On Tuesday 08 December 2009 20:28:31 Eyolf Østrem wrote: > On 08.12.2009 (06:36), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Monday 07 December 2009 23:44:25 Thierry de Coulon wrote: > > > May I ask what changes with free programs as long as you are no > > > programer? I love this affirmation but it's very theoretical for the > > > average user.... > > > > No, it's not. > > > > With free software any programmer with the necessary skills can modify > > the program; even if you lack the skills there are a number of ways to > > get the modifications you would like done. It might not be without cost, > > but it is available. > > However much I agree with the principle of open source/free software, this > argument stays for the most part in the "principle" area. In PRACTICE > (which is what the OP implied with the "average user"), there is little or > no difference between open and closed software. Sure, you can see the > source code, but how many do? I usually don't, because I'm not a > programmer, and mostly it doesn't mean anything to me anyway. And I would > NEVER dare to tinker with source code for anything bigger than a bash > script (well, I have, and it turned out horribly...). With proprietary software you have to have the blessing of the single entity that controls that software in order to make changes. With Free Software, you can make changes without blessing from any single entity. Yes, it doesn't change the skill level required to make changes. Licensing terms can't and won't change that. In practice to make a modification to the Windows kernel, you'd have to convince someone currently working on the Windows kernel team to make the changes for you (generally, some cash exchange is involved) *and* get them pre-approved by Microsoft (again, some cash exchange is involved, in addition to a customized license that is agreed to by both parties). In practice to make a modification to Linux, you'd have to convince someone currently working on the Linux (kernel) team to make the changes for you (generally, some cash exchange is involved). But, because of the license chosen for Linux, the second requirement is lessened. [1] > So, in sum, the "you can see the source code and do anything you like with > it" is a meaningless statement to anyone who is not a programmer: NO, I > can't do anything I like with it -- I can't do anything AT ALL with it. > Ideologically, it may be a valid point, but in practice it's not. There is a difference in practice. It doesn't remove the skills requirement, but it does remove the centralized control. On top of that, the description above glosses over the fact that there are programmers outside of the normal development team that have the skills required. > Besides, what you describe is in effect a fork -- a one-person or > one-organization fork, but a fork all the same. Unless the changes are > trivial or the application is very modular, chances are that it will be a > dead end: for every upgrade of the source code, you'll have to incorporate > the changes, hoping that they don't break something. If I am a big > corporation with enough money to spend to pay a developer to implement my > wishes, I would still be caught in this trap. And since I'm not, it's > still just a dream scenario. Not a dream scenario. Multiple successful forks have occurred with the free software world. (Xorg was a fork, ECGS was a fork later merged back in, Xemacs started as a fork.) A fork of a large project can take a lot of effort -- licensing won't free you from that. However, because of the licensing, you have a wider pool of contributors that aren't risking legal action to aid you. I don't know why everyone decides that the 4 freedoms guaranteed by Free Software have to be something they can *individually*, *alone* exercise. [1] If you can't use the GPLv2 license for your modifications you would still have to do the same negotiation that would would for proprietary software, but with many, many, entities. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___________________________________________________ This message is from the kde mailing list. Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde. Archives: http://lists.kde.org/. More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
