"trying to convince the Justice Ministry to change to Free Software."
Good luck, but don't forget the companies that provide proprietary-based solutions(mainly MS software) pump lots of money to our government(Novabase sponsors the Socialist Party campaign for example, the same party that came up with this so called "Technologic Plan".), "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
notrms
· 1 year ago
"This is one of the things I’m not happy with GPL. They claim it’s totally free, but it isn’t. If you want to make any change to it, you have to make those changes available to everybody."
É engraçado como produzes uma afirmação como esta... Isto não é verdade, desde que não distribuas um binário NÃO ÉS OBRIGADO A DISTRIBUIR NADA.!
Para a próxima lê o texto da licença antes de te armares aos cucos :P
alcides
· 1 year ago
@notrms But I do want to distribute the binaries. And yes, I've read the licence!
paula
· 1 year ago
"They claim it’s totally free, but it isn’t. If you want to make any change to it, you have to make those changes available to everybody"
Chama-se partilhar o conhecimento com os outros e é a base do software livre. Chama-se dar aos outros algo em troca do que eles me deram. Se te deram um programa, e tu o melhoras é uma questão de amabilidade dares em trocas essa melhoria. É a base do software livre e é uma forma de "agradeceres" o programa que alguém fez sem ser pago, por exemplo. Ao contrário do "eu melhorei este programa, mas não vou reparti-lo com ninguém, é só para mim"
You're mistaken about this "friend of yours" when it comes to a lot of things. That "friend of yours" supports the OS model as in he advocates it, he encourages it. Now, that doesn't mean he won't contribute. Besides, it's not about paying the bills at the end of the month. The company he works for plays in a different strategy field, that's all. And he sure does a lot of work when he gets home, family may not count as IT development but comes with the job.
Now, if you ask this "friend of yours" what he thinks about OS, he won't quote Stallman in anyway. Independent thought should focus mainly on logos, way before ethos or pathos. Therefore you'll probably hear him saying that OS prevents each one of us to reinvent the wheel every time one develops something. He'll say to you that OS promotes open standards and effectively reduces costs when it comes to enterprise world. You'll also learn that LGPL is a good alternative since it doesn't force you to redistribute your modified code.
And yeah, of course both proprietary and free software can coexist. Life's not black & white.
Bruno Miguel
· 1 year ago
Não concordo com o Stallman quando ele diz que ninguém deve utilizar aplicações web. Devemos, mas elas têm que deixar de ser o tal perigo que ele diz, correctamente, que são. Por isso é que eu, cada vez mais, tenho muito cuidado na escolha dos serviços que uso e ainda mais cuidado com a informação que lá meto.
Já dizia a minha avó: o pior cego é aquele que não quer ver.
ricardo nunes
· 1 year ago
num mundo quase perfeito onde se respeitasse o trabalho dos outros, precisariamos únicamente de uma licença como a BSD, num mundo perfeito nao precisariamos de nenhuma, no mundo caõ onde vivemos onde ninguém respeita o trabalho dos outros e a maior parte das vezes quer ´roubá-lo, precisamos da GPL especialmente da GPLv3.
cumps
Mind Booster Noori
· 1 year ago
This is why I don’t believe in the Free Software as in “All software should be opensourced and free to change, distribute and so.”.
If you don't believe in Free Software as in "all software should be bla bla bla", then you don't believe in free software, because that's its definition. You just need to admit to yourself that you believe not in Free Software but in Open Source.
This is one of the things I’m not happy with GPL. They claim it’s totally free, but it isn’t. If you want to make any change to it, you have to make those changes available to everybody.
That's what makes it free: I explain why in Paula's blog and I don't think I should repeat myself (why there and not here explained in the end of this comment).
A friend of mine, who really supports OpenSource model, justifies that he doesn’t contribute because that doesn’t pay the bills at the end of the day, and he doesn’t want to do any more development outside of his working day.
This was already partially rebutted in earlier comments. Let me just add some things: 1) He can be a supporter of Open Source and not of Free Software, since they are different things. So I don't understand this affirmation in your blog post after talking about Free Software. 2) Contributing to open source is as easy as using Open Source, recommending Open Source, giving suggestions or bug reports... Any of those are already contributions. More, he doesn't *have* to contribute with Open Source at all: most people that like Open Source end up contributing because they *fell* they should - that's all. 3) Open Source *pays* bills. It might not pay his, but that's just because he's not working on Open Source. Many people have their bills excusively payed by Open Source.
----
Now, offtopic: I wanted to read the comments and comment this blog post for a long time, but I couldn't. Something is preventing me to do so in both my mobile browsers (Opera Mini and the BlackBerry one). You should fix that, and that's the reason why the GPL thing ended up commented in Paula's post about this issue.
alcides
· 1 year ago
"You just need to admit to yourself that you believe not in Free Software but in Open Source."
I've been saying this all along. Just check the "right from the start" link in the post.
Opensource can pay you bill, but it may not. And if everybody supported opensource without programming, it wouldn't evolve. Personally I feel like people who take advantage of OpenSource software and have programming skills, but don't contribute with it, are having a bad karma, but that's just me.
All Comments
Good luck, but don't forget the companies that provide proprietary-based solutions(mainly MS software) pump lots of money to our government(Novabase sponsors the Socialist Party campaign for example, the same party that came up with this so called "Technologic Plan".), "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
É engraçado como produzes uma afirmação como esta... Isto não é verdade, desde que não distribuas um binário NÃO ÉS OBRIGADO A DISTRIBUIR NADA.!
Para a próxima lê o texto da licença antes de te armares aos cucos :P
Chama-se partilhar o conhecimento com os outros e é a base do software livre. Chama-se dar aos outros algo em troca do que eles me deram. Se te deram um programa, e tu o melhoras é uma questão de amabilidade dares em trocas essa melhoria. É a base do software livre e é uma forma de "agradeceres" o programa que alguém fez sem ser pago, por exemplo. Ao contrário do "eu melhorei este programa, mas não vou reparti-lo com ninguém, é só para mim"
You're mistaken about this "friend of yours" when it comes to a lot of things. That "friend of yours" supports the OS model as in he advocates it, he encourages it. Now, that doesn't mean he won't contribute. Besides, it's not about paying the bills at the end of the month. The company he works for plays in a different strategy field, that's all. And he sure does a lot of work when he gets home, family may not count as IT development but comes with the job.
Now, if you ask this "friend of yours" what he thinks about OS, he won't quote Stallman in anyway. Independent thought should focus mainly on logos, way before ethos or pathos. Therefore you'll probably hear him saying that OS prevents each one of us to reinvent the wheel every time one develops something. He'll say to you that OS promotes open standards and effectively reduces costs when it comes to enterprise world. You'll also learn that LGPL is a good alternative since it doesn't force you to redistribute your modified code.
And yeah, of course both proprietary and free software can coexist. Life's not black & white.
Já dizia a minha avó: o pior cego é aquele que não quer ver.
cumps
If you don't believe in Free Software as in "all software should be bla bla bla", then you don't believe in free software, because that's its definition. You just need to admit to yourself that you believe not in Free Software but in Open Source.
That's what makes it free: I explain why in Paula's blog and I don't think I should repeat myself (why there and not here explained in the end of this comment).
This was already partially rebutted in earlier comments. Let me just add some things:
1) He can be a supporter of Open Source and not of Free Software, since they are different things. So I don't understand this affirmation in your blog post after talking about Free Software.
2) Contributing to open source is as easy as using Open Source, recommending Open Source, giving suggestions or bug reports... Any of those are already contributions. More, he doesn't *have* to contribute with Open Source at all: most people that like Open Source end up contributing because they *fell* they should - that's all.
3) Open Source *pays* bills. It might not pay his, but that's just because he's not working on Open Source. Many people have their bills excusively payed by Open Source.
----
Now, offtopic: I wanted to read the comments and comment this blog post for a long time, but I couldn't. Something is preventing me to do so in both my mobile browsers (Opera Mini and the BlackBerry one). You should fix that, and that's the reason why the GPL thing ended up commented in Paula's post about this issue.
I've been saying this all along. Just check the "right from the start" link in the post.
Opensource can pay you bill, but it may not. And if everybody supported opensource without programming, it wouldn't evolve. Personally I feel like people who take advantage of OpenSource software and have programming skills, but don't contribute with it, are having a bad karma, but that's just me.
Regarding the comment system, http://wiki.alcidesfonseca.com/blog/comment-wit... I've said I don't like it being a javascript widget. But I have more urgent stuff in my todolist :/