- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The paradox of FOSS projects supporting Windows
|
|
|
Comments (36)
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
> Freedom to decide that even Windows users should enjoy a little bit of freedom.
Nobody here has ever said that windows users should be denied a sample of what's been available to linux users
OTOH the FOSS developer community need not feel obligated to spend valuable time and energy trying to make the microsoft windows experience as wonderful as possible, at the expense of FOSS operating systems.
For a lot of us, microsoft really never enters our thoughts except as an occasional annoyance. Now, a little taste of FOSS goodness for the windows crowd every now and then is fine, but let's not lose sight of our main focus: The viability and long term survival of linux.
Nobody here has ever said that windows users should be denied a sample of what's been available to linux users
OTOH the FOSS developer community need not feel obligated to spend valuable time and energy trying to make the microsoft windows experience as wonderful as possible, at the expense of FOSS operating systems.
For a lot of us, microsoft really never enters our thoughts except as an occasional annoyance. Now, a little taste of FOSS goodness for the windows crowd every now and then is fine, but let's not lose sight of our main focus: The viability and long term survival of linux.
>OTOH the FOSS developer community need not feel obligated to spend valuable time and energy
Have you paid no attention whatsoever over the last 10 years or so?
Hello GNOME, mono, mozilla, a bazillion linux distributions, etc,etc,etc. The FOSS developer community seems pretty good at going it's own way. Who in the hell are you to tell somebody else what their main focus should be?
Have you paid no attention whatsoever over the last 10 years or so?
Hello GNOME, mono, mozilla, a bazillion linux distributions, etc,etc,etc. The FOSS developer community seems pretty good at going it's own way. Who in the hell are you to tell somebody else what their main focus should be?
Quoting:Have you paid no attention whatsoever over the last 10 years or so?Yes, I've been working in IT and using linux full time on the desktop. your point?
Hello GNOME, mono, mozilla, a bazillion linux distributions, etc,etc,etc.
Quoting:The FOSS developer community seems pretty good at going it's own way. Who in the hell are you to tell somebody else what their main focus should be?Who am I? I'm a linux user - and last time I checked, we had a right to our views.
Freedom 0: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose."
Without condition with regard to platform. In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software.
EDIT: This applies to GPL'd software. I assumed that was the case, but later re-reading indicated I should clarify.
Without condition with regard to platform. In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software.
EDIT: This applies to GPL'd software. I assumed that was the case, but later re-reading indicated I should clarify.
Express your views yes, tell someone what should or should not be their purpose or primary priority not a chance. Complaining that a FOSS developer, or some other individual skilled enough to port a FOSS project to a different platform does not in any way alter your choices or freedoms. No one is forcing them to support it, if they do, it is by their own choice. By denigrating or otherwise whining about them excersizing their freedoms your only emphasizing your hypocrisy.
The long term viability and survival of linux, if you'll pardon the heresy, is secondary. If you turn your back on the underlying values then it is nothing, you take the FOSS development model and turn it into a proprietary development model, the code may be free but the coder is not. Seems a pretty good example of hypocrisy to me. But hey, who am I, just a guy expressing his views on his understanding of Open Source.
The long term viability and survival of linux, if you'll pardon the heresy, is secondary. If you turn your back on the underlying values then it is nothing, you take the FOSS development model and turn it into a proprietary development model, the code may be free but the coder is not. Seems a pretty good example of hypocrisy to me. But hey, who am I, just a guy expressing his views on his understanding of Open Source.
Quoting:In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software.
Gnome Hearts purposely does not run on Windows. I've decided right from the get go that it would be a waste of my time. Am I breaking freedom 0? Of course not. Freedom 0 means that you get to choose. I choose to not make Gnome Hearts work on Windows. Someone else may choose to port Gnome Hearts to Windows. That's their prerogative. I can choose not to accept the port into the main Gnome Hearts trunk. That's my prerogative.
Quoting:Am I breaking freedom 0?
I guess the question is did you deliberately broke the code so that it refuses to run/compile or Windows, or just that you didn't bother to port it?
@Sander:
My only question following is this: If someone makes a patch to get Gnome Hearts to run on Windows, and then you update the source code, are you purposely breaking the patch?
My only question following is this: If someone makes a patch to get Gnome Hearts to run on Windows, and then you update the source code, are you purposely breaking the patch?
@jezuch & gus: That's irrelevant. I have the freedom to purposely break Windows support if I want to (Note: I didn't do that in reality. Gnome Hearts is simply too closely tied to GTK and Gnome). I can include something like the following tidbit and still be FOSS:
The only thing that would be against freedom 0 is if my license said "You may not run this program on Windows". That would be breaking freedom 0 which would make my code non-FOSS. What my code actually does is irrelevant.
The four freedoms are about the license that the code is under, not about the code itself or what it does.
#include <glib.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
#ifdef G_OS_WIN32
return 1;
#endif
...
}The only thing that would be against freedom 0 is if my license said "You may not run this program on Windows". That would be breaking freedom 0 which would make my code non-FOSS. What my code actually does is irrelevant.
The four freedoms are about the license that the code is under, not about the code itself or what it does.
Sander -
I disagree.
Adding code for the specific purpose of preventing people from running your software under Windows, say, under Cygwin, is counter to the very idea of free software. It makes you Microsoft without the monopoly, at least from an ethical standpoint. You can do it, and nobody can stop you, but expending effort to limit free use of your software certainly moves you off the moral high ground in any discussion of software freedom.
Simply refusing to support Windows is a different thing. You don't have to -- ethically, morally, etc -- have to expend a single iota of effort supporting any specific platform, Linux, OSX, and *BSD included.
I disagree.
Adding code for the specific purpose of preventing people from running your software under Windows, say, under Cygwin, is counter to the very idea of free software. It makes you Microsoft without the monopoly, at least from an ethical standpoint. You can do it, and nobody can stop you, but expending effort to limit free use of your software certainly moves you off the moral high ground in any discussion of software freedom.
Simply refusing to support Windows is a different thing. You don't have to -- ethically, morally, etc -- have to expend a single iota of effort supporting any specific platform, Linux, OSX, and *BSD included.
Quoting:Adding code for the specific purpose of preventing people from running your software under Windows, say, under Cygwin, is counter to the very idea of free software. It makes you Microsoft without the monopoly, at least from an ethical standpoint.
It may not be ethical, but nothing says I can't do it with FOSS. It's not addressed by freedom 0-3 and not addressed by the GPL (pick your version).
Sander -
No, nothing says you can't do it. And, being free software, the source code is available to anybody who cares to "undo" it.
The beauty of the GPL is that even ethically challenged developers are bound by its terms.
I guess that stands to reason -- if everybody shared RMS's ingrained values, there would be no need for the license.
No, nothing says you can't do it. And, being free software, the source code is available to anybody who cares to "undo" it.
The beauty of the GPL is that even ethically challenged developers are bound by its terms.
I guess that stands to reason -- if everybody shared RMS's ingrained values, there would be no need for the license.
Thank you dinotrac.
I was going to say "no better than Microsoft's iterative shafting of the .DOC format," but decided to wait for an answer first.
I was going to say "no better than Microsoft's iterative shafting of the .DOC format," but decided to wait for an answer first.
> I have the freedom to purposely break Windows support if I want to ...
Yes, you do. But as Dino and Gus note, you lose your moral position when you do.
Now, if the above code merely ties into a section which pops up a message saying "Sorry, Windows is not supported at this time, please contact me if you are interested in adding Windows support", then that's another matter.
Yes, you do. But as Dino and Gus note, you lose your moral position when you do.
Now, if the above code merely ties into a section which pops up a message saying "Sorry, Windows is not supported at this time, please contact me if you are interested in adding Windows support", then that's another matter.
@Sander:
>"It may not be ethical, but nothing says I can't do it with FOSS."
You see, here's where the hypocrisy part azerthoth mentioned starts. The GPLv3 does say you can't do that with FOSS - at least in one specific case. Remember the Tivoization issue? The specifics are a bit different (specific hardware, not specific software platforms) but the ISSUE is IDENTICAL. How is it wrong for Tivo to lock people out of their devices, but ok for you to lock people out of their chosen platforms? YES, I understand that "they could take the code and modify it to [blah, blah, blah . . ] , but the same argument stands for the TiVo code. How you use the code is your choice, how you use the box is based on the design of that box. Why doesn't the same standard apply to Windows? If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards. Once again, "it's free only if we approve of how you use it" seems to be the definition of "freedom" you'd espouse.
@Dino:
I believe Sander may share RMS' ingrained values - proprietary is bad, and should be illegal, if I'm paraphrasing correctly. This is the slippery slope down which the FSF, RMS, and now Sander have started sliding. Whether it's via license, modified code, or refusal to play nicely with the other children, the sentiment is the same. Enforcing your definition of "freedom" on others is no better than TiVo, Microsoft, Adobe, or any of the other "evil" players in this game.
>"It may not be ethical, but nothing says I can't do it with FOSS."
You see, here's where the hypocrisy part azerthoth mentioned starts. The GPLv3 does say you can't do that with FOSS - at least in one specific case. Remember the Tivoization issue? The specifics are a bit different (specific hardware, not specific software platforms) but the ISSUE is IDENTICAL. How is it wrong for Tivo to lock people out of their devices, but ok for you to lock people out of their chosen platforms? YES, I understand that "they could take the code and modify it to [blah, blah, blah . . ] , but the same argument stands for the TiVo code. How you use the code is your choice, how you use the box is based on the design of that box. Why doesn't the same standard apply to Windows? If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards. Once again, "it's free only if we approve of how you use it" seems to be the definition of "freedom" you'd espouse.
@Dino:
I believe Sander may share RMS' ingrained values - proprietary is bad, and should be illegal, if I'm paraphrasing correctly. This is the slippery slope down which the FSF, RMS, and now Sander have started sliding. Whether it's via license, modified code, or refusal to play nicely with the other children, the sentiment is the same. Enforcing your definition of "freedom" on others is no better than TiVo, Microsoft, Adobe, or any of the other "evil" players in this game.
@dumper: It's not exactly the same as Tivo. My example would be valid under GPLv3. What Tivo did isn't according to GPLv3 (though it barely skimmed GPLv2).
I'm curious as to that logic Sander, in a nutshell I see from you and Tivo, "Here is the code and you may play with it, but you can't use it because we instituted a blocker"
Mind you, I see nothing wrong with Tivo's application as they did share the functional code and then put in a hardware block. But we have all had that discussion ad nauseum before.
Mind you, I see nothing wrong with Tivo's application as they did share the functional code and then put in a hardware block. But we have all had that discussion ad nauseum before.
@Sander:
I understand, and you're correct, it technically meets the GPLv3 requirements.
But if you'll re-read the 1st paragraph in my last post, I've already covered that fact, and I believe you're rationalizing to justify the stand you've taken. That's an ugly substitute for reason. Again: If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards.
Funny how when proprietary interests restrict their own products or code, "the community" is all over them about it, but when "we" advocate those same tactics, it's suddenly ok. How is what you're advocating any different than a proprietary interest requiring Internet Exploder 6 to run, regardless of legitimate technical issues?
I understand, and you're correct, it technically meets the GPLv3 requirements.
But if you'll re-read the 1st paragraph in my last post, I've already covered that fact, and I believe you're rationalizing to justify the stand you've taken. That's an ugly substitute for reason. Again: If the platform is capable of running your app, but you cripple it simply because it's THAT platform, who's the one restricting freedom? That's worse than anything TiVo ever did by designing a product to specific standards.
Funny how when proprietary interests restrict their own products or code, "the community" is all over them about it, but when "we" advocate those same tactics, it's suddenly ok. How is what you're advocating any different than a proprietary interest requiring Internet Exploder 6 to run, regardless of legitimate technical issues?
Quoting:I'm curious as to that logic Sander
Easy. Tivo prevents you from running your modified Tivo code on the original platform. My example lets you run your modified version without any problem.
Quoting:But if you'll re-read the 1st paragraph in my last post, I've already covered that fact, and I believe you're rationalizing to justify the stand you've taken.
No need to rationalize anything here. I'm merely playing devil's advocate. Gus3 above wrote:
Quoting:In fact, making it purposely not run on Windows breaks the very first freedom of Free Software.
I disagreed with that and think I've proven it though my examples. Those examples have now outlived it's usefulness. I don't feel like debating the ethics of the GPL. I merely wanted to point out a flaw in Gus3's reasoning.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
So, I gather this to mean you don't know crap about free software.
Freedom as in freedom to make your own choices -- as in KDE or GNOME or E, as in python or ruby, as in Linux or Free/OpenBSd, etc, etc, etc.
Freedom to decide that even Windows users should enjoy a little bit of freedom.
I'm glad that Richard Stallman had the personal integrity to avoid your contradictory position.