From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEzDuGNrZQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.14) Gecko/20101020 Thunderbird/3.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! References: <4cc4cb65$0$6985$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <5086cc5e-cd51-4222-a977-06bdb4fb3430@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <14fkqzngmbae6.zhgzct559yc.dlg@40tude.net> <8732ea65-1c69-4160-9792-698c5a2e8615@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4cc60705$0$23764$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc6753c$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Organization: SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.91.213.86 X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=Rc?YlOl?K1@Nc7PehKo47KYSB=nbEKnkK[R[7PZBi8oN1GQX8;5?CnGRED9SjB8:6IQo^8G8>AndM7Jg7C]QBImAoO On 2010-10-27 22:46, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote: > Yes, but the GPL says nothing different about what Colin Paul pointed out. I know. I understand the GPL and I understand the OSI definition. It just so happens that I think of open source in broader terms. When I buy a piece of software, I consider it open source if I have access to the source, if I can freely tinker with it for my own needs and if I can keep maintaining the software after official support has been dropped for it by the vendor. Redistribution is not a requirement. From now on, if I ever engage in a discussion similar to this, I'll name this specific brand of open source BOP: Business Open Source. :D > Result : big crisis (some near to injuries) all over the place, and > people shouting “if this is not free, this is not open source, because > Richard Stallman said so, and all people though this was a very clever > idea (they love him very for that). The FOSS movement is, IMHO, on to something. I might not agree with everything that's coming from RS, but I do like the fact that him and his people are trying to rid the world of black box software. If I hire a musician to compose something, the end result is fully visible to me. I can even check out some of the artists former work, to help me judge the quality of his/her work. My ability to do so does not in any way impede on the composers copyright. If I hire a carpenter to design and build me a house, I can see what he is doing and I'm not forced to call the same carpenter 5 years later just because I need to change a window. My ability to do so does not change the carpenters copyright. The house is still his design, and I just can't go building verbatim copies of his design without him granting me license to do so. If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit. I can take it apart and see how it works. I can customize it to suit my specific needs. This does not change the fact that I can't start my own car production and freely build copies of the car. The vendor is protected by the copyright laws. But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering, no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box. It's hard to judge the quality of a vendors products, when you can't actually see the product. I've heard a lot of excuses for this black box mentality, and all of them suck. > So try to attack the another way, and replied “but why not try to see > both the price and the open-source characteristic apart ?” I feel > indeed, price is a trait and open-source is another trait, and based on > this (if this were not different things, the same word could be used to > express both) I asked them : what is the most important for you in, say, > Linux : “the price which is zero, or its open-source trait”. Short talk > : impossible to get a single answer to this question, all replies was of > the form “open-source = free, why don't you want to say all every one > tell you here ?”. No way to make them understand these are two different > traits (technically, these are). The most important aspect of Linux, to me, is the freedom it gives me. I don't care about the price. I pay for each and every Slackware update. I like not being bound to any one vendor. I like knowing that Linux will probably exist in some form or another in many years. I like to know that I've build my companys IT infrastructure on something that isn't controlled by one vendor and said vendors more or less fickle share-holders. I like the fact that if the need should ever arise, I can hire X amount of programmers and have them implement whatever it is _my_ business needs. Freedom. > Open-source and free are simply synonymous all over the web and in near > to all minds. You are probably right. -- Regards, Thomas Løcke Email: tl at ada-dk.org Web: http:ada-dk.org IRC nick: ThomasLocke