On Monday 24 July 2006 10:13, John Pugh wrote:
> The US is a "free" country, I merely stated that you are using free out
> of context. Free can be used as you wish, but when it comes to OSS, free
> does not equal free of charge, per se, it equals free to do what I want
> to do with it.
No I'm not using free out of context. There ARE other definitions of the word
which CAN be used even if one is talking about OSS.
> > We have always had a free, as in no charge, access to GPL'd software.This
> > is _one_ of the reasons so many people got involved. No cost to check it
> > out
> > and
> > use it for as long and much as you want. Corporate America tends to
> > think
> > that something you don't pay for must be substandard, because they
> > don't get
> > the concept of how the model of OSS works. They are to stuck in
> > thinking
> > that
> > unless they receive money upfront there will be no other or later
> > exchange.
>
> I would argue that point. You have not always had free, as in no
> charge, access to GPL software. I know of many GPL programs that are not
> free of charge...not widely distributed, but not free of charge. The
> only way to get it was via purchasing a CD.
?!? And this relates to what? We still have been able to d/l s/w for years
with no direct exchange for it.
> Keep in mind, again, you are not paying for the update itself. You are
> paying for the use of the update mechanism if you really want to get
> technical about it. This is not something that Novell started, just
> something that we continued using.
I think that was the exact definition I gave.
> > I came from corporate America and was blown away back in - 95 when I
>> saw what
> > Linux offered. Slackware gave me a big thick manual and a CD with
> > several
> > complete development and programming languages for $35. Then for
> > another $30
> > I could get four more CD's shipped to me. I had struck gold as far as
> > I was
> > concerned.
>
> But it wasn't free. You paid for it as did I, until I got my netcom
> account and was able to FTP Slackware.
I paid until you got an account!?! You are SOO off the point. This is totally
moot.
> > My point is that we are used to be able to just go out and get any
> > distro
> > and
> > all the s/w for free, as in not paying anyone for accessing it on
> > their
> > servers. (I of course continue this notion of Novell charging for
> > updates
> > based on what you had said earlier.)
>
> And you still can get access to SUSE Linux for no charge other than
> your time and bandwidth from www.opensuse.org and from
> download.novell.com. You can also get access to all of the patches and
> updates individually from support.novell.com to your hearts content.
> However, in my world, time is money and $50 to save me hours of labor to
> download each update individually is well worth the money. My generality
> was taken literally and I will be much more careful in the future to
> clarify my statements.
>
> As you can tell...I try VERY hard to subvert all of the FUD and myths
> that I read/hear. My apologies if I write contentiously, it is not
> intended. I'm anal about making sure that correct information is out
> there and I work feverishly to ensure it's accurateness.
Yes, I would agree you are. As I said one can use the word free with any
definition one so desire even if mentioning OSS in the same breath. It is
called English. One of the most flexible languages I know.
At some point the anti FUD becomes FUD simply by resisting anything that
possibly, vaguely, somehow, could be, misinterpreted as FUD.
I'm all for no FUD and correct data. It's good that we have someone from
Novell here to help in any capacity. But lighten up or you will be creating
anti sentiments for Novell instead.
All that happend here is that you had chosen some bad words, and then when
that became misleading instead of correcting your earlier statement you
jumped on my sentiments as if it was FUD, when indeed I was supportive of
Novell. It looks like you did not duplicate what I said.
I did not complain that Novell charges $50. Indeed I were actually supportive
of it. We ARE used to being able to d/l GPL s/w for free for years now,
regardless if some don't allow it, or when it first became possible for all.
It simply looks to argumentative when you don't even respond to the actual
message but just start a rant about how Novell is totally correct and could
do nothing wrong kind of any kind.
I think we all know that Novell is contributing a lot of good things to OSS.
That we are all better of because of their efforts.
However, we ARE the market, something which Novell and all others are trying
to corner. We have agreements and disagreements with Novell and others over
all sorts of items. So we voice it. Sooner or later some distro notices a
certain point of interest being carried and they try to deal with it as they
see fit.
(Is that your or my client butchering the replies into several lines? I'm
finding myself putting my own lines back together to keep a formatted
message.)
--Steve Szmidt
"To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:01:29 EDT