Hi, Am going to work in a small manufacturing unit with a T.O. of around 9cr. Currently they do have a few desktops(un-networked) with pirated copies(based on discussions i doubt they know the difference and i want to change that) of Windows XP installed. By their roadmap and current projects in hand they see a very easy jump into a sub 20cr and perhaps more, category. I propose to install opensource software in this company, mostly to avoid licensing issues as soon as they are spotted on MS's radar as they grow larger. It's business not ideology.
Requirements: Tally software Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant. Spreadsheet Email etc
These are the basic requirements and currently they dont even have a website mostly because their business is not web centric or even remotely close to it.
I know there are other engineering based software variants to autocad out there, but are they as good? and what about Tally. As far as i know they can definitely afford a licensed version of engineering/accounting software. But they really need to avoid software costs in the future.
People i assume are not very software oriented apart from basic usage. Please note that software has to be scalable as the business is going to grow! So i would also need some miniature BI tool(even if it's just a spread sheet in it's simplest form) if possible in the future.
What are the possible chinks in going ahead with this model of using opensource?
Regards, Sachin
On 06-Jan-07, at 12:53 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
Qcad is available - but it is only 2D. NIC has a non-free 3D package that is pretty good
Spreadsheet Email etc
linux has these
On 1/6/07, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
Will GnuCash do?
Regards,
On 06-Jan-07, at 8:45 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
Will GnuCash do?
not really suited to the Indian way of doing accounts
On 06-Jan-07, at 8:37 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
you could also take a look at http://avsap.sourceforge.net - but be warned that installation is non-trivial and requires multiple clicks of your mouse button
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:05:07 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 06-Jan-07, at 8:37 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Financial/Accounting/ http://freshmeat.net/browse/76/
http://www.google.co.in/search?q=Linux+financial+accounting :-P
Indian but non-free :-( (i guess) :: http://www.kalculate.com/costs.php
On 06-Jan-07, at 8:37 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
do you mean 'financial accounting software'? If so, you would have to roll your own
How many clients are there in total? Using thin clients will be a good option for the users.
Also, the users can be trained on the use of Open Office and Linux based e-mail clients.
------ Nikhil http://www.scgworld.org http://blog.scgworld.org
How many clients are there in total? Using thin clients will be a good option for the users.
Also, the users can be trained on the use of Open Office and Linux based e-mail clients.
Training in my own experience has been very difficult, people almost immediately seem to compare it to their regular systems and start finding faults.
I thought if i could setup atleast one guy who does not use any major application (cad or tally in this case) and uses only email and drafts letters and so on. He could perhaps recommend it to them in due course..
Regards, Sachin G
On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:54, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
How many clients are there in total? Using thin clients will be a good option for the users.
Also, the users can be trained on the use of Open Office and Linux based e-mail clients.
Training in my own experience has been very difficult, people almost immediately seem to compare it to their regular systems and start finding faults.
I thought if i could setup atleast one guy who does not use any major application (cad or tally in this case) and uses only email and drafts letters and so on. He could perhaps recommend it to them in due course..
You are trying to trickle down (or up) usability. That will most likely not work. You need to make a sound busine$$ case, by assigning value to the pros and cons of using GNU/linux. It's not easy. But will save you from stupid users and brain dead IT bosses.
--- Laxminarayan G Kamath A laxminarayan@deeproot.co.in wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
With warm regards Koustubha Kale
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:48:02 -0800 (PST), Koustubha Kale koustubha_kale@yahoo.com wrote:
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
There is no harm in praising a non-free software on a Free Software mailing list .. but please dont forget to mention explicity that it is non-free.
On Saturday 06 January 2007 11:39, Laxminarayan G Kamath A wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:48:02 -0800 (PST), Koustubha Kale
koustubha_kale@yahoo.com wrote:
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
There is no harm in praising a non-free software on a Free Software mailing list .. but please dont forget to mention explicity that it is non-free.
And a piece of junk as per the people who know accounting. Grep the list archives for the reasons.
On 06-Jan-07, at 11:18 AM, Koustubha Kale wrote:
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
obviously you are not a chartered accountant - check the archives of this list to see why tally is bad
On 05/01/07 21:48 -0800, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- Laxminarayan G Kamath A laxminarayan@deeproot.co.in wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
I am sorry, but I do recommend reading the archives for opinions about this. Given that Tally breaks the 400+ year old principles of double entry accounting, I am not going to call it a sound investment.
Devdas Bhagat
On 06-Jan-07, at 2:27 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
Given that Tally breaks the 400+ year old principles of double entry accounting, I am not going to call it a sound investment.
but supports desi double-entry ;-)
On Saturday 06 January 2007 15:00, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 06-Jan-07, at 2:27 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
Given that Tally breaks the 400+ year old principles of double entry accounting, I am not going to call it a sound investment.
but supports desi double-entry ;-)
Given the new RTI act, shoudnt the IT dept insist on sccounting packages to be following some standards that make manipulation a liable offence. That way manipulators wont have an advantage over honest folks.
--- jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Is varicad free / open source? Doesn't seem to be from their site atleast.
With warm regards Koustubha Kale
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Saturday 06 January 2007 15:09, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Is varicad free / open source? Doesn't seem to be from their site atleast.
No it isnt.
Thank you for all your replies,
I will check out all the accounting software mentioned but the decision is ofcourse in the end with the company heads. If tally is available for linux then i would presume they would go head with it so that there is minimal learning curve to be negotiated.
I'll ofcourse keep everyone posted on developments if people are interested but this implementation (if i may call it that) might take a while. My intention is to have atleast one(to my miniscule knowledge) of a highly successful linux implementation for a small manufacturing unit cost wise and strategy wise. A unit which will grow but need not depend upon external proprietory vendors who charge exhorbitant rates. Even playing with the idea of a mix with one system for AutoCad, and all others using software like spreadsheets/email etc. on Linux.
Idea is to reduce to functioning of IT to only an incidental level as opposed to it being a strategic function. I may be wrong here, but any corrections recommendations, suggestions are welcome. This unit has no experience with IT (4-5 computers) whatsoever and am a management guy and nowhere close to an IT whizz :)
Regards, Sachin G. Nambiar
PS: Am more or less a linux newbie ..
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 05/01/07 21:48 -0800, Koustubha Kale wrote:
--- Laxminarayan G Kamath A laxminarayan@deeproot.co.in wrote:
Requirements: Tally software
Tally is available on Linux. Also your accountants and Auditors will be really happy if they have tally. Its a sound investment for a company of any size.
I am sorry, but I do recommend reading the archives for opinions about this. Given that Tally breaks the 400+ year old principles of double entry accounting, I am not going to call it a sound investment.
Huh ? Tally works with double entry accounting. Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
Regards Saswata
Devdas Bhagat
On 06-Jan-07, at 5:55 PM, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Given that Tally breaks the 400+ year old principles of double entry accounting, I am not going to call it a sound investment.
Huh ? Tally works with double entry accounting. Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
he is talking of principles or standards
On 06/01/07 17:55 +0530, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote: <snip>
Huh ? Tally works with double entry accounting. Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
One of the few things about double entry accounting I remember is that deletion was not allowed. I may be wrong, though.
Devdas Bhagat
On 06-Jan-07, at 11:03 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
One of the few things about double entry accounting I remember is that deletion was not allowed. I may be wrong, though.
alteration/deletion of a voucher is done by making reversal entries - but if you look at the accounts of auditors scrabbling around at the bottom of the food chain you will find huge bills for erasers and white ink - they are the same people who use tally
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:55 +0530, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
<snip>
Huh ? Tally works with double entry accounting. Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
One of the few things about double entry accounting I remember is that deletion was not allowed. I may be wrong, though.
Devdas Bhagat
Double Entry accounting specifies that for every entry that is made in the accounts, there has to be 2 parts, one being the credit and the other being debit and that the total of the debits should be equal to the total of the credits. It does not say anywhere that you can not delete an entry. You are very much allowed to delete entries, though it is frowned on by all good accountants and auditors.
You must remember that Double Entry System is more than 400 years old and at that time there was no "delete" button available. The only way you could delete an entry was to scratch it out (or perhaps use eraser / white ink) and recast the totals. However, this is obviously not a safe method.
With tally type of accounting software, deletion is now possible and the bad accountants have started to use it. It is easy for them to hide their errors that way.
Just to clarify, I dont like tally. I think it is the most stupid accounting software available. I always recommend to my clients to switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting software that is any better. So you are stuck.
BTW, I am yet to see Tally Linux. I doubt if the dealers or even Tally customer support would have heard of it. It is a statement that they have been making for a loooong time and can be classified with vaporware.
Regards Saswata
On 08/01/07 22:07 +0530, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 06/01/07 17:55 +0530, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
<snip>
Huh ? Tally works with double entry accounting. Where did you get the idea that tally does not follow double entry accounting ?
One of the few things about double entry accounting I remember is that deletion was not allowed. I may be wrong, though.
Devdas Bhagat
Double Entry accounting specifies that for every entry that is made in the accounts, there has to be 2 parts, one being the credit and the other being debit and that the total of the debits should be equal to the total of the credits. It does not say anywhere that you can not delete an entry. You are very much allowed to delete entries, though it is frowned on by all good accountants and auditors.
You are supposed to add a negative entry to achieve the same goal. Allowing deletions also allows fraud. <snip>
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting software that is any better. So you are stuck.
So why not contribute to AVSAP?
BTW, I am yet to see Tally Linux. I doubt if the dealers or even Tally customer support would have heard of it. It is a statement that they have been making for a loooong time and can be classified with vaporware.
Is that Tally on Linux, or a Linux distro from Tally? Tally on Linux is supported on RHEL and SuSE, only, afaik.
Devdas Bhagat
Devdas Bhagat wrote:
*****deleted *****
BTW, I am yet to see Tally Linux. I doubt if the dealers or even Tally customer support would have heard of it. It is a statement that they have been making for a loooong time and can be classified with vaporware.
Is that Tally on Linux, or a Linux distro from Tally? Tally on Linux is supported on RHEL and SuSE, only, afaik.
Devdas Bhagat
I mean the Linux version of Tally. (tally running on linux) I have only heard of it, but even Tally dealers have not actually seen it.
Has anyone here used tally in linux (except through vmware or wine) ?
Regards Saswata
On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting software that is any better. So you are stuck.
So why not contribute to AVSAP?
good question - in fact I have finally found a person who knows accounts and willing to be a mentor for avsap - so work has restarted
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 06:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting software that is any better. So you are stuck.
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you
So why not contribute to AVSAP?
good question - in fact I have finally found a person who knows accounts and willing to be a mentor for avsap - so work has restarted
-- regards
Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS lawgon@au-kbc.org http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving you
not free
i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a wonderful disclaimer :
<quote>
KalCulate is sold to its customer for their use as per the policy of each version. This sale does not transfer the rights to\ software and/or its code in any way to the user under any circumstances whatsoever. With the use of KalCulate, we are givin\g a facility of accounting and inventory management and other features of the software and we are in no way responsible for \any data-loss or consequential lossess or any other losses, if any suffered by anyone whosoever.
</quote>
For further irritation, the disclaimer can be reached again on :
http://www.kalculate.com/disclaimer.php
Does anybody hear alarm bells?
Regards,
- vihan
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Where did you learn that?
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:59:09 +0530, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Where did you learn that?
I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am buying. I do not understand why this right extends to distribution? It's akin to piracy in a loose sense!
Sachin G.
On 12-Jan-07, at 8:37 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Where did you learn that?
I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am buying. I do not understand why this right extends to distribution? It's akin to piracy in a loose sense!
what is piracy? stealing of software? how can you steal software? can you steal air that you breathe? is software property? If i have a dosai and give you my dosai, now you have a dosai and i dont. If i have source code and give it to you, we both have source code. Frankly I fail to see what you are doing in this list without the faintest understanding - or attempt to understand the concept of FOSS or OSS. We have given you sufficient references which you cant be bothered reading. I suggest you at least look up wikipedia for the terms FOSS and OSS if you cant be bothered reading the original sources.
what is piracy? stealing of software? how can you steal software? can you steal air that you breathe? is software property? If i have a dosai and give you my dosai, now you have a dosai and i dont. If i have source code and give it to you, we both have source code. Frankly I fail to see what you are doing in this list without the faintest understanding - or attempt to understand the concept of FOSS or OSS. We have given you sufficient references which you cant be bothered reading. I suggest you at least look up wikipedia for the terms FOSS and OSS if you cant be bothered reading the original sources.
Actually i have been through the original sources. i suggest you read my other mail which i think clarifies the point.
Sachin G.
i would say HIGHLY not FOSS. In fact their website has a wonderful disclaimer :
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software it's FOSS alright. Freedom to change code, need not be to distribute.
Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before quickly defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.
For your benefit i'll quote it once again.
``KalCulate is sold to its customer for their use as per the policy of each version. This sale does not transfer the rights to\ software and/or its code in any way to the user under any circumstances whatsoever.
With the use of KalCulate, we are givin\g a facility of accounting and inventory management and other features of the software and we are in no way responsible for \any data-loss or consequential lossess or any other losses, if any suffered by anyone whosoever."
If you can please show me a link where ``Kcalculate provides the code along with the software" and has a FOSS based license i will agree it is FOSS.
In fact a few google searches will tell you people criticizing the app for not being FOSS/FLOSS :-) compatible.
Regards,
- vihan
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, "IF .. " .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
These are easily verifiable facts. You don't need to speculate out loud. It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of the GPL first.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, "IF .. " .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
These are easily verifiable facts. You don't need to speculate out loud. It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of the GPL first.
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).
Sachin G.
On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).
*sigh*
Pradeepto
On 1/12/07, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).
LOL! So nice of you and hats off to your attitude! Nobody says you shouldn't keep things to yourself and not share, but for such a great attitude FOSS is not your base and we are not your brethren.
Here the rule is simple, you get the freedom if you are ready to give the same to others, same as in 100%. If not... just stay away!
If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion with such comments.
LOL! So nice of you and hats off to your attitude! Nobody says you shouldn't keep things to yourself and not share, but for such a great attitude FOSS is not your base and we are not your brethren.
Here the rule is simple, you get the freedom if you are ready to give the same to others, same as in 100%. If not... just stay away!
If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion with such comments.
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me to distribute. Simple!
Sachin G.
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me to distribute. Simple!
You have to understand one thing. If you want to go the FOSS way, you can't be considering software as a *whole* product. Your point is valid considering the situation where you sell copies of your software and get money for each copy of them. But, whats in practice in FOSS arena is you give the software as 'free' but you charge for support and service.
Its based on what kind of software you make that this model may suit you or not. if it suits you, you can follow this business model. If you want to sell the software, just keep selling it and make money, then you have to rather embrace proprietary model than FOSS model for your business. It very much depends upon what kind of software you make, where it is deployed, what are the alternatives and many more factors which determine how you can make *some* money with the above said business model.
Its simple, if you can embrace our business model you stay in our pack. Else, you can use FOSS tools and make software which doesn't give the users the 'freedom to share and distribute', but you can not still call it FOSS software, because it has denied the important point of the 4 freedoms a Free software offers its user.
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me to distribute. Simple!
You are confusing between open software that you publicly distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an individual company. FOS Software created and customized for a company is anyway private and will not be distributed to others. FOS Software sold/distributed openly is open for distribution ( of the code ) by all under the GPL. When you create software you are free to choose the license under which you want to distribute it according to your ideological beliefs. The FOSS ideology believes that since you use FOSS resources for creating your piece, you are duty bound to give back the changes you made *iff_you * distribute it to others. Please note that the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Others may correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer uses FOSS and modifies it for a customer/company, he is *not* bound to give out the code, even to that customer, unless is demanded under the agreement made between the 2 parties. But if he sells/distributes the modified code openly to anyone, he is bound to reveal the modifications made.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a software and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe laath mat maro ... :). Some people on some forum had contended that your software has to be freely distributable, or maybe i read them wrong.
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
On Friday 12 January 2007 23:29, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
Quoting from Citizen Kane:
"You talk about the people as though you own them, as though they belong to you! Goodness! As long as I can remember, you've talked about giving the people their rights.. As if you can make them a present of liberty, as a reward for services rendered. Remember the working man? (...) You used to write an awful lot about the working man... It's turning into something called 'organised labour'. You're not gonna like that one little bit when you find out that your working man expects something as HIS right, not as your gift! When your precious underprivileged really get together... Oh boy! That's gonna add up to something bigger than your privileges and I don't know what you'll do!"
Does that tell you something about FOSS? Its power to the USER.
As long as it does not take power away from the maker.
Oh... so its power and control that you are worried about. Gee i wonder who else thought/thinks like that.
Sure ... more power
to the user.
More power for ME => power for the people.
How many throughout history have said this, and ended up exploiting and then butchering the very same people.
Seige Heil mien furherer.
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
- vihan
More power for ME => power for the people.
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
- vihan
lets not take things out fo context and be snide about it shall we? I wondered aloud, some people have kindly given me some answers. Let that be the end of it.
Thank you, Sachin G.
lets not take things out of context
i believe we context switched - READ to your statements and all the WRITE(S) have been happening since then.
and be snide about it shall we?
When you make provocative statements based on a complete lack of understanding of FOSS on a GNU/Linux users mailing list what did you expect?
I
wondered aloud,
Well, when people wonder things like this its pretty offensive and dangerous for the community, and such ``wonderings" have to be responded to in kind.
Your statements :
<quote> There are just too many parasites out there in the world. Does he not have a right? </quote>
is offensive to the concept of knowledge sharing which is what FOSS is all about.
<quote> I easily understand my right to read the code of the product am buying. I do not understand why this right extends to distribution? It's akin to piracy in a loose sense! </quote>
There are no pirates in the FOSS world. If you do not understand how the FOSS business model works then please read :
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
<quote> Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. : </quote>
O.K, it seems what you are stating is similar if not same to what micro$oft has been harping about - the shared source model - share some(sic) code and distribution does not come into picture. Well, now we know where your inclination and inspiration came from. We all know that shared source went phut and i guess that tells you something about why that line of thinking just doesn't work.
<quote> If i make a software and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe laath mat maro ... :) <quote>
READ THE FOSS BUSINESS MODEL IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE.
<quote> Actually i have been through the original sources. i suggest you read my other mail which i think clarifies the point. </quote>
Been there done that. If you are thinking GNU/Linux technically and trying to be micro$oft in policy - you are just asking to be singed, burnt, and eventually charred on any mailing list.
some people have kindly given me some answers. Let that be
the end of it.
The end is what YOU believe in and how it impacts your life and that of the community.
Regards(to you and the mailing list),
- vihan
Once again to clarify,
Your slightly acerbic comments do have the scent of your passion towards FOSS. Iam all for passion, but just consider the point i have been trying to make.
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw) he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so, he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights & patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the originator/creator.[point 2]
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish. But when i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in developing, market research for usability and marketing. The creator has every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not! Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will make my business model non-profitable! What about the creator's effort then? Sure you might build on it to make something better, but the original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software, but not at his expense! He has created something and wants to be compensated for his effort. If he does not it's a different matter. But saying that he should release as distributable is infringing upon his moral right!(this is indirectly implied when you dub his software as not free (as in freedom))
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the creator. If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he should have his say. That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL) is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
Now iam all for freedom software, but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right. It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
Regards, Sachin G.
On 14/01/07 15:57 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Once again to clarify,
Your slightly acerbic comments do have the scent of your passion towards FOSS. Iam all for passion, but just consider the point i have been trying to make.
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
No one is denying your right to choose a business model. You can still choose to manufacture buggy whips.
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw) he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so, he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights & patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the originator/creator.[point 2]
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish. But when
Hint 1: You are not exactly buying software, you are merely accepting a license in most cases.
i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in developing, market research for usability and marketing. The creator has every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not!
Common fallacy. Once you put it out into the public, you can't control who gets it.
Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will make my business model non-profitable! What about the creator's effort then? Sure you might build on it to make something better, but the
You see, it is not for anyone else to guarantee the success of your business model.
original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software, but not at his expense! He has created something and wants to be compensated for his effort. If he does not it's a different matter. But saying that he should release as distributable is infringing upon his moral right!(this is indirectly implied when you dub his software as not free (as in freedom))
The author has every right to release software under any license they like. One of the conditions that any software must pass to qualify as Free Software is that there be no limits on the right to redistribute the software, as long as that right is not removed from the next person.
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the creator. If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he should have his say. That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL) is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
You can't. Sorry, but that's just the way it works. The origincal code stays under the same license as before, because the only people who can change that license are the copyright owners.
Now iam all for freedom software, but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right. It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators
It doesn't say free of charge. It just says that redistribution must be allowed.
The GPL explicitly claims that the _source_ of the software needs to be made available to the recipients of the binary at a maximum cost of distribution media.
right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
Keeping that privilege requires that you follow the conditions under which this privilege is extended to you.
Devdas Bhagat
2007/1/14, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:
The author has every right to release software under any license they like. One of the conditions that any software must pass to qualify as Free Software is that there be no limits on the right to redistribute the software,
This much is enough to qualify it as Free Software, See BSD, MIT, X all are Free Software.
as long as that right is not removed from the next person.
This is copyleft Free Software. See Apple Darwin it is based on BSD core
but the users of apple does not have the rights even though the original bsd is Free Software because it is not copyleft.
Regards Praveen
On 14-Jan-07, at 6:40 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
This much is enough to qualify it as Free Software, See BSD, MIT, X all are Free Software.
w00t
Hint 1: You are not exactly buying software, you are merely accepting a license in most cases.
exactly
Common fallacy. Once you put it out into the public, you can't control who gets it.
true, i was only talking about the maker's right!
You see, it is not for anyone else to guarantee the success of your business model.
true again. but i have the right/intellect/stupidity to choose the model for my business.
Keeping that privilege requires that you follow the conditions under which this privilege is extended to you.
Thank you. My only intention in these mails was to clarify my stand and was also corrected on some occasions in the process.
Thank you, Sachin G.
Looks like my first reply exceeded the limits so will split the reply now.
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
Once again to clarify,
It would be good if you could go back to the replies and try to understand what other people have been trying to say rather than repeating what you think again and again.
Your slightly acerbic comments do have the scent of your passion towards
FOSS. Iam all for passion, but just consider the point i have been trying to make.
So many people have repeatedly explained to you why the point you have been trying to make is wrong, try to understand it.
I create X.
Wait a minute... is it like "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." ... In FOSS you build on other people's work. Show us atleast a trivial software which "you" have created on you own.
I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does
not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
Even the simplest hello world program need the library files and compiler (interpreter), text editor/IDE, Compiler and the runtime library ...
First show us the code which you created and we will listen.
Cheers Praveen
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
You are thinking in terms of the proprietory business model. I agree with you that you have the righ to chose your business model. But why do you think we should accept your model? Because many people already does that? Sorry we in the Free Software world does not think so. See what Eben Moglen thinks abot it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
Moglen believes the idea of proprietary software is as ludicrous as having "proprietary mathematics" or "proprietary geometry". This would convert the subjects from "something you can learn" into "something you must buy", he has argued. He points out that software is among the "things which can be copied infinitely over and over again, without any further costs".
Software id knowledge and it should be avilable to every one. If you don't agree to this, well we don't agree with you as well :-)
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw)
he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so, he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights & patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the originator/creator.[point 2]
In the US constitution: The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):
[Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html for more info on the motivations for copyright.
The aim of the copyright law is not to protect originator but to promote progress of science and useful arts. Get your basics right.
So don't think authors have any natural right to their work. It is granted by the goverment so as to benefit the public.
Cheers Praveen
The aim of the copyright law is not to protect originator but to promote progress of science and useful arts. Get your basics right.
So don't think authors have any natural right to their work. It is granted by the goverment so as to benefit the public.
Now is that fair? That the government should decide? But that goes into a totally different discussion. Maybe this is the problem.
Sachin G
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.
That is Freedom 0. If you buy a non-free software you don't have these rights.period.
But when
i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in developing, market research for usability and marketing.
You are thinking from a proprietory business model. Free Software is created because we want to live in Freedom. Open Source Software is to develop powerful and reliable software. There isn't a creator but every one collaborate here.
The creator has
every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not!
This is not a natural right but one he got from the Bern Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary...
Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will
make my business model non-profitable!
Chose another business model that is profitable. Who said you should chose a non-profitable business model?
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made
the software, but not at his expense!
No, if he likes to see th whole socity benefited he would have released it as Free Software.
Cheers Praveen
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the creator.
Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you want to call it Free Software and still being able to restrict the user of the fundamantal Freedoms. Is anyone infringing upon Microsoft's moral rights because they release non-free software. We said we will show you how to make ethical software and demonstrated practically how to develop ethical software and it now powers a billion dolla industry. Just see how much money IBM, HP, and others make from Free Software
"HP claims it has started to make higher margins from open source than proprietary software in some instances, due to the support costs associated with migration." http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39284344,00.htm
If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he
should have his say.
He has, that's how the whole FOSS software works it is not Richard Stallman or Linus Torvals that decides the license for a FOSS Software, it is individual developers who decide and it is their code and they have chosen to allow Free distribution.
That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL)
is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
No you cannot unless you right it yourself. or it is under BSD. If you are not ready to give your software to other how hippocrite of you to expect to be allowed to distribute a GPL software in any license you like!
Now iam all for freedom software,
As long as can leech code from others ...
but just because FOSS philosophy says
that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.
You don't have to accept it but don't say it is not right because you don't like it. Call your software something else. If you want to call your software FOSS then you have to follow the FOSS philosophy or you are free to call it something else.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators
right.
You don't understand a bit about anything.
You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege
not your right!
It is the right of the users to chose only softwares that allow them to redustribute.
Cheers Praveen
Nobody compels you to release it as Free Software, but don't insist you want to call it Free Software and still being able to restrict the user of the fundamantal Freedoms. Is anyone infringing upon Microsoft's moral rights because they release non-free software. We said we will show you how to make ethical software and demonstrated practically how to develop ethical software and it now powers a billion dolla industry. Just see how much money IBM, HP, and others make from Free Software
i agree they profit from it.
"HP claims it has started to make higher margins from open source than proprietary software in some instances, due to the support costs associated with migration." http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39284344,00.htm
sure..
If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he
should have his say.
He has, that's how the whole FOSS software works it is not Richard Stallman or Linus Torvals that decides the license for a FOSS Software, it is individual developers who decide and it is their code and they have chosen to allow Free distribution.
That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL)
is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
No you cannot unless you right it yourself.
isn't that the point? to write myself when i say modify some parts i can release those parts under as different license.
or it is under BSD. If you
are not ready to give your software to other how hippocrite of you to expect to be allowed to distribute a GPL software in any license you like!
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect to the code from the original software.
As long as can leech code from others ...
untrue..
You don't have to accept it but don't say it is not right because you don't like it.
Why not? I have laid out my reasons. Don't say my reasons are incorrect without dis-proving it.
Call your software something else. If you want to call your software FOSS then you have to follow the FOSS philosophy or you are free to call it something else.
sure .. but you fail to notice the failures in some points in FOSS.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators
right.
You don't understand a bit about anything.
is it not really? if i make something does the society/government have a right to tell me what/how to do stuff? lets not resort to personal remarks shall we :). iam finally receiving some good replies .. lets not spoil that.
You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege
not your right!
It is the right of the users to chose only softwares that allow them to redustribute.
here we are in agreement. option/right to choose!!
regards, Sachin G.
On 14-Jan-07, at 8:01 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect to the code from the original software.
cool - draft your own license and release it
nobody said am not ready to give my software out. it was about free distribution. if i write something i allow you to change, modify and do as you wish just dont release a variant using my code and after appending you code. i would ofcourse extend the same respect to the code from the original software.
cool - draft your own license and release it
True, and don't claim freedom where there is no freedom to distribute it is contradictory.
Regards,
- vihan
2007/1/15, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
cool - draft your own license and release it
And if you want to call it as Open Source Software get it aproved by the Open Source Initiative and if you want to call it as Free Software get it accepted by Free Software Foundation.
Cheers Praveen
On 16-Jan-07, at 6:11 PM, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen wrote:
cool - draft your own license and release it
And if you want to call it as Open Source Software get it aproved by the Open Source Initiative and if you want to call it as Free Software get it accepted by Free Software Foundation.
not necessary - call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
cool - draft your own license and release it
And if you want to call it as Open Source Software get it aproved by the Open Source Initiative and if you want to call it as Free Software get it accepted by Free Software Foundation.
not necessary - call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something about it. Anyone is free to adopt any free software license they want, there's really no ``signing up" required with anyone. Only if one has chosen one of the FSF licenses and are violating it or violating GPL in general then FSF can take action against the entity concerned.
Regards,
- vihan
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:02:31 +0530, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
cool - draft your own license and release it
- call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those
two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
makes sense!
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something about it.
i think all stake holders involved will keep track. If a competitor of X is violating GPL, X would mostly definitely be on to him! Perhaps point it out and inititate action through FSF.
Sachin G. Nambiar Indian Pneumatic & Hydraulic Co.
i think all stake holders involved will keep track.
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best of my knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
If a competitor of X
is violating GPL, X would mostly definitely be on to him! Perhaps point it out and inititate action through FSF.
That's generally the way it has been. Either the incident has been reported to FSF(anonymously or otherwise) and FSF alone or FSF and the entity therein have taken the violator to book. An interesting point however is that the first contact is made discretely to the violator informing of the violation, then helping out with correcting the situation. If however the entity refuses to co-operate then matter goes into arbitration or eventually litigation.
Regards,
- vihan
2007/1/17, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com:
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best of my knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
As mentioned earlier - Harald Welte defend GPL and has won cases in court upholding GPL's validity in court.
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
Cheers Praveen
On 17-Jan-07, at 1:21 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
i think all stake holders involved will keep track.
Sounds logical, but i haven't seen any individual(again to the best of my knowledge) doing a solo defense of his GPL'd code.
harald welte
2007/1/17, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com:
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something about it.
No, Harald Welte and http://gpl-violations.org/ also keeps track of gplviolations
Anyone is free to adopt any free software license they want, there's
really no ``signing up" required with anyone.
I was talking about the case when anyone writes "their_own_license"
Only if one has chosen one of
the FSF licenses and are violating it or violating GPL in general then FSF can take action against the entity concerned.
Not correct. FSF can act only agaist violations of the softwares which it
owns full copyright (that's why most of the official GNU software projects mandates copyright assignment to FSF - only then FSF can enforce GPL compliance).
Cheers Praveen
Very true, but i guess FSF is probably(correct me if i'm wrong) the only organisation which keeps a track of GPL violations and does something about it.
No, Harald Welte and http://gpl-violations.org/ also keeps track of gplviolations
thanks for the info :-)
Only if one has chosen one of
the FSF licenses and are violating it or violating GPL in general then
FSF
can take action against the entity concerned.
Not correct. FSF can act only agaist violations of the softwares which
it owns full copyright (that's why most of the official GNU software projects mandates copyright assignment to FSF - only then FSF can enforce GPL compliance).
Hmm... that's true however the FSF will and does ``offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same."
Ref : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Regards,
- vihan
2007/1/17, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
not necessary - call it what you feel like calling it. Who made those two organisations the sole arbiters of what is what?
Agreed, but those are the two organisations who defined these two terms
"Open Source" and "Free Software" so if they accept that your license is according to the FOSS defintion others believe you and it removes the headache of other developers in using your code. If FSF says it is a "GPL compatible Free Software license" then anyone can mix and match your code and other GPLed code out there.
If you don't do it then everyone who are going to make use of your code will have to spent time on deciding compatibility and worry about legality.
Cheers Praveen
On 14-Jan-07, at 3:57 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to choose my business model! [point 1]
yes
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw) he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so, he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights & patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the originator/creator.[point 2]
here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the difference.
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover - check the EULA
But when i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in developing, market research for usability and marketing. The creator has every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not! Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will make my business model non-profitable! What about the creator's effort then? Sure you might build on it to make something better, but the original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]
if you distribute it without the permission of the creator - you will wind up in jail. You can only distribute it if the creator gives you permission - which is called a license. Kindly check the difference between license and copyright
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software,
he made the software either because he enjoys making software, or to scratch an itch or to make money. Nobody writes software for the benefit of society.
but not at his expense! He has created something and wants to be compensated for his effort. If he does not it's a different matter. But saying that he should release as distributable is infringing upon his moral right!(this is indirectly implied when you dub his software as not free (as in freedom))
he has the right to do whatever he wants with it - but if he keeps it non-free, it is non-free.
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the creator.
how so? FOSS is not a law - it has no police to enforce it's dictates. It is an opinion. I firmly believe that the earth is flat. And that anyone who thinks it is round is an idiot. How does that infringe on your fundamental right to believe that the earth is round? Or do you think the flat earth society should be banned?
If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he should have his say. That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL) is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
jail
Now iam all for freedom software,
you arent
but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.
you have the right to believe that the FOSS philosophy is wrong. And also learn to distinguish between free as in freedom and free as in free of charge.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
ahh - here you are right
here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the difference.
no confusion .. everything in it's place as long as the message has gone across even if not in agreement.
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover - check the EULA
who said anything about doze? i was talking about my rights.
if you distribute it without the permission of the creator - you will wind up in jail. You can only distribute it if the creator gives you permission - which is called a license. Kindly check the difference between license and copyright
my sentiments exactly...
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software,
he made the software either because he enjoys making software, or to scratch an itch or to make money. Nobody writes software for the benefit of society.
that point was in reaction to another comment. I agree
he has the right to do whatever he wants with it - but if he keeps it non-free, it is non-free.
guess the argument was what constitutes freedom.
I can choose to modify a particular software
and sell it under a different license.
jail
thanks.
Now iam all for freedom software,
you arent
sure
but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.
you have the right to believe that the FOSS philosophy is wrong. And also learn to distinguish between free as in freedom and free as in free of charge.
i did that long time ago, thanks anyway.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
ahh - here you are right
finally some agreement. Making some headway aren't we ;)
Sachin G.
2007/1/14, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover - check the EULA
who said anything about doze? i was talking about my rights.
Rights to what software ypu were talking about?
I can choose to modify a particular software
and sell it under a different license.
jail
thanks.
:-) We saved you from going to jail.
Cheers Praveen
Rights to what software ypu were talking about?
lets liken the software to a tangible product. If i buy it don't i have a right to do whatever i choose to with it. i think i have that right with windows too but MS denies me the right! :/
I can choose to modify a particular software
and sell it under a different license.
jail
thanks.
:-) We saved you from going to jail.
yes you did!
Sachin G.
Hi,
I am not sure I understand this storm in a tea cup. Sachin keeps striking down a strawman; defending the right of the creator of a work to license said work under whatever license floats their boat. There is no dispute there; international agreements on copyrights (look up the Bern agreement) have made it so.
So people can write code, and not distribute the result -- traditional software creators have done this for decades, so where's the beef?
Now, of course you can't take someone else's work, and decide derive things from it, and decide to license it whichever way you like -- if you did not do all the work, but used someone elses, you do not make all the decisions -- including whether, and how, to distribute their portion of the final product. So, if you are modifying free software, you can only distribute the derived work under the rights granted to you by the upstream license -- if they say you need to have full source out there, that's what you must do -- or not use any upstream code, and reinvent the wheel from scratch.
Secondly, if you do restrict the four freedom's for your users, as is your right for licensing _your_ work, you can't call it free software, and if you do not meet the definition of open source software you can't call it that either.
With these understood, what is all this heated debate all about?
manoj
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure I understand this storm in a tea cup. Sachinkeeps striking down a strawman; defending the right of the creator of a work to license said work under whatever license floats their boat. There is no dispute there; international agreements on copyrights (look up the Bern agreement) have made it so.
So people can write code, and not distribute the result --traditional software creators have done this for decades, so where's the beef?
Sachin wants to modify a FOSS license to suit his thinking. He will have to choose a non-FOSS license that suits him. Its like a club. You like it, you join it. If you like another club, join that club. You cannot take the rules of one club and impose them on another.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Sachin wants to modify a FOSS license to suit his thinking. He will have to choose a non-FOSS license that suits him. Its like a club. You like it, you join it. If you like another club, join that club. You cannot take the rules of one club and impose them on another.
true Rony except i consider myself part of this club. I have no intention to modify any license whatsoever. I had a basic disagreement regarding distribution of free software which i voiced in this forum where else would i go to? That is all there is to it. nothing more.. i wont stop using free software or advocating it neverthless.
I must add that the argument cleared some of my misconceptions so something good did come out of it though doubts/misgivings remain.
Regards, Sachin G.
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Sachin wants to modify a FOSS license to suit his thinking. He will have to choose a non-FOSS license that suits him. Its like a club. You like it, you join it. If you like another club, join that club. You cannot take the rules of one club and impose them on another.
true Rony except i consider myself part of this club. I have no intention to modify any license whatsoever. I had a basic disagreement regarding distribution of free software which i voiced in this forum where else would i go to? That is all there is to it. nothing more.. i wont stop using free software or advocating it neverthless.
Your basic worry is that if you allow anyone to modify and redristibute your software, then you will loose out on the money _that_ person makes on playing with your software. While your worry is justified and I have been through this thought process, the FOSS ideology does not look at it as a loss but as an _investment_ for much higher gains in the future. Here lies the basic difference between closed ideologies and free ( libre ) ones. Closed ideologies are for making quick but limited bucks. Open ideologies are for big businesses, huge returns in the long run. What would you like? ;)
There is an example to illustrate this point. In an interview, veteran Bollywood actor Rajendra Kumar was once asked why he had done a film for a director at a much lower price than was the norm. He replied that the director was a hit director who would give him the break that he wanted and expose his talent to the world. Therefore the lower price was actually his _investment_ in further advancing his career and thats what exactly happened. He became a hit actor after that film.
Just as a company spends millions on advertising its products, even distributing its samples free. In the same way, free distribution and modification of your software acts as your publicity and advertisement. Libre means you cannot hoodwink anyone and make any code thats hidden from others. Its transparent, so if your are good, you get recognition and that is the beginning of your career graph moving upwards. Software thats released under FOSS licenses always recognizes its writer _even_ when it is used by others for further modification or distribution. When you work for a closed software company, your name will never appear on the software. It is only the company brand that appears on it. However in libre software, you keep your title and the license ensures that others respect it. Libre software also gives you the freedom to take up new projects and pursue new ideas, as your existing work can be looked after and contributed by others too after some time. It does not tie you down to protecting any secret formulas all your life. You have total freedom from piracy as your work is anyway available to everyone for free downloads. There is no money to make by copying your software. You make big bucks by providing support and customization for your software to corporate clients and the small and individual users get to use it free. So it benefits you as well as empowers the people with software thats affordable and customizable and expandable.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
<snip> So it benefits you as well as empowers the people with software
thats affordable and customizable and expandable.
Regards,
Rony.
Well put. I have to agree to whatever you have said from a business perspective. just don't make the guy who does not give allow you to distribute the bad guy it's his thought and if he sees the rationality behind it(whatever you said) he will do market bidding...
cheers, Sachin G.
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
<snip> So it benefits you as well as empowers the people with software > thats affordable and customizable and expandable. > > Regards, > > Rony.
Well put. I have to agree to whatever you have said from a business perspective. just don't make the guy who does not give allow you to distribute the bad guy it's his thought and if he sees the rationality behind it(whatever you said) he will do market bidding...
Its not about allowing or not allowing others to distribute. Its about what license option the guy chooses to release his software. No one can disrespect that license, not even that guy.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 14-Jan-07, at 9:30 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
With these understood, what is all this heated debate allabout?
looks more and more like sachin is trolling
On 14-Jan-07, at 1:45 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
- vihan
lets not take things out fo context and be snide about it shall we? I wondered aloud, some people have kindly given me some answers. Let that be the end of it.
your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS school - nothing wrong in that. It is actually more free than the FOSS school which puts some restrictions on the redistribution of software. And you are in good company as the the vast majority of leading developers belong to it. And there is no point attacking the FOSS school - it wont change anything.
2007/1/14, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
On 14-Jan-07, at 1:45 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
- vihan
lets not take things out fo context and be snide about it shall we? I wondered aloud, some people have kindly given me some answers. Let that be the end of it.
your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS school -
The first lesson in the OSS school is 1. Free Redistribution http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
And I don't know how you thought he is in the OSS school
Cheers Praveen
On 1/14/07, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
your problem is that you belong to the OSS school and not the FOSS school - nothing wrong in that. It is actually more free than the FOSS school which puts some restrictions on the redistribution of software.
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior. I prefer the society which put some restrictions of laws and constitution to ensure freedom for everyone. We are not part of Utopia.
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
Popular misconception. Society which permits exploitative and or destructive behaviour actually hinders a society from being one. And restrictions are not about rstricting freedom but about restricting exploitation.
I prefer the society which put some restrictions of laws and constitution to ensure freedom for everyone. We are not part of Utopia.
But evolving towards that using free software. As opposed to denigrating into "mindless" automata that the biosphere is full of. Actually even mindless automata are govrned by rule of law. Violating those laws have consequences u would definetly not want.
On Monday 15 January 2007 11:20, jtd wrote:
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
Popular misconception. Society which permits exploitative and or destructive behaviour actually hinders a society from being one. And restrictions are not about rstricting freedom but about restricting exploitation.
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or similar ones to "criminalize" FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.
Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or similar ones to "criminalize" FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.
Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.
akin to traffic signals. Laws act as regulators. But it's when these laws start restricting beyond regulating when the whole problem arises. There is only a thin line of difference between the two.
Sachin G.
On Monday 15 January 2007 15:20, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or similar ones to "criminalize" FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.
Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.
akin to traffic signals. Laws act as regulators. But it's when these laws start restricting beyond regulating when the whole problem arises. There is only a thin line of difference between the two.
Like when the poltico can jump the signal and go home and u cant. Or when the slum lord can grab land but your balcony extension is demolished. What exactly are u talking about. Laws are there to prevent exploitation. The ones to regulate are the ones that mostly are the problem and the cause of the messes u see around - regulate land use, regulate spectrum use, regulate connectivity, regulate free flow of labour, cash, food etc. And the mess is not merely because of existence of these regulations but more so because the implementation is well hidden from the end users. Something the gpl tries it's utmost to prevent in the case of software AND remove shortages caused by stupid regulation (EULA) - the bone of your primary grouse. Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods of coercion, packaging and distribution.
Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods of coercion, packaging and distribution.
business models change as the markets force it to. Not really dependent on any singular individual i.e. assuming rationality. so if the market demands that the business model change, it will change.
Sachin G.
On Monday 15 January 2007 16:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Bottom line - rethink your business model - based on unlimited availabilty and creation of knowledge rather than brain dead methods of coercion, packaging and distribution.
business models change as the markets force it to. Not really dependent on any singular individual i.e. assuming rationality. so if the market demands that the business model change, it will change.
If you want to use FOSS for earning your bread rethink your business model. I dont think anybody on this list really cares about your or some arbitary software business's capability to react or not otherwise.
On 1/15/07, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Monday 15 January 2007 11:20, jtd wrote:
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:40, Aseem Rane wrote:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
Popular misconception. Society which permits exploitative and or destructive behaviour actually hinders a society from being one. And restrictions are not about rstricting freedom but about restricting exploitation.
Agreed. I guess a lot of people are currently using Aseems argument or similar ones to "criminalize" FSF or OSS philosophy. Aseem has presented it in a more civil manner. Most people dont do it.
Ooooppps. There is a BIG misinterpretation here. While writing that I thought I was supporting Free software and GPL. Let me clarify.
BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the software. I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is better. See it in the context of KG's mail which says OSS is "more free" than FSS and nothing wrong with that.
Laws are in place to check exploitation and to guard the freedoms that
we have. Without these laws there will be nothing but chaos.
Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users. So we are on the same side here, aren't we? As I said earlier,
I prefer the society which put some restrictions of laws and constitution to ensure freedom for everyone.
I don't know why you thought that I am "criminalizing" FSF.
On Monday 15 January 2007 20:25, Aseem Rane wrote:
Ooooppps. There is a BIG misinterpretation here.
Be more verbose the next time and make your point clear.
While writing that I thought I was supporting Free software and GPL. Let me clarify.
BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the software. I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is better. See it in the context of KG's mail which says OSS is "more free" than FSS and nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users. So we are on the same side here, aren't we? As I said earlier,
The true freedom lies in getting to choose the GPL or BSD or whatever license you want. Nobodys shoving GPL down anybodys throat =P
I don't know why you thought that I am "criminalizing" FSF.
Dont blame me. Read your own post.
On 1/15/07, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
Be more verbose the next time and make your point clear.
I will.
The true freedom lies in getting to choose the GPL or BSD or whatever
license you want. Nobodys shoving GPL down anybodys throat =P
Perfect!!
I don't know why you thought that I am "criminalizing" FSF.
Dont blame me. Read your own post.
I did read my post many times after your reply. But unfortunately I am still unable to understand where I "criminalized" FSF. I request you to please enlighten me. That will help me improve my personal communication skills. You can mail me off list if you think it is OT
On Monday 15 January 2007 22:03, Aseem Rane wrote:
I did read my post many times after your reply. But unfortunately I am still unable to understand where I "criminalized" FSF.
I should've written a more detailed reply. I did not mean that YOU criminalized FOSS. I should've said that the people who criminalized FOSS thought on similar lines i.e.:
The society without any constitution and laws is more free than a society having various laws and rules preventing certain behavior.
For example an old "buddy" of mine on a certain forum who owns a magazine and is also the "Regional Director of M$ for North India" has "criminalized" FOSS on the same lines that you stated. He also stated the same two lines that I quoted above. Infact there is an on going thread where he has ruthlessly butchered the FOSS philosophy and spreading FUD amongst the forum members. According to him GPL "taints" developers. It is "viral" ( not in the sense that we FOSS supporters take it ) and also creates more "damage" than anything else can. It falsely claims to "protect" freedoms where as infact it takes them away... Its misrepresents itself to "fool" people into thinking that they are getting freedom. According to him, its not even an "open" license. Infact M$ shared source license is much better that GPL as it atleast doesn't "misrepresents" itself by falsely claiming to give "freedom"...
On 15-Jan-07, at 8:25 PM, Aseem Rane wrote:
BSD license puts lesser restrictions on what you can do with the software. I wanted to say that even though GPL puts more restrictions, it is better.
it is? Depends on the context and the reason why the software is being released. I would release some things under GPL, other things under a BSD style license and still other things under public domain
Exactly. So my point is even though GPL puts more restrictions, these restrictions are for good and ensures better freedom for end users.
I have always been told vegetables are good for me - but I dont like them. On the other hand there are people who only eat vegetables and even claim to enjoy them.
So we are on the same side here, aren't we?
we *do* have a common enemy
On 14-Jan-07, at 1:39 AM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
Seige Heil mien furherer.
your spelling sux - es ist 'sieg heil mein Fuehrer'
Without any Regards to you, and with Regards to the List,
one thing i like about this list is that flames are without malice - dont change the practice
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable,
Once you prevent the 'freedom to freely distribute', the existence of the software as free software ends.
because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
'Free' in free software doesn't mind about whether a person gives it free of charge or gets some cents, it speaks about the freedom associated with a software. Especially the following freedoms,
1. Freedom to use the software wherever you want, how many hardwares you want and how ever you want. 2. Freedom to study and modify the source code of the software. 3. Freedom to copy and distribute the software. 4. Freedom to distribute the modified software.
When you kill any of these freedoms, you can not call it as Free(dom) Software then.
In FOSS world, you can't let alone survive by selling one software as in proprietary world, rather you have to provide support and service to make 'some' money. If your software is so good and critical to a user, he most probably wont give it to others and loose some lead in the competition. Even if he does give to a few, its your software being used by more people and thats an advantage to you.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:29:55 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com said:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
In the context of free software, you can only call it free if it has the four cardinal freedoms as defined by the page titled the free software definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
You are trying to restrict the fundamental freedoms 2 and 3; which makes it non-free software.
Even wikipedia seems to be with me on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license says: "Free software is software which grants recipients the freedom to modify and redistribute the software.
So, non-redistribution does not cut mustard.
Oh, and the DFSG pretty much asks for re-distributability, which means so does the open soirce initiatives definition of free software.
You are talking about free software, a term that has pretty well established semantics associated with it. While you might be free to make up your own meanings for words, doing so is not really conducive to meaningful communication.
manoj
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Please note that
the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Yes i know and this was the only bone of contention. If i make a software and sell it to you and also give you the source. Mere pet pe laath mat maro ... :). Some people on some forum had contended that your software has to be freely distributable, or maybe i read them wrong.
If you release your software under GPL, its free to use, modify, redistribute the modification...subject to you giving out the changes you made. Otherwise you should not release your software under GPL. Use a license that suits your requirement.
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable, because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
It will be 'open source' but not 'free'.
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 12-Jan-07, at 11:02 PM, Rony wrote:
You are confusing between open software that you publicly distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an individual company. FOS Software created and customized for a company is anyway private and will not be distributed to others.
wrong - there is no distinction - if it is FOSS, even distributing to one person constitutes a release and that person, and the rest of the world gets the rights under it
FOS Software sold/distributed openly is open for distribution ( of the code ) by all under the GPL.
are you doing this deliberately? Even Stallman himself does not say that only software under GPL is FOSS. There are a large number of licenses to choose from - and all FOSS licenses. GPL is only one of the many
When you create software you are free to choose the license under which you want to distribute it according to your ideological beliefs.
nothing to do with ideology - it all depends on your business model. Idealogues preach, they dont create software
The FOSS ideology believes that since you use FOSS resources for creating your piece, you are duty bound to give back the changes you made *iff_you * distribute it to others. Please note that the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software.
idealogy and business dont mix. But the FOSS business model works out economically even with retail and customised software - especially customised software
FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
also true
Others may correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer uses FOSS and modifies it for a customer/company, he is *not* bound to give out the code, even to that customer, unless is demanded under the agreement made between the 2 parties.
you are wrong - he is bound to give the code - there is no distinction between public sale and private sale
But if he sells/distributes the modified code openly to anyone, he is bound to reveal the modifications made.
true
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i also agree on others ..
Sachin G.
On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i also agree on others ..
you agree on all the points where you can profit from OSS, and disagree on all the points where you can profit by refuting FOSS - win-win situation. Win? word sounds familiar ...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:06:16 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 12-Jan-07, at 10:05 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
So the brickbats roll in my turn to *sigh*. I have clarified my stand in another mail under the same head! I disagree on some points but i also agree on others ..
you agree on all the points where you can profit from OSS, and disagree on all the points where you can profit by refuting FOSS - win-win situation. Win? word sounds familiar ...
hmm ...
If you are not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy then why talk about it and the freedom what we all think as our life-breath. You are talking to a community which thrives for Freedom. Please don't insult our passion with such comments.
My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement thats all. We only differ on our thoughts as to what extent of freedom we are talking about.
Sachin G.
On Friday 12 January 2007 22:08, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My intention was not to insult, just a disagreement thats all. We only differ on our thoughts as to what extent of freedom we are talking about.
You are not talking about freedom at all. You are talking about exploitation. And your knowledge about software business sucks big time. You need to understand the diff btwn methodology of knowledge creation and the expertise for it's encapsulation. What part of software represents knowledge and what part represents a perishable commodity as pointed out by others. In the foss world it's knowledge that is valued and the more of others knowledge you add the more you gain. Of course nobody is daft to give you knowledge without you giving back your knowledge (which is infinitesimial relative to the whole body and quite useles on it's own). In the prop world you use your expertise to trap knowledge and extract a fee. In the foss world you use expertise to always create and enhance knowledge, and charge for that and or your expertise in the form of brand building, services, customisation, virtual products etc. Because trapping knowledge imporvershies everybody your contention that you cant earn by not trapping knowledge is what? An indication that your knowledge pool is much less than infinitesimial. So enhance the knowledge pool by using it and adding back rather than keeping to yourself whatever "little" u know and becoming irrelevant. In my experience there have been innumerable software companies with superb products. Most are dead. Their creators working on things entirely different than the masterpieces they created. Did they benefit? hardly. would they have benefited by sharing their knowledge and expertise? We dont know. But from hind sight we know for sure that encapsulating knowledge in closed software fails Ofcourse the closed software world pretends that their knowledge is so unique that they can hide it in closed software and nobody will ever discover the same knowledge independently. Do you really believe that?. Or that it will continue to have utility. Or that it will continue to enhance itself without external inputs.
On Friday 12 January 2007 20:42, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:01:52 +0530, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net
wrote:
Sometime Today, SGN cobbled together some glyphs to say:
AS i mentioned before, "IF .. " .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
These are easily verifiable facts. You don't need to speculate out loud. It would have been less effort for you to read the short form of the GPL first.
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others. I dont like the idea of collectivism where everyone shares whatever they have made with everyone else. Sure it's your right if you want to, but don't disparage me if i dont want to. :).
*Whistles*
Awesome stuff sir! I bow to thee! The audacity to utter this wisdom on a GLUG list!
So this is like "I'll leach from you and that's it! I get my profit, everyone else can go to hell!"
What exactly are you doing on a 'G'LUG list?
Mind the G.
Actually, even that G doesn't matter. Because this email will get flamed on any LUG that's run by Linuxers (in this case GNU/Linuxers) for Linuxers.
"Elsie, prepare to meet thy god."
On 12-Jan-07, at 8:42 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Am not a subscriber to FOSS philosophy in whole. I like some parts, but not others.
you have not even understood the FOSS philosophy
On 10/01/07 17:45 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Mate, READ the disclaimer they have written on their website before quickly defending them and quoting FOSS philosophy.
AS i mentioned before, "IF .. " .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Devdas Bhagat
On 10-Jan-07, at 11:52 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If a coder has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the clause about "free to distribute" should be removed don't you think?
no - although I dont believe in RTFMing people as a rule, I would strongly suggest you read up something on open source and foss before carrying on this discussion further. Try this for starters:
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 23:52, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
Shouldn't the term freedom be restricted to modifying the code? If a coder has to earn a living using principles of FOSS then the clause about "free to distribute" should be removed don't you think?
Really?. do read the list archives for understanding the business end of FOSS. But just for u 1) Building on (using) other peoples work requires u to compensate them either in cash or in kind (code, bug reports etc) 2) Keeping any code built for internal use (as permitted by the gpl) results in a maintanence nightmare that quickly dissipates any initial advantage you may have gained eg M$ IE and TCP stack (both picked from FOSS projects). If M$ does not stand a chance u are doomed before u start. 3) closed source fallaciously presumes that only u have all the bright ideas - in reality quite the opposite. so you are shutting off all the other brilliant people from contributing to your code. 4) If your code is so shallow that copying and distributing by college kids is going to put you on the streets, u are better off searching for the best street corner than running a business.
do read the list archives for understanding the business end
of FOSS.
I will thanks..
But just for u
- Building on (using) other peoples work requires u to compensate
them either in cash or in kind (code, bug reports etc)
I totally agree
- Keeping any code built for internal use (as permitted by the gpl)
results in a maintanence nightmare that quickly dissipates any initial advantage you may have gained eg M$ IE and TCP stack (both picked from FOSS projects). If M$ does not stand a chance u are doomed before u start.
- closed source fallaciously presumes that only u have all the bright
ideas - in reality quite the opposite. so you are shutting off all the other brilliant people from contributing to your code.
- If your code is so shallow that copying and distributing by college
kids is going to put you on the streets, u are better off searching for the best street corner than running a business.
I don't agree, no point in disparaging the code. Simply put, i make X to sell them. But my is intangible! so it can easily be replicated by C-x, C-v.
I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but why screw up my business model becasue these college kids might just hand it over to soene with enough money and resources to screw me up.
not ideals, just bad for business!
Sachin G.
On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:26, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
- If your code is so shallow that copying and distributing by
college kids is going to put you on the streets, u are better off searching for the best street corner than running a business.
I don't agree, no point in disparaging the code. Simply put, i make X to sell them. But my is intangible! so it can easily be replicated by C-x, C-v.
And how exactly do you propose to change that. U see the guys who are attacking your business model dont care about your code. They want the binary.
I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but why screw up my business model becasue these college kids might just hand it over to soene with enough money and resources to screw me up.
If your business model is screwable rest assured that closing the source makes it more so, by providing returns on your getting screwed. At the same time nobody else is contributing to making your product better - not even u. U are busy trying not to get screwed.
not ideals, just bad for business!
As i said in some other thread the GNU ideals and philopshy makes perfect business sense for everyone except the guys who depend on hiding the code in the mistaken belief that it offers protection. And if FOSS makes sense for the customer who cares wether it makes sense for u or not.
And how exactly do you propose to change that. U see the guys who are attacking your business model dont care about your code. They want the binary.
by not allowing sharing of the code but full rights to change and modify it as they please.
If your business model is screwable rest assured that closing the source makes it more so, by providing returns on your getting screwed. At the same time nobody else is contributing to making your product better - not even u. U are busy trying not to get screwed.
I agree ..
2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
I dont care if college kids use it if they are not my customer, but why screw up my business model becasue these college kids might just hand it over to soene with enough money and resources to screw me up.
FOSS business is Free and Open Source Software + FOSS business model and you cannot have FOSS + proprietory business model and expect it to succeed.
That is where protective licenses (like GNU GPL) comes into your rescue. If people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you also get it for free (it is not possible if you chose a non-protective license like BSD or X11 though)
not ideals, just bad for business!
If you want to do FOSS business dumb your proprietory business model (I
will lose market if I give out my code) and embrace a FOSS business model.
See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for example.
Cheers Praveen
people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the right of the maker. There are just too many parasites out there in the world. Does he not have a right?
See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for example.
Hoping that your software would break down so you would get more business? :) or maybe not so much bt just enough to get business. now what? This time its idealism not business. :)
I really wish i could have the cake nd eat it too... :/
Sachin G.
2007/1/11, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com:
people with enought money and resources do add a kick ass feature you also
now would that be fair? I think using, changing is ok because it's my right! Since iam concerned about my right am also concerned about the right of the maker. There are just too many parasites out there in the world. Does he not have a right?
Can you be clear a bit, I am confused here. "my" in your sentence refer to you as the author or the receiver? Also who is "he" here? the parasite?
See Red Hat, Novell, Troll Tech, MySQL, JBoss, db4objects ... for
example.
Hoping that your software would break down so you would get more business?
You kidding here ? See this story of NASA switching to MySQL from Oracle (just one quick example for reliability) http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/1204/pol-nasa-12-04-00.asp
:) or maybe not so much bt just enough to get business. now what?
Here poeple have a choice and there is competition so do you think Red Hat will be making their system break to get business? Customers will chose Novell or any other company which offer better solution.
This time its idealism not business. :)
Can you elaborate?
I really wish i could have the cake nd eat it too... :/
hmm
Cheers Praveen
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 22:55, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
IIRC, the GPL ( I know we're not discussing GPL but it is a good license ) allows one to modify and NOT distribute the code as long as its for "internal use".
On 11-Jan-07, at 12:23 AM, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
FOSS actually does imply the right to modify and distribute.
IIRC, the GPL ( I know we're not discussing GPL but it is a good license ) allows one to modify and NOT distribute the code as long as its for "internal use".
you have it ulta - what the OP was asking was: cant you release the code, but forbid distribution?
On 10-Jan-07, at 5:45 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
AS i mentioned before, "IF .. " .. i was just wondering for a sec if FOSS said anything about not being able to distribute. :)
no distribute rights === not foss
On 10-Jan-07, at 4:41 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
If Kcalculate provides the code along with the software
it doesnt
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 06:30 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 08-Jan-07, at 11:07 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
switch. Only problem is that there is no Indian Accounting software that is any better. So you are stuck.
Kalculate for Linux is very much there, giving the standard accounting/inventory features.
So why not contribute to AVSAP?
good question - in fact I have finally found a person who knows accounts and willing to be a mentor for avsap - so work has restarted
-- regards
Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS lawgon@au-kbc.org http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Hi, Am going to work in a small manufacturing unit with a T.O. of around 9cr. Currently they do have a few desktops(un-networked) with pirated copies(based on discussions i doubt they know the difference and i want to change that) of Windows XP installed. By their roadmap and current projects in hand they see a very easy jump into a sub 20cr and perhaps more, category. I propose to install opensource software in this company, mostly to avoid licensing issues as soon as they are spotted on MS's radar as they grow larger.
That is the thin end of the wedge. Performance - that is where the real costs are. If you are going to connect to the net u have no alternative.
It's business not ideology.
strangely the ideology makes perfet business sense.
Requirements: Tally software Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
Varicad http://varicad.com/3dcaddownload.phtml
Spreadsheet Email etc
I know there are other engineering based software variants to autocad out there, but are they as good?
Free download minus save. Ask the users to Evaluate for themselves.
What are the possible chinks in going ahead with this model of using opensource?
Windows linux interoperation. As long as you have windows u are going to be stumbling from one disaster to another.
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production use by the U.S. military. BRL-CAD includes an interactive geometry editor, parallel ray-tracing support for rendering and geometric analysis, path-tracing for realistic image synthesis, network distributed framebuffer support, image-processing and signal-processing tools. The entire package is distributed in source code form.
License: BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Library or Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
The BRL-CAD package is a powerful Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) solid modeling system with over 20 years development and production use by the U.S. military. BRL-CAD includes an interactive geometry editor, parallel ray-tracing support for rendering and geometric analysis, path-tracing for realistic image synthesis, network distributed framebuffer support, image-processing and signal-processing tools. The entire package is distributed in source code form.
*bow*
License: BSD License, GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Library or
Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
Mind blowing :-)
A query though, i'm a complete newbie at CAD and its technicalities, therefore i ask : If this thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i don't know since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as that's the date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are people still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.
Regards,
- vihan
On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i don't know since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as that's the date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are people still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.
qcad *is* a good foss cad tool - but it is not 3D. I dont have the technical ability to evaluate this tool, but i dont think it is a 3D CAD thingie
On Thursday 11 January 2007 14:15, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Jan-07, at 1:40 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
thing has been there for over 20 years and has been GPL(though i don't know since how long, but definitely 2004-04-27 14:22 or earlier, as that's the date timestamp of their first commit on sourceforge) then why are people still harping about no FOSS CAD tool existing.
qcad *is* a good foss cad tool - but it is not 3D. I dont have the technical ability to evaluate this tool, but i dont think it is a 3D CAD thingie
It is. It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package like ACAD i have no idea.
It is. It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package like ACAD i have no idea.
Hmm... i think we need some CAD domain experts here. i guess they would be ideal to give some proper insight into this.
# ping cad_experts PING cad_experts (cad_experts) x(x) bytes of data. . . .
Reply awaited.
Regards,
- vihan
jtd wrote:
It is. It says solid geometry. And absolutely beats me as to why the hell it was hidden so long. How it compares to a drafting package like ACAD i have no idea.
I am trying to get one user switch to QCad and Blender (For 3D). I have installed Linux in one of his PCs and he has promised to learn the new way whenever he gets time. I observed that ACad uses .dwg and .dfx formats. QCad will only play the .dfx format but not recognize .dwg, so I told him to convert all his files from .dwg to .dfx. Also ACad appears to make files in both formats simultaneously as I saw 2 extensions of the same file in the data folders.
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
Thank you very much.
Sachin G
On Thursday 11 January 2007 17:30, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:53:01 +0530, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
On Thursday 11 January 2007 18:28, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
I will but not sure if iam qualified for it but i know someone who is and is currently using autocad in the unit.
Oh u are. As someone in close contact with enduser u will be loading the stuff doing, some preliminary tests etc. Getting the app running is important and will generate interest amongst others too to tryout for themselves. One does not have to be an ubber geek to do anything in the foss universe.
Initial impressions: The interface lacks polish. Digging deeper, i found that you require to actually remember loads of small commands to do anything. So many commands. Almost everything is done from the command line. That being said it's not really hard. Infact the pdf documentation makes things pretty easy. It uses vi and gives you the option for emacs. It stores all files ina databse which has to be defined in advance. Everthing else(shapes textures etc.) goes directly in real time into this file.
And with my limited(read zero) knowledge of any CAD software, i'll say this thing works really well. Based on the documentation and a few instances of "modern art" by yours truly using the documentation; i'll say this thing can really do stuff. You can create your own custom primitive shapes. Using the documentation i could build a radio, cone and wrap it with shiny stuff etc. But everything through the command line.
Not much of a ram hogger .. i installed qcad with opera open with multpiple tabs, a pdf open and two tabs on a terminal without any problems all this while using brlcad. Primitive shapes is the application specific phrase for any kind of wireframe shapes. It did get sluggish later but was ok once i closed opera. (i use wmaker)
Can have multiple views of the same object using a four pane option kinda like Maya3d. But is not switched on by default.
like any tool this application would require us to negotiate a learning curve. If the person is used to a mouse i think adopting this would be a problem. Though the mouse has some functionality (zooming), it's very limited.
You can specify units to work in mm,cm,yd,ft,mt,km and um.
It crashed on me once.
Pros: once you get used to the command line it's not very hard and pretty powerful. Can create just about anything based on my first impression. I have not used any other tool to compare it to or i would have said "negotiating the learning curve is worth it". Uses vi/emacs and should be a piece of cake for people with unix background.
Cons: Needs the command line for any advanced operation..difficult for windows users. No inbuilt help file/reference material so would need to look up on the internet time and again or use the pdf file side by side. Many commands to learn but i reckon it's something which you just pickup as you gain experience with the tool. Initially will need the help file to even create a tiny object with a surface as the interface is rudimentry. No dimensioning as mentioned earlier. For a newbie even deleting might be a problem.for example there is a function called ZAP(command: Z) which will remove your workspace of everything and one called erase which is used to remove specific objects.
l gives out items in the databse and ls gives out the dimensions of the currently specified object. Many commands have to be learnt.
No undo but
funny: Very military, has "Dismiss" for cancel.
Just for the record, am going to check out qcad(http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html) along with gnuplot(http://www.gnuplot.info/) next so that i can give him a choice.
links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brl-cad http://brlcad.com/screenshots/screenhots.html
On 16-Jan-07, at 5:10 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Initial impressions:
this is too valuable to languish on the mailing list archives. Please put it in the wiki
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 07:54, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 16-Jan-07, at 5:10 AM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Initial impressions:
this is too valuable to languish on the mailing list archives. Please put it in the wiki
Linked to the cad section and put up pics of your creation. also mail the developers with specific urgent and essentila changes.
Linked to the cad section and put up pics of your creation. also mail the developers with specific urgent and essentila changes.
http://db.glug-bom.org/wiki/index.php/Brl-Cad-Review, please go ahead and start editing for structure/links etc. It's my first encounter with wiki-editing so let's see how this works out.
--- Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
http://db.glug-bom.org/wiki/index.php/Brl-Cad-Review,
please go ahead and start editing for structure/links etc. It's my first encounter with wiki-editing so let's see how this works out.
Great! I'll categorize it. :)
-- FSF-India Fellow Associate http://www.gnu.org.in
__________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 05:10, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Initial impressions: The interface lacks polish. Digging deeper, i found that you require to actually remember loads of small commands to do anything. So many commands. Almost everything is done from the command line. That being said it's not really hard.
Can u create macros.
On 1/16/07, Sachin G Nambiar bomlug@snambiar.com wrote:
Initial impressions: The interface lacks polish. Digging deeper, i found that you require to actually remember loads of small commands to do anything. So many commands. Almost everything is done from the command line. That being said it's not really hard. Infact the pdf documentation makes things pretty easy. It uses vi and gives you the option for emacs. It stores all files ina databse which has to be defined in advance. Everthing else(shapes textures etc.) goes directly in real time into this file.
And with my limited(read zero) knowledge of any CAD software, i'll say this thing works really well. Based on the documentation and a few instances of "modern art" by yours truly using the documentation; i'll say this thing can really do stuff. You can create your own custom primitive shapes. Using the documentation i could build a radio, cone and wrap it with shiny stuff etc. But everything through the command line.
An engineer who is into some serious drawing will probably like the cli interface if they provide perfect control on the primitives.
I don't use cad however, from my experience cad software soon get into cli for data input. What would be important would be macros and scripting support.
Oh and the *real* e-engineer would use c and open-gl for his presentations :D (just kidding)
funny: Very military, has "Dismiss" for cancel.
Nice review ! liked the funny bit :)
regards C
Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Initial impressions: The interface lacks polish. Digging deeper, i found that you require to actually remember loads of small commands to do anything. So many commands.
How did you download and install the bri-cad software? Give us some tips.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to the Wiki :-)
Regards,
- vihan
Vihan Pandey wrote:
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
In fact some text of the evaluation and few screen shots could be added to the Wiki :-)
From its writeup, it looks like a 3D modeling software like 3DS Max, not a drawing package like ACad. Does anyone have the installation files?
Regards,
Rony.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 11-Jan-07, at 5:53 PM, jtd wrote:
Thank you very much.
Do keep us posted on any evaluations you may do.
could it be that there is no gui?
On Saturday 06 January 2007 00:53, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
Requirements: Tally software Autocad/Studioworks or any other as good opensource/linux variant.
At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college. He has already evaluated brl cad and qcad. Qcad does not have 3d and the free version does not have pline dimensioning. The paid version costs Rs.800/- which is peanuts. Brlcad rocks except it does not have dimensioning. He says that if dimensioning is coded it will kick the pants off anything else in the closed world.
At the free map workshop I happened to interact with a participant Who is the HOD of civil engineering in a Ludhiana college. He has already evaluated brl cad and qcad. Qcad does not have 3d and the free version does not have pline dimensioning. The paid version costs Rs.800/- which is peanuts. Brlcad rocks except it does not have dimensioning. He says that if dimensioning is coded it will kick the pants off anything else in the closed world.
i don't think payment should be an issue. have downloaded and installed Brlcad will try it out. And at Rs 800 if it can do what it says it can do well is a steal. provided ofcourse the user is ready to use it :)
Sachin G.
-
Aseem Rane -
Chetan S -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Koustubha Kale -
Laxminarayan G Kamath A -
Manoj Srivastava -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Nikhil Parva -
Parthan -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rony -
Roshan -
Sachin G Nambiar -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
Sudhir Gandotra -
Vihan Pandey -
പ്രവീണ്|Praveen