bucks" there is sucker born every minute :-D [02:11] 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 f3ew: Like Manoj says, Red Hat doesn't aim to be on the Forbes list. So, as a corporate it Sucks. when someone asks what the software does, they go into technical details [02:12] bluesmoon: not all of us programmers are poor communicators to sell your software, free or proprietary, you need to tell them what they want to hear Manoj, didn't you say that you make money? bluesmoon: it ight be something that does not interest us heck, my undergraduate taught me one thing: presentation is everything. presentation often trumps content [02:13] Manoj, if you're happy not making money, then that's fine, but then you shouldn't complain when you don't make it *** [1]brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has joined channel #linux-india *** brainless (n=brainles@220.225.83.162) has quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) bluesmoon: depends on how much money, and what you have to do to make it 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] Manoj, you have to sell your software, and by that I do not mean provide it at a cost I don't believe in selling software Manoj, you could hire a good salesman, and pay him a percentage of profits I believe in selling my services Manoj: Services aren't that convincing [02:15] Manoj, what if someone else is willing to provide the same services at a lower cost? Manoj: "services" implies that your product doesn't work well in the first place *** tazz (n=gaurav@202.177.166.15) has joined channel #linux-india [02:16] my services consist of systems analysis, design, architecture, and implementation 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 which is why you charge for "services" you guys lack imagination in what ones services might be because you're sure no-one can make it work if they don't buy your services mwhahaha you sre stuck in miscrosoftism I don't have to make a lousy product for people to value my services [02:17] and services don't mean maintenance Scenarios otherwise? I'd be glad to hear err, I already said wht my services are: systems analysis, design, architecture, and implementation *** empty_mind (n=orion@59.176.103.149) has joined channel #linux-india brb [02:18] I might to deployment planning, training, etc, but not usually Manoj, anyone can claim to do that bluesmoon: they can bluesmoon: I have a portfolioo anyone can build a portfolio too *** codo (n=codo@122.167.83.151) has joined channel #linux-india there are always clients who will take on a fresher for a lower cost 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] the system is written under the GPL [02:20] bluesmoon: sure. anyone can come up with a portfolio 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] people who talk to me about others who do the job for less, I drop like a hot potato 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] back Okay Services over Software is great My point is that when you say "Free as in speech" you automatically imply "Free as in Beer" [02:23] I solve probelms people have I do it by providing them free software solutions KillerX, no you don't but you hire me to solve your problems, not for the software I don't sell. red hat makes money selling free software [02:24] 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? you pony up $100+ a pop for mostly free software as does Xandros, for one bluesmoon: nah. I give them the software already written [02:25] bluesmoon: I don't make money hoardig software. Manoj: Wait until CentOS catches up. Why should I pay for RHEL4 when I can exactly the same product for Free (as in price)? If you want changes made, though, you pay me for my time and effort KillerX: you might not. But I've paid money for a Xandros desktop product [02:26] 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] *** PowerPork (n=power@61.95.147.26) has joined channel #linux-india 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? Manoj: Why did you do that?! Oh Now that's an idea :) I think enough people find the value added by Xandros good enough to fork over $100 for essentially a subset of debian * KillerX thinks of easy-install Gentoo and charging for it :-D [02:28] bluesmoon: the first company does not own the software. I do. bluesmoon: I provided them a solution, with free software Manoj: Why doesn't Debian "steal" Xandros' code and make it's own "nicely-put-together" version? *** shaitaan (n=shaitaan@59.161.114.93) has quit: Success they got the software under the GPL. They know what the GPL means KillerX: we are not interested? Erm, ok :) But only a matter of time before someone else does [02:29] And then Xandros is out of business KillerX: we are not interested in the limited choices xandros offers; we like having 11 arches, and 19000 packages KillerX: hasn't happened in like 10 years, unlikely to happen now I guess [02:30] 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 :) * bluesmoon out [02:31] Manoj: Does Xandros also offer services similar to RedHat? KillerX: they are spending time and effort adding value to free software *** devmodem (n=ttyUSB0@gnu-india/admin/anurag) has joined channel #linux-india KillerX: doing what they do would require time and effort and judgement. KillerX: I have no idea i Xandros also offers services [02:32] I have not bought services from them just the desktop OS Manoj: Yep, but someone is also free to take whatever Xandros has already done and offer it for free I suppose. but they can't call it xandors, of course [02:33] by the time they get around to changing all the xandros branding, xandros is out with a new version :) That's too much of a risk if someone is trying to convince an entrepreneur to fund his FOSS based business :) Yep, much like the case with CentOS KillerX: you seem to be mostly interested in bilking money from users using free software KillerX: this is not a topic of much interest to me [02:34] right p4 3GHz HT, 512M ddr ram, sony 16x dvdrw, benq combo drive, 60+40Gig ata hdd, sata supported mobo how much for can i sell it for 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 proc/mobo is 6-7 months old, rest is 3yrs old [02:35] Manoj: I'm totally in agreement with the view that Free Software is just a "hobby" and always will be well, tell that to red hat and Xandros [02:36] and linspire and canonical and Suse :) heh Making Money != Just Surviving If you really _want_ to make money; don't go down the Free Software route because it won't get you far [02:37] huh? really? 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. Shhh... The ILUG-D meeting is about to start. [02:38]