Open Source Talk

[timbeckham]

[EDIT:HPDL] This thread was taken from the discussion on the general forum concerning the new forum testing site

 

It has been pointed out that IP is not GPL'd. For many people that is a problem, and I am among those who agree. I have an ethical difficulty with using a proprietary system.

 

I believe that people in the Open Source family should do what is possible to use and improve other open source software. It means a lot to me that a program is under the GPL. Access to source code and the protection and freedom that the GPL provides to those who wish to participate in the development of a community-driven software project is both inspiring and invigorating. It's also good business.

 

I feel that by my use of a GPL'd program (such as OSCommerce), I am helping to support a collective wealth that improves, not only my own situation, but also the economic and professional situations of people throughout the world. Any support and feedback I can furnish to an open source project means that I am part of something greater than myself, and to see that phenomenon building and maturing, as Open Source is today, carries great moral power to me.

 

If we use a non-free product for the forum, it will represent one more missed opportunity to increase the exposure and improve the code of a project that has placed itself under the GPL umbrella. It will deprive other committed, open source men and women of the spirited support and encouragement that is so very much the lifeblood of our movement. That would be a sad thing for me to see.

 

I guess I must call for Harald and the development team to consider most seriously adopting a firmer commitment to working with GPL'd software than following a route that would give support to proprietary work of any sort, however featured the proprietary system may be. Harald, we are all proud of you and the work you have done. It is an honor to be even a peripheral part of the OSC effort. Let's follow through all the way, and stay true to the principles that make that sense of pride and honor possible. Let's stay Open.

 

Tim B.

[timbeckham]

Correction:

I should have written "IB" or "IPB", instead of "IP" in the first sentence of my previous post.

 

All the rest remains the same.

 

Tim B.

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

It has been pointed out that IP is not GPL'd.  For many people that is a problem, and I am among those who agree.  I have an ethical difficulty with using a proprietary system.

 

I believe in using the right tool for the job, because that realistically fits in the real world.

 

Otherwise, start feeling cheated because I've personally used Windows, HomeSite, Office, PowerDesigner, ... in the development process of this project.

 

Although today I am using Linux/KDE, Kate, KOffice, DB Designer, .. Free counterparts which appropriately does the job for what I need, it does not mean that I will never purchase a car because it's not Free.

 

I believe that people in the Open Source family should do what is possible to use and improve other open source software.

 

Free software, yes. free labor, no.

 

Everyone should do what best interests them, regardless if it's for a proprietary solution or a Free one.

 

If we use a non-free product for the forum, it will represent one more missed opportunity to increase the exposure and improve the code of a project that has placed itself under the GPL umbrella.  It will deprive other committed, open source men and women of the spirited support and encouragement that is so very much the lifeblood of our movement.  That would be a sad thing for me to see.

 

Isn't part of the Free Software philosophy to create choice, not to boycott?

 

I guess I must call for Harald and the development team to consider most seriously adopting a firmer commitment to working with GPL'd software than following a route that would give support to proprietary work of any sort, however featured the proprietary system may be.  Harald, we are all proud of you and the work you have done.  It is an honor to be even a peripheral part of the OSC effort. Let's follow through all the way, and stay true to the principles that make that sense of pride and honor possible.  Let's stay Open.

 

That conflicts with the support site, because the work I put behind that is not Free under an Open Source license. [and no, it's not available commercially either - it's just sitting on the server and that's it :D]

 

That also conflicts with a lot of peoples servers who are setup with proprietary control panels - cpanel, plesk, ensim, ...

 

I respect the thoughts you posted - and hope you respect that I do not share the same thoughts.

 

InvisionBoard (free, but not Free) was chosen because in our opinion it's a better tool for the job - the community is growing and a better forum solution is needed today, not tomorrow.

[orchard]

It's also good business.

I have to say, I really don't get this concept. If software developers giving away software for free is good business, I assume that means that Artisans giving away iron work for free is good business too. Yet, I assume that the artisans promoted at www.ironworks.com charge for the materials, the labor, and possibly for the creative effort in coming up with custom designs. I have no problem with any of that, but somehow it's looked down on to develop software for profit. I just don't get it, programmers are people too, why shouldn't they be allowed to make money from their efforts.

 

I think that Harald making osCommerce open source and free is great. I assume that he is "doing what best interests him" and more power to him, but I see no reason to look down on or boycott people and companies that are developing software for profit. High tech proprietary systems are very beneficial to the world. They allow you to post to forums like this, unless somehow you are getting free power to a free computer with free internet access.

[moyashi]

Anybody got a link for "DB Designer"?

[timbeckham]

Harald,

This is a response to your post. I'd like to respond more selectively to parts of your reply, but I do not know how to work the quote system. Anyway, I'll just plow through some thoughts on this subject. As an aside, however, how do I highlight sections of other peoples' messages for responding?

 

Now back to the open vs. proprietary argument.

 

If one makes the decision of whether to use open or closed software solely on the basis of sheer "best tool" practicality, then the decision of what forum software you should use becomes trivial. We simply take objective measures of real-world features, and the "best man" wins. Business and most of life is full of such decisions. So why not just move on?

 

Because open source is not a business. True, it has business implications, and, increasingly, it is finding favor in the business world. But open source itself is not a business, any more than the creative energy that inspired relativity theory or "Starry Night" was a matter of business. (Surely Einstein and Van Gogh could have made more money in advertising!)

 

In my opinion, open/free software carries the historical tradition of great giving to mankind one step further and makes it possible for everyone to see and participate in the vigor and excitement that is part that tradition. Open source is the modern manifestation of an old, old story - that we are all part of something that grows as much by our love of creating it, as it does by how we gain together from its use. Open source is a gift from strong and generous minds to a collective wealth. The men and women who contribute to open source serve as inspiration to those of us who, unable to create code well, are still benefited by our use of what those creative minds have given.

 

I know that I write what must seem, at first glance, like starry-eyed, impractical commitment to an ill-conceived notion of the open source ideal. But it is written from a context of appreciation for a richness I know I enjoy in my life because great and generous men and women have given their best through the centuries and millenia to others yet to be born, and whom they knew they would never live to see. I believe that it is generosity like that which is the most practical of all the treasures and tools we possess and that open source/free software is one of the greatest modern extensions of that generosity.

 

I believe we best serve those who create code like phpBB, when we use and do our best to extend the features of their work. I hope some day to use phpBB on my new ironwork website (if I can ever get the OSC part of the thing finished!), and I hope to participate in phpBB's effort in, hopefully, some supportive way. It just seems like the best, most long-reaching approach that helps and says "thanks" at the same time.

 

In my humble opinion, a decision on your part to use an open source forum would be, ultimately, a very practical decision.

 

Tim B.

[orchard]

how do I highlight sections of other peoples' messages for responding?

You click quote to quote the whole thing. To do sections you have to start the section with {quote="timbeckham"} and end it with {/quote} only with square brackets instead of curly brackets.

 

Why is it so important to you for software developers to not be able to make a living? :? :?:

[timbeckham]

Why is it so important to you for software developers to not be able to make a living? :?  :?:

 

That question keeps popping up when I post my thoughts on open source, so I guess I had better do my best to answer it.

 

First of all, your question "begs the question". You are assuming the truth of the very issue you are asking me to refute. Rather than enter the endless circularity that such reasoning inevitably entails, we will ultimately have to abandon your question in favor of a more productive line of discussion, involving a more positive set of assumptions.

 

However, there is an underlying concern in your question that makes sense. I hope it is clear from my earlier remarks that I am attempting to focus on the good aspects of open source and the benefits it offers to both individual users and the world in general, rather than offer negatives about the status quo, including how proprietary software is created and how it works in the market. The success of open source harbingers a period of considerable transition in software. The ways people will be able to make a living developing and using software will change a lot very soon. In that context, it seems most pertinent to discuss what avenues open source opens up to developers, and, equally important, which development venues in the proprietary world will remain viable for developers. That is quite a lot out of my area of expertise, but I know the issues are being hotly debated at the moment. Newsforge (http://newsforge.com/) often has articles that discuss this very point.

 

My objection to using proprietary software is more a matter of how much I have seen the paradigm misused over the last 20 years. Look at the players in the proprietary fields and ask yourself if there is any trace in them of the kind of generous spirit that prevails in open source. I am depressed by the former and inspired by the latter. That inspiration evolves directly out of my own awareness of the difficulties involved in genuine giving. We all want for ourselves, and that is O.K., but to live and work and produce solely on the basis of what you can take, rather than what you can generously offer, is degrading to the human spirit. That is why I want to encourage open source, particularly in its struggle against the mounting opposing forces of the very powerful, proprietary software world,

 

So I guess I will try to answer your question with a question: "Now that that open source has what seems an unstoppable momentum behind it, what approaches can you nimbly use to make your skills both profitable for you and helpful to the world?"

 

Tim B.

[Guest]

Ummm....OK

 

Here goes...

 

timbeckham, I think you are unfairly treating harald here. This is a community decision:

We are offering a better alternative (atleast, in our opinion) and whichever the community feels more comfortable with will be the one that's used.

 

I think that more people here are raising their hands for IPB rather than any individual open source solution.

 

I hope some day to use phpBB on my new ironwork website (if I can ever get the OSC part of the thing finished!), and I hope to participate in phpBB's effort in, hopefully, some supportive way. It just seems like the best, most long-reaching approach that helps and says "thanks" at the same time.  

 

Do you see the problem here? MANY people are waiting for the release of MS2 so they can get their stores finished too. By using forum software that takes time to hack up to suit the needs of the community, alot of precious "osCommerce" time will be wasted. And members of the community will have to wait even longer. Personally I would like an out of the box solution, such as IPB, that has proven itself.

 

After reading your posts tim, I almost feel dirty, like using any type of commercial software is moraly wrong.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love open source, but there isn't anything wrong with commercial software.

 

I have Windows & Linux installed on my computer. I use Microsoft Office and kOffice. Am I wrong for choosing to use winamp as my media player? It's free, but it's not open source. I highly doubt that everything on your computer is open source.

 

The debate could go on forever, but there is NOTHING wrong with using a commercial solution, and the fact that this has become such an issue already is rediculous. These are support forums for osCommerce, not for us to come debate about GPL software versus commercial software.

 

So here is my solution to the problem...Let's use one known working method of phpBB. Let's start a poll. That way the community can choose like harald mentioned, and all the other nonsense can end so we can get back to supporting the community.

[orchard]

"Now that that open source has what seems an unstoppable momentum behind it, what approaches can you nimbly use to make your skills both profitable for you and helpful to the world?"

 

Tim B.

What unstoppable momentum, if Linux is the poster boy for open source, then it's mostly mimicking existing software and making unsubstantiatable claims about the copy being better.

 

My skills are profitable enough. A unskilled person can learn to make a metal fence with a hacksaw a baling wire pretty quickly. Fine iron work like the stuff on your web site is a valuable skill that takes a long time to perfect. Software is the same, so competition from open source isn't a big worry for me. The attitude just bugs me some times. It's like if your artistans kept being told why should I buy iron work from you when I can get something similar at Home Depot.

[Guest]

Isn't part of the Free Software philosophy to create choice, not to boycott?

Not as Stallman approaches it; for example, look here. It's also worth noting that Stallman will not use non-"free" software, even if no "free" version exists.

 

Good luck,

Matt

[orchard]

It also looks like Stallman has a lot of his experience working at a University (a very prestigious one). It's easier to give out free software when your income doesn't depend on it. I would guess that a lot of his work has been funded by government grants, which means we all pay for it even if we don't use it.

 

I prefer Microsoft because they ask for money directly and it's my option. University people that use government grants force me and everyone else to pay for their work whether we value it or not. How is that better?

[Guest]

I think that Harald making osCommerce open source and free is great.  I assume that he is "doing what best interests him" and more power to him, but I see no reason to look down on or boycott people and companies that are developing software for profit.  High tech proprietary systems are very beneficial to the world.  They allow you to post to forums like this, unless somehow you are getting free power to a free computer with free internet access.

Open source does not mean free as in cost. There is no reason why someone can't charge for open source software. Many do. Hans Reiser makes a living off working on ReiserFS full time, even though it has no features added proprietary version. Red Hat has sold its software in stores for years, even though one can download it for free.

 

While my power, computer, and internet access are not free of monetary cost, all three are open source. Brought to me on proprietary lines, the generation of my power is competitive. In fact, in PA (and other states), I can choose who generates my power--and my neighbor can choose someone else. Internet access isn't even as proprietary as power. I have my choice of two different delivery methods (phone line or coax--not to mention satellite and wireless) and a large number of providers.

 

While there are proprietary bits in my computer, it is based on open standards. It's an ATX case and power supply that I plug into my ATX motherboard. I choose Intel for MB and CPU, but I could choose AMD or Via for the CPU and any number of companies for the motherboard. RAM and drives are widely interchangeable. NIC, sound, and video came with this MB, but I could have bought without. Even now, I can disable the onboard parts, and buy pieces that plug into my AGP and PCI slots to substitute. Not the best three examples if you want to demonstrate the value of proprietary over open.

 

Open source has three major positive effects: one, it keeps good programmers from extracting monopoly rents from previous work and quitting programming; two, it leads to more robust software development, since any technically proficient user can perform QA duties and create bug fixes; three, it makes it easier for most programmers to make money, as their skills are needed to configure, customize, and maintain the software. It also makes the programming market more fluid. Instead of being locked into one provider, customers can switch programmers with the confidence that the new one won't have to start from scratch (unless the previous one really sucked).

 

By contrast, proprietary software removes successful programmers from the work pool as they retire on the basis of their early work, is buggy, and forces people to work within its confines to accomplish tasks. Proprietary software has a lock in effect (and fortunately, a lock out effect; it is much easier to move between open source alternatives than from or *to* proprietary software, since it doesn't give you access to the file formats, etc. that you need to make the port). As a result, there are some tasks that proprietary software simply cannot perform.

 

One of my favorite examples is from when my alma mater was considering switching from a unix based system to a MS version with a nice point and click interface. The deal killer in that case was the fact that in order to port the 60,000 existing accounts, they would need to make 60,000 entries with the nice point and click interface. They decided it wasn't quite nice enough for that. Instead, they developed a VMS based back end (all the experienced unix people had just left, so they used the VMS talent--two of whom were very good; one not bad) with a MS based web interface (the department that actually enters new accounts and manages existing accounts was all MS). By using existing talent and hardware, they saved quite a bit of money.

 

I also find the argument about programmers not making any money amusing considering the original basis of the discussion: Invision Board vs. phpBB. Both phpBB and Invision Board are free beer. The software itself is free in terms of cost. Therefore, arguing that supporting Invision Board over phpBB is allowing programmers to make a living is ridiculous. The real question is whether the cost of using a proprietary product that you will never be able to improve or modify is sufficiently compensated by the fact that IB is better than phpBB--at least from what I've seen.

 

Linux the poster boy for open source? Well, I guess you could make that argument. However, I would rather choose Apache for my poster. Apache serves 60% of web domains, a fact which doesn't reveal the full extent of its dominance. For an examination of those domains shows that Apache served domains are *busier* than other domains. Why? Because Apache is simply the better solution.

 

If proprietary software is so superior, why is Mac OS X based on FreeBSD? Why did Sun and IBM open source Solaris (sort of) and AFS? Why is MS working on a command line version of their software (and already admitting that it will lack functionality contained in the GUI version)? The truth is that at certain tasks--e.g. operating a server--Linux is far superior to MS products and comparable with other unix products (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc.). In fact, at actual OS tasks, it is superior to MS and has traditionally been so. That superiority is much more narrow now than previously, but it still exists. Otoh, it is true that for most people, MS Windows XP is a more useful operating system.

 

XP's points of superiority are not based on features of the actual OS, but on the applications it runs. Some of those applications--the GUI (which admittedly remains better than the competing Linux offerings--mainly because Linux users have traditionally preferred the command line), IE, Media Player--are MS products that have been integrated with the OS. However, many--Warcraft, AutoCAD, etc.--are third party applications that run on MS Windows because it is the dominant platform on the desktop.

 

MS is the king of copying. Remember that they started out as a compiler company. It only became an OS company when IBM begged them to produce a product so that they could stop working with the CP/M people. Was this a dissatisfaction with their technical ability? No (btw, CP/M was plug-n-play before *DOS* existed, much less MS Windows), they just didn't like them. So MS bought a product called DOS and renamed it MS DOS. IBM packaged it with their *open* standard PC and off they went. A proprietary software company piggybacking on the success of an open standard.

 

Other points of importance for MS: copying the Mac GUI; writing their own word processor because WordPerfect (whose functionality they copied) wasn't supporting their GUI (would MS Office even exist today if WordPerfect had been more agressive about running on all platforms?); bankrupting Netscape (whose products they copied), et. al. by integrating competing versions of their products in their OS. Skip the illegal stuff, like requiring companies to buy licenses for MS software on machines that didn't even have it for now or claiming that their internet browser product was an integral part of their OS when it wasn't (and faking evidence in a court case to make it look like it was). Skip the big brother stuff like requiring software users to "activate" their software. Skip their moronic security model that allows control of a computer to be passed to a cracker on the basis of...security holes in the browser (which should not be a privileged program with administrator abilities) and which allows outside code to run automatically when...you click on an email.

 

Of course, it's all worth it, because some programmers are making money. Except...are they? The richest people at MS are not programmers, they are high level executives: Gates, Ballmer, etc. There may be a programmer or two around there somewhere who got in on the ground floor and is a multi-millionaire today. However, the bulk of the programming work at MS is done on a contract basis. They hire someone for a while as a consultant . If they like them, they may ask them back to temp some more. If not, they move on. Their latest brain wave? Well, they just opened a programming arm in India. Millions of English speaking programmers there. I guess that Redmond ran out of programmers that they liked.

 

The real question we should ask is: how does this affect us? Well, so long as MS doesn't view projects like osCommerce and other PHP (Apache) projects as much of a threat, not much. However, what would happen if they did? Well, first they would add a shopping cart program to their IIS web server. They would probably integrate it with Access initially, with the promise of an upgrade to MS SQL Server (for a licensing fee) if the site gets big enough to require it. They would also integrate it with Front Page. Product and category listings would be Access reports that Front Page could edit. Drag and drop layout. Pretty neat. As always, they would load it up with features. Now, instead of spending days on layout and custom configuration, you can have a rather individual store up and running in a matter of a couple hours. Or a cookie cutter store launched in minutes.

 

Sounds great huh? Of course, maybe it won't be as great when everyone else gets the same great time improvements. Now, all of a sudden, what was a marketable skill in high demand has become a skill in high supply. It gets hard to work, particularly when high school graduates who have as much time with the *new* software as you do start turning out web sites of their own that are almost as good as yours, especially to the inexperienced eye.

 

Of course, some programmers in India made a few bucks before MS decided they were no longer necessary. Will MS make money off such a product? Not in the short term. In the short term, they will add functionality to existing products like Access and Front Page. Like most MS projects (IE, Xbox, MSN), it will start out by losing money hand over fist. Once they establish their position and expand their monopoly, of course they will start looking for ways to charge extra for this functionality. But why worry? You'll surely have given up on the business by then, so it won't affect you.

 

Good luck,

Matt

[Guest]

I prefer Microsoft because they ask for money directly and it's my option.  University people that use government grants force me and everyone else to pay for their work whether we value it or not.  How is that better?

It's your option? You could choose a different OS in which to do your work? Or are you saying that you could choose not to use a computer at all. Of course, then you wouldn't have work, so you wouldn't pay taxes. Therefore, none of your tax money would be going to Stallman. See? It's your choice.

 

Personally, I consider Stallman to be something of a radical. However, I don't know that it's fair to claim that you pay him for work done through government grants whether you value it or not. It's just as accurate to say that you supported the attacks on the World Trade Center in NYC by buying proprietary software.

 

How? You have already stated that you buy MS software. Although I suspect that you bought it from an OEM or a retailer rather than MS, eventually MS got a decent percentage of your money. MS contributed to an organization that engaged in some charitable activities. The same organization was also part of the funding mechanism for Al Qaeda. Thus, some of the money that you paid to MS went to fund terrorist activities--including the World Trade Center attacks. Overall, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a similar amount of money was involved in both cases (government grants to Stallman; MS donations to terrorists).

 

It's true that a substantial part of the development of Unix was done by people at universities (this was the basis for the BSD/Unix fork). As a result, universities have long had a robust computing environment. They have also had some professors with experience in actual, real life projects. Both of those are good things that contribute to the college environment for students. It's also worth noting that a lot of the early expenditures were defense department related. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) spawned ARPAnet, which eventually developed into the internet.

 

It's just as true that a substantial part of previous and current development was and is done by commercial entities (which also fund university activities, btw). Bell Labs employed both Kernighan and Ritchie, who created C to write Unix. More modernly, IBM and HP have poured substantial resources into Linux (and other open source projects) development. Not to mention companies like Red Hat and Suse. ReiserFS's funding is almost exclusively commercial (Hans works on it full time now) from companies like MP3.com, which need its ability to handle many files.

 

--Matt

[Guest]

It also looks like Stallman has a lot of his experience working at a University (a very prestigious one).  It's easier to give out free software when your income doesn't depend on it.  I would guess that a lot of his work has been funded by government grants, which means we all pay for it even if we don't use it.

Actually, he quit when he started the GNU project (in fact he started GNU in response to MIT's purchase of a proprietary VAX system). This is explained here, where it also mentions, "The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from sales--of copies of free software, and of other related services."

 

Sorry,

Matt

[timbeckham]

timbeckham, I think you are unfairly treating harald here.  

 

This is not my intention. It is far from my place to be in any way critical of Harald. I applaud his work and his commitment to this project. I only wish I had as much fruitful accomplishment to point to in my life as is so greatly to be found in OSCommerce for Harald.

 

I admit that life is full of compromises. I've been in business for 30 years, and heaven knows that I've made my share of compromises. That 30 years would have been shortened to one year, if I had stuck, bull-headedly, to some perfect ideal. It's just that I also know that if I hadn't tempered my business with some effort toward an ideal, I would have hated myself for all those 30 years.

 

Perhaps IB is a compromise that is necessary; I really can't say, from a technical point of view. It is true that open source is a more pragmatic approach to the ideal created and advocated by Richard Stallman, so perhaps IB is appropriate. Time will tell.

 

My concern is that, if the arguments for the use and development of open source devolve into a simple issue of practicalities, then, in the long run, open source, in my opinion, is much less likely to succeed and will certainly fall short of the benefit it could potentially be for the world. When you place so great a tool as access to code at all its levels in the hands of everyone in the world with the equipment to read it and couple that with a community of experienced mentors who help and teach others to understand what they can do with the tecnnology, then you have a truly historic and transformational phenomenon on your hands. It is extremely important, I believe, to guard that growing gift to the world carefully, especially in its infancy. We live in a world with powerful, proprietary giants who feel deeply and appropriately threatened by the open source movement.

 

Perhaps open source pragmatism does require (or at least allow) us to work from time to time with closed source products. But watch your back.

 

Tim B.

[orchard]

This discussion is getting way too religious for me. :) Bye.