Free Software Foundation and Open Source..
After reading more, I have more respect for the FSA than Open Source. Seems I owe Freedom Software Foundation an apology for not having read the thin lines that get blurred between FSF and OSS, they have clearly defined their views. Free Software Foundation defines FREE SOFTWARE as FREEDOM and not FREE BEER! Bottomline. Really nice, these people seem to be following ethical lines of why they started out. Is OSS following ethical lines? I'm reading further, things like GPL keep coming into the research. If you practise commerce on Open Source, what are your limitations of licenses that built the OSS? A question to LINUX followers : Why did Linus build a Unix-Like kernel? Was the Unix Kernel not released to public use or what were the restrictions then? *Interesting times ahead......but please share your inputs.* Proprietary software seems is so easy to understand. As easy as our Mobile Developers going to see IP rights lawyers before they go see Telcom Operators? -- **Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
Hi Aki I make open source software. I do not understand what you think is wrong with open source software. I also do not understand why you feel that the FSF and OSS are fundamentally different. To my knowledge, the Free Software Foundation was set up to advance the Open Source Software movement. I do not understand what argument you are making. Could you please make it clearer? Kelvin www.likechapaa.com <http://www.dukapress.com>www.dukapress.org On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
After reading more, I have more respect for the FSA than Open Source. Seems I owe Freedom Software Foundation an apology for not having read the thin lines that get blurred between FSF and OSS, they have clearly defined their views. Free Software Foundation defines FREE SOFTWARE as FREEDOM and not FREE BEER! Bottomline. Really nice, these people seem to be following ethical lines of why they started out.
Is OSS following ethical lines? I'm reading further, things like GPL keep coming into the research. If you practise commerce on Open Source, what are your limitations of licenses that built the OSS?
A question to LINUX followers : Why did Linus build a Unix-Like kernel? Was the Unix Kernel not released to public use or what were the restrictions then?
*Interesting times ahead......but please share your inputs.*
Proprietary software seems is so easy to understand. As easy as our Mobile Developers going to see IP rights lawyers before they go see Telcom Operators?
--
**Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
Hey Kelvin, Am also trying to understand the differences, seems is quite blurred. But the FSF are definately different then OSS in a lot of ways and I can respect that. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html Also Kelvin, do you know why Linus built a Unix-Like Kernel? You can save me on a lot of research time. Rgds. On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kelvin <kjayanoris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Aki
I make open source software.
I do not understand what you think is wrong with open source software.
I also do not understand why you feel that the FSF and OSS are fundamentally different.
To my knowledge, the Free Software Foundation was set up to advance the Open Source Software movement.
I do not understand what argument you are making. Could you please make it clearer?
Kelvin www.likechapaa.com <http://www.dukapress.com>www.dukapress.org
Also Kelvin, do you know why Linus built a Unix-Like Kernel? You can save me on a lot of research time.
If I remember correctly Linus built his own UNIX kernel clone because he wanted to run a UNIX like system on cheap Intel processors / boards when he got out of University. Apparently it was a "hobby" / toy project, " .... won't be big and professional ....." in his own words :) [ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.minix/dlNtH7RRrGA/SwRavCzVE7gJ ] Regards, Martin.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kelvin <kjayanoris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Aki
I make open source software.
I do not understand what you think is wrong with open source software.
I also do not understand why you feel that the FSF and OSS are fundamentally different.
To my knowledge, the Free Software Foundation was set up to advance the Open Source Software movement.
I do not understand what argument you are making. Could you please make it clearer?
The Free Software Foundation campaigns for the *freedom* of software users. They do this by driving the development of the GNU operating system: < http://www.gnu.org/>, and through other campaigns: < http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/>. As for the difference between free software and open-source software, read this: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>. Joseph.
Hahaha, I really want to fall of the chair with laughter. :-)))))) Am I glad to be learning/writing code on a proprietary system because its goals are so crystal clear i.e bottomline = commerce. Then I came across this line that says it all "In 2004, *open source* software saved large *companies *an average of $3.3 million ", but this is not what I was looking for. I'm searching on the total revenues generated by Open Source companies so why the above line come up is really surprising, which then lead me to another document...... the research goes on. Seems I'm heading into a well organised commerce industry. Rgds.
Ubuntu Business Model : http://www.ghabuntu.com/2009/09/ubuntu-business-model-misunderstood.html ( corrections welcome )
Not to be spammy, I'm enlightened now. :-) This is a very interesting article http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=..., in a nutshell to me the message it bring forth is: how to turn a system developed by students into a full functional commerce business ( The same "evil" that is so written about software propreitary companies, yet the same method employed for free software for the same commerce? ). I now understand why, besides our so commited PC-BSD person ( and I have total respect for him, sorry forgot his name ), no one else writes code from start but just tinkers with existing libraries. Its so Open Source. Çommercial gain through software made at actually competing commercially with proprietary software. The Open Source business model strongly shows pure commerce because the end target is just competing for commerce of the software market share, yet it is the same commerce that was opposed through marketing malice of "BSOD", "Licensing", "Security Flaws". "Free", "Perpetual" etc. The question I ask is myself this: Suppose one day as a proprietary software developer, I setup an outlet. This software program functionality I wrote took many months to create, thus am looking at some commercial value to cover costs and try and make a some profit, if it is successful. Next to my outlet, arrives someone who saw the potential of my software and found a free alternative whose source code has been opened for small touch-ups. He/she is looking at the same market segment as I am but offering the software for free, with only charges for support. How would I deal with this? I wonder how proprietary software vendors deal with such situations? This would be a commerce war! Is this why we have no serious developers in KE, given the software market share, why develop then? :-)) More to come over the next few weeks....corrections welcome. Over and out.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:51 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
The question I ask is myself this: Suppose one day as a proprietary software developer, I setup an outlet. This software program functionality I wrote took many months to create, thus am looking at some commercial value to cover costs and try and make a some profit, if it is successful.
Next to my outlet, arrives someone who saw the potential of my software and
found a free alternative whose source code has been opened for small touch-ups. He/she is looking at the same market segment as I am but offering the software for free, with only charges for support.
If your whole business model was weak enough to be toppled over by someone employing a free equivalent, it probably deserves to go bankrupt :-)
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
average of $3.3 million ", but this is not what I was looking for. I'm searching on the total revenues generated by Open Source companies so why the above line come up is really surprising, which then lead me to another document...... the research goes on. Seems I'm heading into a well organised commerce industry.
What do you mean "Open Source Companies" ? IBM, Oracle, VMWare, Redhat, Ubuntu,Google -- are all open source companies in some way or the other
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF? Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use? **Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF?
because nothing is monolithic. life evolves, software evolves, requirements evolve. Which is why the GPL (the original FSF license) has evolved and mutated into many different OSS licenses ...some more restrictive / free than others (depending on how different people have interpreted the meaning of "freedom" and "restriction"
Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
no. you dont if you dont want to.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Ashok Hariharan <ashok@parliaments.info>wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF?
because nothing is monolithic. life evolves, software evolves, requirements evolve. Which is why the GPL (the original FSF license) has evolved and mutated into many different OSS licenses ...some more restrictive / free than others (depending on how different people have interpreted the meaning of "freedom" and "restriction"
What has not evolved about the GNU/Linux under Freedom Software Foundation?
Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
no. you dont if you dont want to.
If I agree to this, I think OSS would be nowhere. This means OSS is also practising propreitary methods. Why is this such a grey area?
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:29 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
What has not evolved about the GNU/Linux under Freedom Software Foundation?
??? Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed
to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
no. you dont if you dont want to.
If I agree to this, I think OSS would be nowhere.
This means OSS is also practising propreitary methods. Why is this such a
grey area?
its not a gray area, its perfectly legal to modify the source, use it for your own purposes and never release the source to the community. yes, many have contributed code back to the community because it makes sense to them (crowd sourced labor, secondary support etc.. )
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Ashok Hariharan <ashok@parliaments.info>wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:29 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
What has not evolved about the GNU/Linux under Freedom Software Foundation?
???
Ok rephrasing : Why did the original GPL not suffice that meant OSS was born?
Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you
supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
no. you dont if you dont want to.
If I agree to this, I think OSS would be nowhere.
This means OSS is also practising propreitary methods. Why is this such a
grey area?
its not a gray area, its perfectly legal to modify the source, use it for your own purposes and never release the source to the community.
yes, many have contributed code back to the community because it makes sense to them (crowd sourced labor, secondary support etc.. )
I know under the GPL you can do wonders with the code, including use it to
make a better toilet. How many OSS contribute the improved code back so that the rest of the world can enjoy the new better toilet. How many have do so in Kenya? Is there a list of such we can admire and feel inspirational about.
*The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation :* ** *- FREE FROM RESTRICTION* ** *- FREE TO SHARE AND COPY* ** *- FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT* ** *- FREE TO WORK OTHERS* ** http://www.fsf.org/ OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?
A further definition of from the Free Software Foundation : “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”not as in “free beer.” Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.* I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
*The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation :* ** *- FREE FROM RESTRICTION* ** *- FREE TO SHARE AND COPY* ** *- FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT* ** *- FREE TO WORK OTHERS* ** http://www.fsf.org/ OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?
-- **Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
@Aki What does the phrase "OSS principles" even mean? OSS is not an organisation that it may have principles. Open source software is made by many different people/organisations for a great, great many different reasons. Think about it. As a software developer and when making software you may choose to make it open source. You then have to choose from one of the many OSS licences. These decisions will not be affected by anything but your own goals with he software. You may choose to make your software OSS (and later on you may choose a particular OSS license) for any of the following reaons: personal philosophy, competitive advantage, money, etc etc. Bottom line is that it is an individual decision made by the people who make software and their "principles" are as individual as they are. I feel that you cannot compare the FSF to OSS as you are trying to do. The FSF is an organisation that has certain goals and a certain philosophy. OSS, on the other hand, is made by hundreds of thousands of different people all with different goals and/or philosophies. For example as a developer I may decide to make my software open source to make it better able to compete with popular proprietary stuff. I may then choose one of the more liberal OSS licences over the GPL so that I can have more control over my code. My choices depend on me and what I want. With my own very small project, DukaPress, we made it open source and GPL because we had to: 1. To be able to compete with our already open source competitors 2. Because all WordPress plugins should be GPL as WordPress itself according to popular opinion in the WP world Basically, I am trying to say that what drives OSS is not a core set of goals or fundamental philosophy. What drives OSS is very particular to the goals of the people behind a specific open source software project. Kelvin www.likechapaa.com <http://www.dukapress.com>www.dukapress.org On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
A further definition of from the Free Software Foundation : “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”not as in “free beer.”
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.*
I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
*The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation :* ** *- FREE FROM RESTRICTION* ** *- FREE TO SHARE AND COPY* ** *- FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT* ** *- FREE TO WORK OTHERS* ** http://www.fsf.org/ OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?
--
**Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
@Aki on another thread you said: On Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the
Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source. The first and ONLY kenyan entity to do this. I salute Ushaidi and would use it any day, and if I improved it, I'd definately share it back. The rest are in full breach of Uhuru software ethics and practising proprietary standards. This should be illegal, and the setup of a GPL licensing policy body should investigate these for such practises. IMHO> :-)
I do not mean to offend you but this does not make sense to me: *Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source*. "Open Source" means that your source code is freely available. What does it mean to "compare yourself to open source"??? Ushahidi's source code is freely available. *Ushahidi is open source*! Any software tha has its source code available is open source. Now, the difference is that the makes of any software - open source or not - have the *freedom* to choose whatever licence they want to use! They may choose the GPL (which you seem to like) or any other open source licence or even use their own proprietary licence. Is this wrong? The choice of the licence I want to use on my software should be a decision that I can make* freely*. Ama? In most cases people who make software aren't running a charity. They put time and effort into what they make and they should be free to licence it as they see fit! Is making proprietary software wrong? Is making proprietary open source software wrong? Does ALL open source software have to be licensed under the GPL? I would say NO on all three... Kelvin www.likechapaa.com <http://www.dukapress.com>www.dukapress.org On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kelvin <kjayanoris@gmail.com> wrote:
@Aki
What does the phrase "OSS principles" even mean?
OSS is not an organisation that it may have principles.
Open source software is made by many different people/organisations for a great, great many different reasons.
Think about it. As a software developer and when making software you may choose to make it open source. You then have to choose from one of the many OSS licences. These decisions will not be affected by anything but your own goals with he software.
You may choose to make your software OSS (and later on you may choose a particular OSS license) for any of the following reaons: personal philosophy, competitive advantage, money, etc etc. Bottom line is that it is an individual decision made by the people who make software and their "principles" are as individual as they are.
I feel that you cannot compare the FSF to OSS as you are trying to do. The FSF is an organisation that has certain goals and a certain philosophy. OSS, on the other hand, is made by hundreds of thousands of different people all with different goals and/or philosophies.
For example as a developer I may decide to make my software open source to make it better able to compete with popular proprietary stuff. I may then choose one of the more liberal OSS licences over the GPL so that I can have more control over my code. My choices depend on me and what I want.
With my own very small project, DukaPress, we made it open source and GPL because we had to:
1. To be able to compete with our already open source competitors 2. Because all WordPress plugins should be GPL as WordPress itself according to popular opinion in the WP world
Basically, I am trying to say that what drives OSS is not a core set of goals or fundamental philosophy. What drives OSS is very particular to the goals of the people behind a specific open source software project.
Kelvin www.likechapaa.com <http://www.dukapress.com>www.dukapress.org
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
A further definition of from the Free Software Foundation : “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”not as in “free beer.”
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.*
I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
*The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation :* ** *- FREE FROM RESTRICTION* ** *- FREE TO SHARE AND COPY* ** *- FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT* ** *- FREE TO WORK OTHERS* ** http://www.fsf.org/ OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?
--
**Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
Just an FYI. Ushahidi is licensed under the LGPL. GPL and LGPL protects software and all derivative software from having their source code hidden from the public. GPL takes the strong stance, saying that all software that uses the GPL software must itself be open sourced. This is known as a "reciprocal license" and makes it impossible for proprietary software developers to use GPL'ed code. In contrast, LGPL provides an exception to the usage and distribution of the software, allowing for non-free products to include the LGPL'ed software. In the GNU Project's own words: "using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs." The reason we chose the LGPL back in 2008 was because we didn't know who would use the platform going forward. At the time, the use-case in our mind was that someone might create a plugin or extension for Ushahidi that used something like Microsoft Outlook. We didn't want that person/company not to get the job, or not be able to resell their work and make money off of it due to us having too narrow of a FoSS stance. In short, we chose it so that our platform would be more attractive to third party developers. In the end, I don't know if it has mattered that much, but at least you know the historical context. Erik Hersman www.ushahidi.com | www.iHub.co.ke www.afrigadget.com | www.whiteafrican.com | @whiteafrican On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Kelvin wrote:
@Aki on another thread you said:
On Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source. The first and ONLY kenyan entity to do this. I salute Ushaidi and would use it any day, and if I improved it, I'd definately share it back. The rest are in full breach of Uhuru software ethics and practising proprietary standards. This should be illegal, and the setup of a GPL licensing policy body should investigate these for such practises. IMHO> :-)
I do not mean to offend you but this does not make sense to me: Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source.
"Open Source" means that your source code is freely available. What does it mean to "compare yourself to open source"???
Ushahidi's source code is freely available. Ushahidi is open source!
Any software tha has its source code available is open source. Now, the difference is that the makes of any software - open source or not - have the freedom to choose whatever licence they want to use!
They may choose the GPL (which you seem to like) or any other open source licence or even use their own proprietary licence. Is this wrong?
The choice of the licence I want to use on my software should be a decision that I can make freely. Ama?
In most cases people who make software aren't running a charity. They put time and effort into what they make and they should be free to licence it as they see fit!
Is making proprietary software wrong?
Is making proprietary open source software wrong?
Does ALL open source software have to be licensed under the GPL?
I would say NO on all three...
Kelvin www.likechapaa.com www.dukapress.org
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kelvin <kjayanoris@gmail.com> wrote: @Aki
What does the phrase "OSS principles" even mean?
OSS is not an organisation that it may have principles.
Open source software is made by many different people/organisations for a great, great many different reasons.
Think about it. As a software developer and when making software you may choose to make it open source. You then have to choose from one of the many OSS licences. These decisions will not be affected by anything but your own goals with he software.
You may choose to make your software OSS (and later on you may choose a particular OSS license) for any of the following reaons: personal philosophy, competitive advantage, money, etc etc. Bottom line is that it is an individual decision made by the people who make software and their "principles" are as individual as they are.
I feel that you cannot compare the FSF to OSS as you are trying to do. The FSF is an organisation that has certain goals and a certain philosophy. OSS, on the other hand, is made by hundreds of thousands of different people all with different goals and/or philosophies.
For example as a developer I may decide to make my software open source to make it better able to compete with popular proprietary stuff. I may then choose one of the more liberal OSS licences over the GPL so that I can have more control over my code. My choices depend on me and what I want.
With my own very small project, DukaPress, we made it open source and GPL because we had to: To be able to compete with our already open source competitors Because all WordPress plugins should be GPL as WordPress itself according to popular opinion in the WP world Basically, I am trying to say that what drives OSS is not a core set of goals or fundamental philosophy. What drives OSS is very particular to the goals of the people behind a specific open source software project.
Kelvin www.likechapaa.com www.dukapress.org
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote: A further definition of from the Free Software Foundation : “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”not as in “free beer.” Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (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 distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote: The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation : - FREE FROM RESTRICTION - FREE TO SHARE AND COPY - FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT - FREE TO WORK OTHERS http://www.fsf.org/ OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?
-- **Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
- *The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.*
I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF.
You are confusing "community" with party to whom you are distributing to. if you modified a gpl licensed program and sold it to a client - you would not be in violation of the gpl if you gave them the modified source code with the gpl license notice. You dont have to give the modifcations back to the "community" if you dont want, the license gives you the freedom to do that.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:50 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
What has not evolved about the GNU/Linux under Freedom Software Foundation?
???
Ok rephrasing : Why did the original GPL not suffice that meant OSS was born?
you dont seem clear about some terminology -- GPL - is one kind of software license (like the microsoft EULA). OSS - is open source software (software licensed using a license like the GPL ). "Why did the original GPL not suffice " -- evolution.
I know under the GPL you can do wonders with the code, including use it to make a better toilet. How many OSS contribute the improved code back so that the rest of the world can enjoy the new better toilet.
Many.
How many have do so in Kenya? Is there a list of such we can admire and feel inspirational about.
Dont know. I actually prefer to admire a beautiful woman for inspiration.
not to be left out of the 100 posts, here is my opinion on open source and FSF and all those Freedoms. 1: If you get it free, and youre told you can use it for free or commercial usage without any conditions, it is TRUE OPEN SOURCE. (wordpress) 2: If you get it free, with limited features, can use what you have for free or commercially without any other conditions, and can pay for other features or support, i call this CAPITALISTIC / COMMERCIAL OPEN SOURCE. (ubuntu / OpenERP) 3: If its free, with strings attached (like you pay to remove some garbage, or some files are encoded, or you cant remove the footer, or have to authenticate online...e.t.c it is NOT OPEN SOURCE. (sugar CRM) On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Ashok Hariharan <ashok@parliaments.info> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF?
because nothing is monolithic. life evolves, software evolves, requirements evolve. Which is why the GPL (the original FSF license) has evolved and mutated into many different OSS licenses ...some more restrictive / free than others (depending on how different people have interpreted the meaning of "freedom" and "restriction"
Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
no. you dont if you dont want to.
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- “The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy” ~ Alex Carey ~ Tel No: 0x2af23696
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF? Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
Only if you redistribute it (to clients, customers,...) not if you did the modifications for your personal needs (e.g. running it as SAAS) other licenses like AGPL require to disclose your source if you running it as SAAS. -- Best Regards, Christian Ledermann Nairobi - Kenya Mobile : +254 702978914 <*)))>{ If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both. 1) Don’t drive species to extinction 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on. 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above. }<(((*>
Gentlemen, thank you for your inputs. As we go deeper into this discussion, my assessment puts the GPLv1 as truly FSF and GPLv2/v3 were meant to improve on the loop holes that GPLv1 did not want to as it fell outside the reasons for Uhuru Software. Version 2/3 meant to create commercial platforms that were looking at a market share, not consumer benefit as is FSF GPLv1. When I write these, my view point is from a developer's opinion as we learn further. So far, commercially versus consumers, I'd say that OSS is really the Hyena. This brief really shows what is happening in the software market : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xh2YpA1JzE As usual corrections are welcome. :-)
Brainy Job brilliant research dudes you have many Halllalluuuuuuus here, keep going am learning from you, keep going.... On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Christian Ledermann < christian.ledermann@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:14 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, not to make this thread another 100 series, why does OSS not follow the original FSF? Also, when uou change the code in OSS to suit your needs, are you supposed to give that improved version back to the community in agreement with the GPL license use?
Only if you redistribute it (to clients, customers,...) not if you did the modifications for your personal needs (e.g. running it as SAAS) other licenses like AGPL require to disclose your source if you running it as SAAS.
-- Best Regards,
Christian Ledermann
Nairobi - Kenya Mobile : +254 702978914
<*)))>{
If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
1) Don’t drive species to extinction
2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
}<(((*> _______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- MICHAEL A. AKUNGA (+254) 0726 174 815 michaelakunga@gmail.com michaelakunga@yahoo.com
Aki, someone has to fund opensource, hence the creation of less restrictive(more permissive) open source licenses? Most(many) Open Source devs are employed by the same companies you say aren't open source, and usually come up with a project, or support the project in order when they find a missing need they need to fulfil. People join in the project when they have the same needs. Other projects come from the educational sector, such as some of the networking stack was developed by some university student when the commercial project trying to achieve the same failed. The firm could not believe that a student outdid a whole funded department. (havent looked up the links, but I had read it a while back)
As I await the asp.net list/group to go online to put my full energies into, I'm left with one final thought for this thread. I've read on numerous sites about our Mobile Developers and the concerns they have about IP Rights and NDAs. I can relate to this and even respect that they are protecting their interests but what then baffles me is that the Mobile Devs use "Open" platforms for their deployments. And within the Open Platforms, because it was someone else's code that got you started on atleast 90% of the code, are you not holding back the expansion of the "Open" platforms to the general public by applying a proprietary practise of IP Rights & NDAs? That means if you shared back your advances created of that platform, you are distributing that community knowledge back to the platforms. Esshhh, one foot is propreitary and the other is open. Bottomline is business seems is the case. This is one really grey and confusing sector, but at least no one is claiming to be a Mother Teresa for the sake of a sale. Final thots, nice week ahead to all skunks and corrections welcome. :-) Over and Out.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
As I await the asp.net list/group to go online to put my full energies into, I'm left with one final thought for this thread. I've read on numerous sites about our Mobile Developers and the concerns they have about IP Rights and NDAs. I can relate to this and even respect that they are protecting their interests but what then baffles me is that the Mobile Devs use "Open" platforms for their deployments. And within the Open Platforms, because it was someone else's code that got you started on atleast 90% of the code,
Really? 90% of the code for mobile applications is already written? Do you have an example or proof of at least one instance where a mobile app done by a .ke developer had *at least *90% of the code already written?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
As I await the asp.net list/group to go online to put my full energies into, I'm left with one final thought for this thread. I've read on numerous sites about our Mobile Developers and the concerns they have about IP Rights and NDAs. I can relate to this and even respect that they are protecting their interests but what then baffles me is that the Mobile Devs use "Open" platforms for their deployments. And within the Open Platforms, because it was someone else's code that got you started on atleast 90% of the code,
Really? 90% of the code for mobile applications is already written? Do you have an example or proof of at least one instance where a mobile app done by a .ke developer had *at least *90% of the code already written?
@Peter, without an SMS gateway, the SMS app is useless. With all the M-Money transactions taking place, I'd assume we are a very big market for SMS gateways that handle Bulk SMS. Please provide an example of a Kenyan created, updated or Open SMS gateway that is in use. Maybe am behind news and making wild assumptions.
Rgds. :-)
You are evading the question. Provide a single example of a mobile app done by a Kenyan developer where the developer wrote less than 10% of the code. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
As I await the asp.net list/group to go online to put my full energies into, I'm left with one final thought for this thread. I've read on numerous sites about our Mobile Developers and the concerns they have about IP Rights and NDAs. I can relate to this and even respect that they are protecting their interests but what then baffles me is that the Mobile Devs use "Open" platforms for their deployments. And within the Open Platforms, because it was someone else's code that got you started on atleast 90% of the code,
Really? 90% of the code for mobile applications is already written? Do you have an example or proof of at least one instance where a mobile app done by a .ke developer had *at least *90% of the code already written?
@Peter, without an SMS gateway, the SMS app is useless. With all the M-Money transactions taking place, I'd assume we are a very big market for SMS gateways that handle Bulk SMS. Please provide an example of a Kenyan created, updated or Open SMS gateway that is in use. Maybe am behind news and making wild assumptions.
Rgds. :-)
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
I've responded correctly, The gateway is 90% is as much part of the app and the entire transport, parsing, coverting data, call logging mechanism of the entire system, the App is a user interface between what the SMS structure and Gateway can do. Please remove the gateway from the equation, the App is useless. Under this category, I can backup my claim that Devs only do 10% of the code. This is my view. Rgds. :-) On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
You are evading the question.
Provide a single example of a mobile app done by a Kenyan developer where the developer wrote less than 10% of the code.
Ok, let me see if I get you right; Under the category of SMS based apps, Kenyan developers write less than 10% of the code simply because there is no Kenyan SMS gateway? On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:53 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
I've responded correctly, The gateway is 90% is as much part of the app and the entire transport, parsing, coverting data, call logging mechanism of the entire system, the App is a user interface between what the SMS structure and Gateway can do. Please remove the gateway from the equation, the App is useless. Under this category, I can backup my claim that Devs only do 10% of the code. This is my view.
Rgds. :-)
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
You are evading the question.
Provide a single example of a mobile app done by a Kenyan developer where the developer wrote less than 10% of the code.
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
@Aki, I think you're talking APIs here..with regards to 90% of the code having been already written.. or am I wrong. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, let me see if I get you right;
Under the category of SMS based apps, Kenyan developers write less than 10% of the code simply because there is no Kenyan SMS gateway?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:53 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
I've responded correctly, The gateway is 90% is as much part of the app and the entire transport, parsing, coverting data, call logging mechanism of the entire system, the App is a user interface between what the SMS structure and Gateway can do. Please remove the gateway from the equation, the App is useless. Under this category, I can backup my claim that Devs only do 10% of the code. This is my view.
Rgds. :-)
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com>wrote:
You are evading the question.
Provide a single example of a mobile app done by a Kenyan developer where the developer wrote less than 10% of the code.
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE END -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Yonny, you are correct, the word is API. :-) @Peter, you are in the code industry so I'm not sure what my response should be. But my argument is in the context of IP and NDAs on one side, and the use of Open Source platforms the other side. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Yonny Mutai <yonnym@googlemail.com> wrote:
@Aki, I think you're talking APIs here..with regards to 90% of the code having been already written.. or am I wrong.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Peter Karunyu <pkarunyu@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, let me see if I get you right;
Under the category of SMS based apps, Kenyan developers write less than 10% of the code simply because there is no Kenyan SMS gateway?
Based on this argument, I guess then we develop a lot less than 10% considering we don't write the operating systems the apps run on each time we develop our apps. Ur argument is invalid Chris Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: aki <aki275@gmail.com> Sender: skunkworks-bounces@lists.my.co.ke Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:53:55 To: Skunkworks Mailing List<skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke> Reply-To: Skunkworks Mailing List <skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke> Subject: Re: [Skunkworks] Free Software Foundation and Open Source.. _______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------ Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
@Mwirigi, my argument is very valid. We are now moving towards platforms and languages, which do not restrict us on what we can achieve. I've not brought these forward, my point is what I just wrote to @Peter i.e IP Rights, NDAs and the use of Open Source code. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:16 PM, <mwirigic@gmail.com> wrote:
Based on this argument, I guess then we develop a lot less than 10% considering we don't write the operating systems the apps run on each time we develop our apps. Ur argument is invalid
Chris Sent from my BlackBerry®
@Ashok, Now your are really getting boring as you seem to have a habit of just making corrections rather than solid contributions. So here goes another try, am assuming that you are a strong Open Source advocate and know your stuff: - What did not suffice in GPL that lead to the formation of OSS under GPL2/3? Appreciate more input on this.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:30 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
- What did not suffice in GPL that lead to the formation of OSS under GPL2/3?
Appreciate more input on this.
let me repeat: "evolution". different people have different interpretations for what "freedom" is, so they have come up with different open source licenses some of which are more restrictive , some more free ... e.g. the bsd license (a popular "free" license ) lets you modify the source and distribute it as a binary, by letting you change even the distribution license e.g. gpl v3 - closed a loophole in the gpl2 which allowed you to run modified open source software as a service over the web and not share the source. e.g. lesser gpl (LGPL license), kinda like the gpl2 but it lets you "link" to the software using this license without having to also adopt the gpl.
@Ashok, is it only those 3 lines below that differentiate the various GPLs? On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Ashok Hariharan <ashok@parliaments.info>wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:30 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
- What did not suffice in GPL that lead to the formation of OSS under GPL2/3?
Appreciate more input on this.
let me repeat: "evolution". different people have different interpretations for what "freedom" is, so they have come up with different open source licenses some of which are more restrictive , some more free ...
e.g. the bsd license (a popular "free" license ) lets you modify the source and distribute it as a binary, by letting you change even the distribution license
e.g. gpl v3 - closed a loophole in the gpl2 which allowed you to run modified open source software as a service over the web and not share the source.
e.g. lesser gpl (LGPL license), kinda like the gpl2 but it lets you "link" to the software using this license without having to also adopt the gpl.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, is it only those 3 lines below that differentiate the various GPLs?
you can use a search engine to access & read all the different OSS licenses out there. they are in simple english and most of them are not more than a couple of pages long.
Search engine is the obvious choice but come'on have a team spirit, you are in a position to respond well as it is something you have followed for years. However, if your position or practise unables you to participate at this level, then I can understand and will not attempt to ask. However, the search will also reveal violations of the GPL that adds another factor too. The search engine also shows that there is a methodology now where GPL testing is done to check whether one is compliant under the same. Quite interestering stuff, buzz buzz :-) On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Ashok Hariharan <ashok@parliaments.info>wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
@Ashok, is it only those 3 lines below that differentiate the various GPLs?
you can use a search engine to access & read all the different OSS licenses out there. they are in simple english and most of them are not more than a couple of pages long.
Someone who makes sense? http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm
e.g. gpl v3 - closed a loophole in the gpl2 which allowed you to run modified open source software as a service over the web and not share the source.
No you are thinking about the AGPL here, the GPL3 still alows you to do that The GPL v1 was written February 1989 by programmers not lawyers. In some countries it conflicted with the local laws thus making it non applicable, so it had to be changed and clarified over the years, the gist and reason still remain the same there is no change in the overall vision. Note that the GPL is as legally binding as any other license: http://gpl-violations.org/ On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone who makes sense? http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm
This is a lot of FUD and misinformation, the statement about the quality an outright lie, independent research has shown that OSS software contains less bugs than proprietary software
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Best Regards, Christian Ledermann <*)))>{ If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both. 1) Don’t drive species to extinction 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on. 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above. }<(((*>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Christian Ledermann <christian.ledermann@gmail.com> wrote:
e.g. gpl v3 - closed a loophole in the gpl2 which allowed you to run modified open source software as a service over the web and not share the source.
No you are thinking about the AGPL here, the GPL3 still alows you to do that
The GPL v1 was written February 1989 by programmers not lawyers. In some countries it conflicted with the local laws thus making it non applicable, so it had to be changed and clarified over the years, the gist and reason still remain the same there is no change in the overall vision.
Note that the GPL is as legally binding as any other license: http://gpl-violations.org/
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone who makes sense? http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/the_problems_of_open_source.htm
This is a lot of FUD and misinformation, the statement about the quality an outright lie, independent research has shown that OSS software contains less bugs than proprietary software
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Report-Open-source-software-quality-i... "The researchers examined the code of 45 major open source projects. On average, the examined projects consisted of about 820,000 lines of code. The open source projects were found to have an average defect density of 0.45, based on the number of defects per 1,000 lines of code. Coverity found that there were 0.64 defects in every 1,000 lines of proprietary software code. For its study, the company examined 41 of its customers' software developments, which on average included 7.55 million lines of code. This defect density is, however, still below Coverity's 1.0 benchmark for high quality software. In their announcement of the latest edition of their open source report, the Coverity researchers highlighted Linux 2.6, PHP 5.3 and PostgreSQL as projects of excellent code quality, calling them "model citizens". These projects were found to have defect densities of 0.62, 0.20 and 0.21, said Coverity. Linux was commended because its approximately 7 million lines of code exhibit a defect density that is almost identical to that of competing proprietary software products."
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Best Regards,
Christian Ledermann
<*)))>{
If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
1) Don’t drive species to extinction
2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
}<(((*>
-- Best Regards, Christian Ledermann Nairobi - Kenya Mobile : +254 702978914 <*)))>{ If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both. 1) Don’t drive species to extinction 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on. 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above. }<(((*>
But interestingly the stuff that actually makes Google money - PageRank, gmail, analytics etc - you can't get the code. What's up with that? On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:07 PM, <ashok+skunkworks@parliaments.info> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
average of $3.3 million ", but this is not what I was looking for. I'm searching on the total revenues generated by Open Source companies so why the above line come up is really surprising, which then lead me to another document...... the research goes on. Seems I'm heading into a well organised commerce industry.
What do you mean "Open Source Companies" ?
IBM, Oracle, VMWare, Redhat, Ubuntu,Google -- are all open source companies in some way or the other
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Rad! <conradakunga@gmail.com> wrote:
But interestingly the stuff that actually makes Google money - PageRank, gmail, analytics etc - you can't get the code. What's up with that?
V8, android, chromium, gwt etc ...all those support the making of money. about the services you mention - perhaps those are not open source or are modified open source which they are not obligated to release if they have not violated any of the used OSS license requirements.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:03 PM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
Is OSS following ethical lines? I'm reading further, things like GPL keep coming into the research. If you practise commerce on Open Source, what are your limitations of licenses that built the OSS?
GPL (version 2) is just one of the many open source licenses. Since you mention GPL let me give an example : Lets say you use a open source (e.g. GPL v2 license) software cms with a shopping cart on your website - and your selling underwear online. You can use the software without any restrictions on use. Now lets say you want to change the source code of the open source cms because your underwear shopping cart had a new requirement, you can go ahead and change and modify it without restriction.
participants (15)
-
[ Brainiac ] -
aki -
Ashok Hariharan -
ashok+skunkworks＠parliaments.info -
Christian Ledermann -
Dennis Kioko -
Erik Hersman -
Joseph Wayodi -
Kelvin -
Martin Chiteri -
Mickey Mickey -
mwirigic＠gmail.com -
Peter Karunyu -
Rad! -
Yonny Mutai