5 ms·

If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money?

If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money? (Unless you receive a computer as a gift or it is freely leased; but then that applies to Macs as much as any computer.)

scintill76 11y ago
The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware. You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper. I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.
  - MawNicker 11y ago
    That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.
    - interpol_p 11y ago
      The argument was made against the statement "Apple gives Xcode away for free." They do give Xcode away for free. I didn't think that factoring a modern development computer into the price was a reasonable stance to take against that line.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Mac isn't a modern development computer. It's a very specific modern development computer, and not necessarily the best in terms of quality/cost. We're getting unnecessarily deep into dissecting this single line anyway. The original poster's point was that Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, while of great quality, still isn't the "bicycle for the mind" because it's terribly locked down.
        interpol_p 11y ago
        I find that argument to be bizarre. You can do computer science on paper. As long as you can write programs and run them then who cares whether you compile them directly to the hardware or interpret them, or whatever? Apple locks down its distribution platform. It doesn't lock down your brain from thinking or writing programs, and it doesn't lock down its computers from running them for you.
  - scintill76 11y ago
    Maybe nobody will see this, but consider this thought experiment: You have a replicator like from Star Trek, which can make any computer that exists now, at zero cost (say it uses garbage you were going to throw away.) Presumably if you copied an Apple machine, it would not legally be a true licensed Apple machine, for the same reason that making unauthorized byte-for-byte copies of digital files does not create additional licenses to use them however you'd like. If Xcode's license requires licensed Apple hardware, it can't legally be run on that machine. On the other hand, FLOSS compilers could run on that, or on a free/libre hardware design that is not even in a grey area to replicate. While the analogy is maybe a bit silly or different than what was originally said (interpreting "free of cost" more like "libre"), I think it illustrates a real difference that is relevant. (Btw, I don't actually know Xcode's license -- maybe it only needs Mac OS for technical reasons, not licensing reasons, in which case it could legally and practically be run on any sufficiently correct Mac OS emulator.)
adrusi 11y ago
The argument is that Xcode isn't free because its use requires a previous purchase of a computer from the same vendor.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  Why does it matter that the money goes to the same vendor? The argument is about whether the software is "free" or not. This only involves the cost to the end user. It is not concerned with where that money is paid.

scintill76 11y ago

The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware. You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.

interpol_p 11y ago
I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper. I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.
- MawNicker 11y ago
  That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    The argument was made against the statement "Apple gives Xcode away for free." They do give Xcode away for free. I didn't think that factoring a modern development computer into the price was a reasonable stance to take against that line.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Mac isn't a modern development computer. It's a very specific modern development computer, and not necessarily the best in terms of quality/cost. We're getting unnecessarily deep into dissecting this single line anyway. The original poster's point was that Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, while of great quality, still isn't the "bicycle for the mind" because it's terribly locked down.
      - interpol_p 11y ago
        I find that argument to be bizarre. You can do computer science on paper. As long as you can write programs and run them then who cares whether you compile them directly to the hardware or interpret them, or whatever? Apple locks down its distribution platform. It doesn't lock down your brain from thinking or writing programs, and it doesn't lock down its computers from running them for you.
- scintill76 11y ago
  Maybe nobody will see this, but consider this thought experiment: You have a replicator like from Star Trek, which can make any computer that exists now, at zero cost (say it uses garbage you were going to throw away.) Presumably if you copied an Apple machine, it would not legally be a true licensed Apple machine, for the same reason that making unauthorized byte-for-byte copies of digital files does not create additional licenses to use them however you'd like. If Xcode's license requires licensed Apple hardware, it can't legally be run on that machine. On the other hand, FLOSS compilers could run on that, or on a free/libre hardware design that is not even in a grey area to replicate. While the analogy is maybe a bit silly or different than what was originally said (interpreting "free of cost" more like "libre"), I think it illustrates a real difference that is relevant. (Btw, I don't actually know Xcode's license -- maybe it only needs Mac OS for technical reasons, not licensing reasons, in which case it could legally and practically be run on any sufficiently correct Mac OS emulator.)

adrusi 11y ago

The argument is that Xcode isn't free because its use requires a previous purchase of a computer from the same vendor.

interpol_p 11y ago
Why does it matter that the money goes to the same vendor? The argument is about whether the software is "free" or not. This only involves the cost to the end user. It is not concerned with where that money is paid.