Windows: It's Over - ZDNet Article

[InvisibleJim]

No, it needs to be free$$$. If MS licensed its software to a school at no cost (or low cost), would that be acceptable? 200 licences at R10? That be palatable no? Still closed source, but not costly.
They do have special licensing for schools, although I do not know what the cost is. Why should it be totally free? Because MS are evil? Because they can afford it? Because "poor schools"? If you put MS Office side by side with Libre Office, both free, which one would you pick up off the table? People choose Libre Office solely due to cost.

Also, let's also be realistic, if they copied LibreOffice, not a cent would go to the devs. And that's not a problem as the devs in Libre Office expect this, and would even encourage this (it's a school).

I don't have a problem with Microsoft or anyone else selling their software. I don't even have a problem with the amount that they sell it for.

What I am saying is that the value of FOSS is rooted in Freedom, not in low or no cost. We should be open to the idea of paying for this. I would even go so far as to say that if we derive value (profits or cost savings) from FOSS, it is in our interest to to repatriate some of that value to the developers (either financially or in kind) so that they may improve their software and we can continue to derive value from this going forward. A real world example of this is the French government pledging to re-invest 10% of the license costs saved by FOSS adoption into supporting FOSS projects.

I agree that this is counterintuitive to most people.

Where I do have an issue with Microsoft is with what I rights I get when I buy a software license from them eg. can I uninstall this copy of Office from my pc and put it on my wife's? Microsoft's value proposition is based on features which may or may not have actual value depending on your point of view. How many people have upgraded from Windows 7 to Windows 8 because they wanted Modern UI on the desktop?

 

[Bernie]

Classic Shell to the rescue....

Thank you. this is great.

 

[killadoob]

How would Microsoft inhibit an application from being developed for Linux?

Maybe the lack of a Linux version of an application is that it's not worth it to the developer to convert it to that application?

Ummm what is microsoft worth? What is the software worth? A simple financial incentive should suffice.

Incentive/bribery not much difference. Go to developer offer him 10 bar to make his possibly popular app on windows and you think it will be turned down

 

[noxibox]

That's what I was hinting towards. Some software has a licence attached. If it's not GPL, you can't combine it with GPL. That's restrictive.

Not really. You're free to use or not use GPL code, and you're free to use it in the ways that allow you to keep your code closed. You're always free to tinker with GPL code.

You find a lot of licensing agreements actually play better together in the none GPL arena. In my opinion, if you want to release free software, put it in the public domain.

Then it wouldn't serve the purpose the GPL serves.

For code that needs to make money to put food on the table? For that I'd lock it down and licence it as proprietary.

That only really prevents wholesale copying of the original source.

If i've made it free, why stop businesses by polluting their other code with GPL? jealousy?

GPL protects the philosophy behind the project. No-one is forced to use the GPL license on their own independent code.

If you put MS Office side by side with Libre Office, both free, which one would you pick up off the table? People choose Libre Office solely due to cost.

I wouldn't even take it for free. Quite often though such things are more than adequate and in a school environment there is no reason anything should necessarily be the prettiest, easiest to use or most powerful. We used pen and paper when I was at school. Now that's ugly, tedious and painful.

With free software you have to rely on people's goodwill and after hours efforts.

You don't actually. One of the false assumptions of keeping software secret is that by not doing so you lose and everyone else benefits. That's only true if there is just one person letting other people see their code. Or one company assumes they're a bunch of unique geniuses and no-one else could possibly come up with anything as clever as they can.

Hey, I built that free software you're selling! Oh wait, I didn't get shafted by you because I protected my code using obfuscation and a license that prevented you from doing so. I'm more free to make money off my paid for software than I am if I just gave it out for free, hoping for some "support". I've put my time and money into it, why should I be forced to give it away?

You're not forced to give it away, even if the code is open.

 

[AlphaJohn]

That's what I was hinting towards. Some software has a licence attached. If it's not GPL, you can't combine it with GPL. That's restrictive. You find a lot of licensing agreements actually play better together in the none GPL arena. In my opinion, if you want to release free software, put it in the public domain.


That was my point (apologies for the sarcasm). In some cases I would release code as OpenSource, but then I would put it in the public domain... like work on a community project like OpenStreetMap. For code that needs to make money to put food on the table? For that I'd lock it down and licence it as proprietary. Either way, something like GPL would be pointless as it would prevent other businesses from using the free code I did release. If i've made it free, why stop businesses by polluting their other code with GPL? jealousy?

No, it needs to be free$$$. If MS licensed its software to a school at no cost (or low cost), would that be acceptable? 200 licences at R10? That be palatable no? Still closed source, but not costly.
They do have special licensing for schools, although I do not know what the cost is. Why should it be totally free? Because MS are evil? Because they can afford it? Because "poor schools"? If you put MS Office side by side with Libre Office, both free, which one would you pick up off the table? People choose Libre Office solely due to cost.

Also, let's also be realistic, if they copied LibreOffice, not a cent would go to the devs. And that's not a problem as the devs in Libre Office expect this, and would even encourage this (it's a school).

I have to admit, I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here as I'm actually in favour of Linux and LibreOffice. I just don't ever see it pulling ahead of the Microsoft stack. The world over you see that it usually takes commercial companies to finish off large products. Those companies make money. Look what google did with linux = android. Free yes, kinda, they make their money by leveraging millions of devices with their software. Companies have to charge as they are employing thousands of people. You can't do that with free software. With free software you have to rely on people's goodwill and after hours efforts.

Dude you have nooooooo clue what GPL really is do you?

GPL = Free as in if I SELL or give something to you I am forced to give you access to the CODE. Nothing more nothing less.

Now back to development cycle. If I use somebody elses code in my project I can not claim it to be my own and can not sell it as my own either, and here is the diffrance between GPL vs Comercial.

• In commercial code, I can buy the right to combine it with mine and sell it/give it away.
• In GPL code I have to give you free access to that code I used, NOTE: not my code I added, just the code I used.

The problem comes with managing said code in projects. so to keep it clean its best to keep the GPL code in its own files and your propriety code in its own file. That way I do not have to give you my Code is you ask for the GPL parts use in said project.

Also:
When it comes to the money aspect you also seem to think GPL= No money on the table, that is pure k@k, its not. Most people that use GPL normally make money from support and use GPL as a "free" version to try and get more customers. Ask Red Hat and alike.

Microsoft makes money in turn by renting out its products (Note you do not OWN the OS you paid for, you just bought the right to use it on their terms)... well Microsoft also now started charing for support so you can say they like to double dip. <--- see where the problem lies?

Edit: also note the is a difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 but if you really wanna learn about it I suggest Google or maybe another thread.

 

[shogun]

Dude you have nooooooo clue what GPL really is do you?

Oh damn, thanks for showing me the light... oh wait you didn't:

GPL = Free as in if I SELL or give something to you I am forced to give you access to the CODE. Nothing more nothing less.

Ok, then explain this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic

Q: "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?"
A: "No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

Now back to development cycle. If I use somebody elses code in my project I can not claim it to be my own and can not sell it as my own either, and here is the diffrance between GPL vs Comercial.

• In commercial code, I can buy the right to combine it with mine and sell it/give it away.
• In GPL code I have to give you free access to that code I used, NOTE: not my code I added, just the code I used.

The problem comes with managing said code in projects. so to keep it clean its best to keep the GPL code in its own files and your propriety code in its own file. That way I do not have to give you my Code is you ask for the GPL parts use in said project.

Ok, then please explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

Libraries

According to the FSF, "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them."[47] However if one releases a GPL-licensed entity to the public, there is an issue regarding linking: namely, if a proprietary program uses a GPL library, is the proprietary program in violation of the GPL?

This key dispute is whether or not non-GPL software can legally statically link or dynamically link to GPL libraries. Different opinions exist on this issue. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the GPL. Ambiguity arises with regards to using GPL libraries, and bundling GPL software into a larger package (perhaps mixed into a binary via static linking). This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. The following points of view exist:

The FSF differentiates on how the plug-in is being invoked. If the Plug-in is invoked through dynamic linkage and it performs function calls to the GPL program then it's most likely a derivative work.

And then this:

Communicating and bundling with non-GPL programs

The mere act of communicating with other programs does not, by itself, require all software to be GPL; nor does distributing GPL software with non-GPL software. However, minor conditions must be followed that ensures the rights of GPL software is not restricted. The following is a quote from the gnu.org GPL FAQ, which describes to what extent software is allowed to communicate with and be-bundled-with GPL programs:

'What is the difference between an "aggregate" and other kinds of "modified versions"?

An "aggregate" consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that each program's individual license would grant them.

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

The FSF thus draws the line between "library" and "other program" via 1) "complexity" and "intimacy" of information exchange, and 2) mechanism (rather than semantics), but resigns that the question is not clear-cut and that in complex situations, case law will need to decide.

I went into this in-depth last year when I contacted the developers for Xvid looking to include their free$$$ components in some proprietary software. In order to satisfy the GPL restrictions, I had to ensure that I did not include the Xvid in my deployment at all, and that I only communicated with their product if the user had installed it already on their pc. They said this is the reason why Adobe Premier didn't ship with Xvid out of the box. I would have had to use one of their commercial licences (non-GPL) at a fee in order to use Xvid. This meant that I found another solution as Xvid was GPL and was not suitable. You can communicate with a GPL program using command line arguments, sockets etc, but you cannot include the dll in your software, or link to that dll. If you do, copyleft applies, and you HAVE to licence your software as GPL as well.

Also:
When it comes to the money aspect you also seem to think GPL= No money on the table, that is pure k@k, its not. Most people that use GPL normally make money from support and use GPL as a "free" version to try and get more customers. Ask Red Hat and alike.

Again, see my first response. The moment it is GPL, if someone buys it from you, they can legally give it to the rest of the world for free. Oh, and support? Really... build something and give it away for free, hoping that someone wants a support agreement? That means providing extra man hours of work just to generate revenue? What if a component does not need support? Be realistic for a second won't ya?

Microsoft makes money in turn by renting out its products (Note you do not OWN the OS you paid for, you just bought the right to use it on their terms)... well Microsoft also now started charing for support so you can say they like to double dip. <--- see where the problem lies?

Of course. They give you a license. Everyone knows this. The license is one thing, offering support is another altogether as that requires man hours over and above the development time. I'm not sure how this is a double dip? I don't see a problem with it.

Edit: also note the is a difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 but if you really wanna learn about it I suggest Google or maybe another thread.

Ya, I think i've done my fair bit of research on GPL over the last few years thanks. All I can say is that if you are statically or dynamically linking to any GPL assemblies, please provide me with a list of your clients so that I can go grab a free copy. For personal use of course.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Ok, then explain this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic

Q: "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?"
A: "No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public."

Yes and Still doesn't stop you from selling it, now does it? Sure they can get it somewhere else for free, its not stopping you from selling it now does it?

Ok, then please explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Linking_and_derived_works

I went into this in-depth last year when I contacted the developers for Xvid looking to include their free$$$ components in some proprietary software. In order to satisfy the GPL restrictions, I had to ensure that I did not include the Xvid in my deployment at all, and that I only communicated with their product if the user had installed it already on their pc. They said this is the reason why Adobe Premier didn't ship with Xvid out of the box. I would have had to use one of their commercial licences (non-GPL) at a fee in order to use Xvid. This meant that I found another solution as Xvid was GPL and was not suitable. You can communicate with a GPL program using command line arguments, sockets etc, but you cannot include the dll in your software, or link to that dll. If you do, copyleft applies, and you HAVE to licence your software as GPL as well.

See that is why I placed GPLv2 vs GPLv3 at the bottom.
See Tivoization

Again, see my first response. The moment it is GPL, if someone buys it from you, they can legally give it to the rest of the world for free. Oh, and support? Really... build something and give it away for free, hoping that someone wants a support agreement? That means providing extra man hours of work just to generate revenue? What if a component does not need support? Be realistic for a second won't ya?

The company I work fo and many others that I know use this system and we do not have a problem sending our kids to school, or having food on the table. Yes I know it doesn't work in all aspects but you have to admit there are many that do. Here is some examples for you http://opensource.about.com/od/basics/tp/5-Ways-To-Make-Money-With-Open-Source-Software.htm

Of course. They give you a license. Everyone knows this. The license is one thing, offering support is another altogether as that requires man hours over and above the development time. I'm not sure how this is a double dip? I don't see a problem with it.

License to use under their term, like it or not. That is what the EULA is for, to specify their terms. I know you do not see it as double dip, but in my eyes it is lets just say we will agree to disagree on that one.

 

[shogun]

Yes and Still doesn't stop you from selling it, now does it? Sure they can get it somewhere else for free, its not stopping you from selling it now does it?

How does one respond to this? Why on earth would I fork out cash for your software when I can download it for free with the click of a link.

See that is why I placed GPLv2 vs GPLv3 at the bottom.
See Tivoization

I'm not sure what you are implying? Are you saying that people should license software as GPL, but then restrict usage with hardware?

The company I work fo and many others that I know use this system and we do not have a problem sending our kids to school, or having food on the table. Yes I know it doesn't work in all aspects but you have to admit there are many that do. Here is some examples for you http://opensource.about.com/od/basics/tp/5-Ways-To-Make-Money-With-Open-Source-Software.htm

It's not practical to use hardware restrictions on all GPL code. What if said software relies on 5 GPL components, each with hardware. How many USB ports do you have?

We've been through these already:

1. Sell Support Contracts [This requires extra work! You are charging now on a per hour basis. What if the product does not require support!? What if you don't want to provide support?]
2. Sell Value-Added Enhancements [Take my xvid example. I wanted to encode files, nothing more. No value adds required. What now?]
3. Sell Documentation [Really? Let's make this free stuff open, but sell the documentation on how to use it? That's a real money spinner. Would the documentation be GPL? Would you DRM it? Prevent it from being FTP'd somewhere for free download?]
4. Sell Binaries [ah... hahahahahah. Someone's not going to load the compiled binaries on an FTP server somewhere?]
5. Sell Your Expertise as a Consultant [Again, per hour work, IF it's required]

Yes, you can make money from services. But why go through that if you just want to license your product out. What about making money from the development of your code?

License to use under their term, like it or not. That is what the EULA is for, to specify their terms. I know you do not see it as double dip, but in my eyes it is lets just say we will agree to disagree on that one.

Ya sure, agree to disagree. You can't seem to differentiate between development time and support time.

And you still haven't provided me me with all you free source code that's infected with GPL. That's ok though, I won't hold you to it. I probably wouldn't have a dongle. You do understand that you are wrong about GPL licensing, and the way you include GPL licensed code in your application though?

Either way, as I said in a previous thread, i'm not against open source, or linux etc (I use it too). I am very pro it. I am just not against Microsoft's products. They are one hell of an innovative company and produce some really great software and development tools (my current favourite being the Azure stuff).

GPL has its place in protecting community driven projects. That doesn't make it friendly for companies that want to use GPL software inside their proprietary products. This is in fact why GPL was created. Also, not all open source has to be GPL. Properly open source would be BSD / given to the public domain.

 

[CataclysmZA]

How does one respond to this? Why on earth would I fork out cash for your software when I can download it for free with the click of a link.

I LOLed. Piracyyyyyyy!

 

[LazyLion]

Easy Way to Skip Right to the Desktop When Starting Windows 8

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/easy-way-skip-right-desktop-when-starting-windows-8.htm

Many PC users are unhappy that Windows 8 starts with the new tile-filled Start screen instead of the desktop that they are accustomed to. This dissatisfaction has led to an array of utilities being written to allow you to skip the Start screen (sometimes called the Metro screen). Most also provide for restoring some type of Start button and Start menu. (See this review of the best free ones). However, if all you want to do is ignore the tiles and get right to the desktop, then here is a nice little free program that makes it easy to start Windows 8 directly at the desktop.

It is called “Skip Metro Suite” and is from WinAero. The developer’s site and download are at this link. The developer keeps improving it and it is now in version 3.0. This version is a single executable that is portable and requires no installation. There are both 32- and 64-bit versions. The interface is simple and is shown below.

 

[ponder]

How does one respond to this? Why on earth would I fork out cash for your software when I can download it for free with the click of a link.

Why do people pay for Red Hat when they can download CentOS which is the same thing essentially? Red Hat comes with support, red hat updates/patches are available sooner than centos.

 

[kingrob]

Why do people pay for Red Hat when they can download CentOS which is the same thing essentially? Red Hat comes with support, red hat updates/patches are available sooner than centos.

To get support?

 

[AlphaJohn]

Why do people pay for Red Hat when they can download CentOS which is the same thing essentially? Red Hat comes with support, red hat updates/patches are available sooner than centos.

I gave up cause in his mind Opensource is only used by noobs that do not make any money.

Another interesting view on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XTHdcmjenI

Must say I do not agree 100% with it either but its cool none the less. Collaboration as per video is OK for some projects... its not a blanket solution.

 

[shogun]

I gave up cause in his mind Opensource is only used by noobs that do not make any money.

Another interesting view on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XTHdcmjenI

Must say I do not agree 100% with it either but its cool none the less. Collaboration as per video is OK for some projects... its not a blanket solution.

Not at all. Now you are putting words in my mouth so to speak. My only gripe was that you called me out on my having "nooooooo" clue about GPL. It's a convenient time to ignore my arguments now and not answer my comments on GPL any further, but "we'll agree to disagree". I'll do the same, seen as you are are clearly not comfortable conceding that you attacked someone without merit. All I was hoping for was "I see your point". Not a post saying that I think all Open Source users are noobs. But, such is life on the internet I suppose.

Like I said, I use linux and open source software where I work and it's incredibly useful. No, linux is not my main OS, but we use it on embedded systems we build.

Why do people pay for Red Hat when they can download CentOS which is the same thing essentially? Red Hat comes with support, red hat updates/patches are available sooner than centos.

Yup, I didn't say the model doesn't work. I said it doesn't work for everything. A mission critical OS used in business, sure. A small music playing component, or that program that does that cool thing that I'd like to distribute from my site, not so much. Not everyone wants to gear their company around building a support network, especially when one might not be required. We're not really disagreeing at all.

I know of many hosting companies that offer CentOS hosting, with no sign of Red Hat in sight (e.g. http://www.hetzner.de/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex4). This doesn't change the fact that Red Hat is still alive and well, but it does show that many people will use the alternative if available. As CentOS becomes more popular, let's watch its impact on Red Hat. I for one hope it doesn't financially hurt red hat, because that would in turn kill CentOS.