tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post8811564168467503264..comments2023-09-29T18:11:15.809+10:00Comments on Notes tone unturned: Is it POSSible (or PROSSible) that the great FOSS debate is missing an important point?NotesTracker - Tony Austinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09051436094635008734noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-2612480282488613502009-04-06T22:48:00.000+10:002009-04-06T22:48:00.000+10:00This is a very nice post.This is a very nice post.Rajuhttp://www.rayhosting.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-91224326967481451162009-02-11T09:27:00.000+11:002009-02-11T09:27:00.000+11:00Hello, Anonymous. Yes, of course I realize that th...Hello, Anonymous. Yes, of course I realize that the software license for my hypothetical FantasticApp software imposes a limitation. My main point is that freedom can rightly have limits, which to me seems glossed over by the FOSS movement.<BR/><BR/>Many of us live in "open and free" democracies, but this doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we like. We're free within limits defined by our constitution and laws, which can vary between countries and at several levels within countries (federal, state, city/commune). So we can feel free and be able to pursue happiness in our own way, yet if we move to another state or another country we might have some of our original freedoms restricted (and some restrictions might be lifted).<BR/><BR/>To a certain extent, freedom is in the eye of the beholder. I get the strong feeling that the FOSS people think that even a mild form of proprietariness -- have I invented a new word -- such as POSS/PROSS that I'm proposing, is inherently evil no matter what.<BR/><BR/>How could POSS be evil? You get total freedom within the limits of its individual "constitution" (the particular license that you freely agree to, which may and probably will vary from vendor to vendor or even product to product).NotesTracker - Tony Austinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09051436094635008734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-70781139584141978472009-02-11T05:16:00.000+11:002009-02-11T05:16:00.000+11:00You have still put limits on the use of the softwa...You have still put limits on the use of the software: "WITHIN THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION". This is the border that makes the software proprietary - the original owners desire is that persons outside the organization not have access to the source code, regardless if the licensee wants to give that access or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-45554852375076444852009-02-10T20:01:00.000+11:002009-02-10T20:01:00.000+11:00Not quite my point, Alan. My discomfort with the F...Not quite my point, Alan. My discomfort with the FOSS movement is that they tend to obfuscate or cause confusion regarding the two different connotations of the word "free" whether or not they intended to do so.<BR/><BR/>In my pseudo-hypothetical example of the FantasticApp product, the users who pay the license fee are TOTALLY FREE to view and use the code in any way that they like WITHIN THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION. No usage restrictions whatsoever! Is that not freedom?<BR/><BR/>FantasticApp is indeed proprietary because the license [that you agree to if you "freely" decide to go ahead] states that you can use it only if you pay a license fee for it (so it isn't "free as in beer"), but for you [as a paid-up licensee] it is still "free as in freedom" is it not. <BR/><BR/>What's at all wrong with proprietary/commercial in this way? Otherwise, how would software vendors be expected to make a living? This is what's really troubling me about the FOSS movement's attitude. My POSS application would offer total freedom of use, but only if you pay for it, would it not?NotesTracker - Tony Austinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09051436094635008734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-83750717646304201442009-02-10T19:58:00.000+11:002009-02-10T19:58:00.000+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.NotesTracker - Tony Austinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09051436094635008734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11820831.post-65013861677062681772009-02-10T19:12:00.000+11:002009-02-10T19:12:00.000+11:00well that is why Richard Stallman talks about "Fre...well that is why Richard Stallman talks about "Free software" rather than Open Source. If you are restricting the freedom of your users then it is not Free software. Just because it isn't compiled or they have access to the source code does not make it Free software, or for that matter "Open Source" in terms of the Open Source Definition. This is proprietary software pure and simple. Source code visibility doesn't make it any less proprietary, any more than source escrow would.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com