Creation of Free Software group

As differences of opinions tend to grow in Linux users group I decided to create the "Free Software Group" now. Although I initiated the Linux user group I think there are too much differences to really have a common basis.

So I invite those of you who use Linux or develop for Linux because of the free software and not just because Linux is free (as in free beer) or it is more stable to join this group. So this group is not just about Linux. It can also be a platform for other OS discussions or free software on Windows.

I see this in parallel to the Free Culture group. Some see the views of free software as too radical - I do not agree - I think there is nothing more radical as the reduction of users to customers-only. Free Software is about freedom. And freedom never fell from the sky but has to be worked on. And I think most of the Linux users in the Linux group rather just want to use and are not interested in licenses at all. So this is the wrong place for discussing those issues.

I am looking for a place for our first meeting. I like this to be more public and a place where other similar meetings/discussions are already active.

If you want to join, search for "Free Software".

cu,

Vinci

*hands Vinci a red hat and a long beard, then moves on*

That sounds like a good idea, Vinci.

I use linux because its better, and I support it by using it, for example ONLY using the SL Linux Client in SL. I can afford to, I don't use sound a lot and don't script, so the missing features don't ruin SL for me.

It is better, as a consequence of it being open, in use, distribution, development and debugging.

If it became closed, it would start getting worse, so I would stop using it. Then I might as well use solaris, HP-UX or AIX. They are also good, but linux is better, because it is open. Strangely enough, more open than OpenBSD, which has a more relaxed license than (L)GPL.

However, for me, and I think a lot of the "social" types that use the SL Linux client, it is a platform, and not a mission. And my concern is, getting SL Linux running full featured and stable, with as many "geek installation problems" as possible eliminated in the packaging.

I have the sneaking suspicion, that that is also the purpose of the Linux Cleint Users Group

The more esoteric parts on Linux / FreeBSD are probably better covered by the Linux Users Group, I would think, but I wish you LOTS of success on your new group.

I hope we can continue to work together, Vinci. You have done a lot to help build the use of Linux with SL

Yes, Vinci,

I too agree that Free Software is a Good Thing (TM). I am also a great fan of the GPL as a way for developers to retain control over software that they have put time and effort into.

However, unlike you, I do not feel that all software must be Free. Developers and distributers must be given the freedom (!) to choose the license they think best suits their needs. If GPL really is the best, then eventually all software will be licensed in this way (by natural selection). Trying to force people to change their licensing is really quite counter-productive IMHO. I also agree that abuse of the license of GPL'd software is serious and bad, but the first step should always be to point out potential problems to the developers themselves so they can be fixed rather than reflex abuse-reporting.

Still, I too would love to see a time when all software is under the GPL. At present, there is no chance of this, however, and if we are going to encourage people to consider trying Linux we need to have a similar range of software and tools availabile. There are loads of GPL examples I know, but if this range of software can be enhanced by closed source proprietary software that runs natively on Linux, this can only be for the best (IMHO). Personally, I don't want to be confined to a self-imposed GPL ghetto.

I think the way to encourage people to consider using open source (which LL are AFAIK) is to point out the advantages, and preferably to demonstrate them, rather than just complaining that "it's just how it should be"

whats the smilie for a single raised eyebrow ?

Sorry, didn't mean to rant quite as incoherently as above..

I feel slightly in two minds about the whole thing, because although I am a subscriber to the Free Software ideal, and think it should be promoted, I also take a pragmatic approach: where closed source or proprietary software significantly exceed the capabilities of Free software, I go for the former, as it is clear you do Vinci: NVIDIA or ATI drivers, for example.

The real question I think that needs to be addressed is how to encourage more developers to use Free licenses, and this is not that simple a problem: a business model which makes use of GPLed software is quite different from closed source model (more modern perhaps, but quite a sea-change). I am not even sure how something like SL, where user-created non-free content is an encouraged part of the game, would work if it was GPLed. I guess it doesn't conflict, but it seems quite odd to me. In terms of the business for LL, since the main resource they are providing is server space etc. I guess it could work, but it would be a big risk to take in terms of possible hostile forks.

Anyway, sorry about another rambling reply. The point I wanted to make, Vinci, was that your group sounds interesting, but I am not 100% sure if I am the sort of person you envisaged joining your Free Software group: is it for idealists only?

Edit: Added more discussion

Hm, idealists. You know that I am using Nvidia kernel modules, too. But I hate to either use an old kernel or stop using SL till modules for new kernel is out. I would call myself paragmatic, too. But I think this group is not for those who do not see free software as an important value. I would not want to have the same kind of discussion in that group like I had in the Linux group. I think this group is not for those people hat would subscribe to views like:

a) free software is not important.
b) It is Ok when the SL Linux client keeps to be proprietary software.
c) I dont care about licenses, I just want to have fun.



Rather those views fit better:

a) I prefer to use free software if it is available
b) I would live to see all my favourite programs to be free.
c) I respect the works that free software developers and thinkers have done before us ( "standing on the shoulders of giants" )

I really don't think advocating free software is radical or idealistic. I think it is very pragmatic.

Why do I have to reboot to Windows sometimes?
Because some of my favourite software is not running under Linux.
Why do I have to update nvidia kernel modules?
Because they are not free software!
Why do SL Linux users do dirty patches?
Because SL Linux client is not free and they can not change the source.

Many Linux users see "free software" as nice to have and as some kind of gift that is given by developers. I see it as a necessary step for me and others to be able to extend software and to be able to correct bugs without the help of the publishers. Free software is about cooperative development. I think many problems of the SL Linux client do come out of the strategy of LL to focus on the growth of SL without thinking about starting with free software from the beginning.

Um ... This is plain wrong.

First, you don't have to update NVidia drivers. You can choose to keep the old ones running as long as you like.

Second, what has updating drivers to do with them being free or non-free? You're implying that free drivers don't have to be updated? This is complete and utter rubbish. If a new kernel comes out and a free driver does not support this kernel yet, you will have to wait for it being updated, too, or - if you are really good - update it yourself.

What I constantly ask myself is why you even talk if you do not have any idea of Linux and the kernel. Do I really have to explain everything. I do not have problems with somebody knowing not much, but I hate it when ppl use words like "rubbish" and making explicit but false statements.

First if you have thought for yourself you would have noticed that you only need to update the module by hand if you use the proprietary drivers. Normally modules get updated alltogether because they are all GPL and are all submitted into the kernel tree.

I have never had any trouble with free modules, only with the binary ones.

Vinci

Vinci, we may get this with XGL. But like all things, it is step by step.

Even Open Source cannot help with proprietary hardware, if the interfaces to the system etc are closed.

I am glad NVidia supplies the driver; I am also very sad that there is no equally good open source driver.

So I agree; but it will not stop me using the driver NVidia kindly made available to me for Linux

I had a good laugh on that one You don't know me. I think I can consider myself quite experienced in this field.


Wrong again.

This is only true if all of the modules you're using are inside of the kernel tree. Any external modules - open source or not - must be updated manually. Not all drivers come bundled with the kernel itself. For example the "acerhk" module (hotkey handling on acer travelmate laptops). This one is open source, yet it's not included in the kernel tree. If I update my kernel, this module needs to be updated, too.

I'm surprised you, of all people, would get this wrong. Linux _is_ the kernel. But I think that is taking pedantry one step too far..



Hmm.. I have been happily free of Windows for the last 4 years.

I take what you are saying about Free software and everything.. I agree it is the best way to go. But for some of us who have taken the plunge to be 100% free of MS cra^H^H^H software then the better option is to be able to run closed source or proprietary software natively rather than have nothing. As many others have said, just because the kernel is Linux, doesn't mean that all software that runs on it must be (L)GPL.

I love Free software and it's aims as much as the next Linux user.. all the software I have written is released under GPL, and not because it links GPL libraries, but because I love the idea and the whole ethos behind Free software... for people to be able to share and contribute whilst keeping the work for the good of the community is an excellent ideal.

However, to make money with GPL software does require quite a radical change to any business model. I know you haven't said SL should be GPL but I know you would love this to happen (me too) but I think it is unlikely (not impossible). BUT to encourage companies and devs to consider this sort of outcome, IMHO, it is best not to attack them, and (what you see as) their mistakes, but to work with them. Personally, I am overjoyed that LL have released a native client for SL, and am even happier that they have allowed the alpha testing to be open. I am more than willing to put in a bit of time to help smooth the creases, even though they may be making money from the enterprise.. For me, the ability to run SL natively is worth my investment of time. In any case, I don't think the Linux client is a major money-spinner for LL (at least not yet, nor for the forseeable future), but one effect it is having, is making people using SL in Windows try Linux out for the first time. This can only be a good thing for the Linux community as a whole.

I really do agree with you that Free Software is a good thing (I am a package maintainer on Debian for example). But I also think that choice and freedom (in a wider sense) are good things.. People must have the choice to use proprietary software if they wish. I think your attitude towards LL is needlessly harsh considering the amount of effort they are putting into supporting the Linux community, and I think this can only do harm to peoples views of the Linux community and the Free Software movement in the long term.

I do wish you wouldn't.



Your obviously a tortured soul, flog the $%@*#&@ nvidia card on ebay and buy one you can live with.

I would see it the other way around: Linux community is supporting LL. And THEY make the money. This is a very objective view of the situation. I do not really get why you think that LL wants to support the Linux community. At best LL is considering to switch to an open source model and is happy to get support FROM Linux developers. This is a company that wants to make money and has a mission, anything on the way that helps will be done or taken. There mission is definitely not to help Linux.

I rather see it as: Linux users have their own goals and must convince companies to do what is best for them (same as companies do). If we are lucky both parts share some interests. Thats all.

Look at "Sun Mirososystems". They do many things with open source, but many people, also Ex-Sun workers continue to ask them when they will open the Java code and why it takes so long. In the end, if Sun finally switch i think it will be because people did ask and not of those who pray to Sun and say "thank you for bringing us Java". Progress comes from demand and not from being easily satisfied.

And again: If I had gotten any answers from them I would believe there would be progress. I found out that you often get real quick answers from people that are very busy and heads of projects so I do not think that a whole company does not have the time to answer but does not want to answer for specific reasons. This is a kind of obscurity where you have to ask you: Why is that?

But lets end this thread Ninjaffo is getting aggressive again and I really don't need that.

Vinci

never had trouble talking to a linden. Sometime you'll have to come to the conclusion that the lindens are likely ignoring you.

dont blame 'em either.

No, their mission is to make money. You're correct. They are, after all, a company in a capitalist market. However, it currently makes very little economic sense to release a game in Linux. Companies that do so are doing it to show that they support the idea of gamers having a choice of OS. It shows, often, that they support open standards by using OpenGL over DirectX. It's a gesture of goodwill, not a way to make money. If you consider development and support costs compared to potential new users, it almost certainly costs them money.

My hat's off to Epic, Id, S2, Bioware, and now LL. And yeah, I missed some companies. But you guys are cool too.

And of those companies, LL has the fastest response time to user queries by far.


Don and Karen have been more outspoken about the status of builds than any other company I've seen. How many companies have employees that even read their message boards? Come out of the dream-land you live in and pay attention. The open source world is different than the proprietary world, and that will remain the case for some time. The process of integrating the two can be sped up, but not by bitching about it. It will happen naturally, as software companies realize they are operating in a service industry, not a production industry.