12 ms·

When Free Software Depends on Nonfree

126 points by stargrave 11y ago

voaie 11y ago
Proprietary software companies trap you, so you utilize GPL to trap more lazy programmers? Selfish people are always selfish, lazy ones are still lazy. I don't like this model.
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  While I'm not a fan of the GPL and its viral nature either either, the kind of trapping you're referring to is not at all the same thing. If GCC was the only C compiler in the world, my Apache licensed (or hell, public domain) C project wouldn't really be "trapped" by GCC being GPL licensed, because that license allows me and my users unfettered access to GCC whenever we want, so there's no one who can't access compilation of my project, now or ever.
  - voaie 11y ago
    Your example does not solve this problem: You may rely on some excellent GPLed softwares, but you want to distribute it with some close-source softwares. Then you might become the lazy programmers. I can see how GPL fans hate close-source software, but they can also choose another license, so programmers could share their works easier, also get more ideas from non-GPL fans. ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      The world of free software would not exist today without the GPL. If everyone had used lax licenses, companies would've made proprietary forks and driven free software out of existence. Also, choosing MIT because "it's the middle ground" is a middle of the road fallacy. The GPL ensures users will always have freedom when using the software. Lax licenses provides no such assurance and proprietary software obviously doesn't provide anyone freedom. The purpose of the GPL is to halt malicious companies from using free software to mistreat users. The middle ground isn't better in this case.
      - voaie 11y ago
        Even if the source is guarded by GPL, the idea behind the source can be copied and represented in another form. Then the freedom defined by GPL is obscure to me. MIT licenses saves me from time-consuming copycat situations. Yeah, I am lazy, but I'm more willing to share (hard-working now) if you don't push me to extreme. I know the pattent laws in the past were somewhat ridiculous compared to what they are today (though still ridiculous sometimes), so GPL was/is really great then, just like the Creative Commons licenses.
        justinlardinois 11y ago
        Free software licenses have to do with copyright law, not patent law. And the only major change in copyright law in the last few decades was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which isn't super relevant to the issues in free software.
        voaie 11y ago
        Oh yes, thank you. I always relate free software to patent trolls, because software patents have huge impact on software development. When I relate GPL to Creative Commons, I mean they are good role models for defending legal rights and interests.
        cyphar 11y ago
        Patents and copyright are not related. But yes, software patents are still ridiculous, and getting more so. As for "the idea behind the source". Feel free to take the "idea behind the source" of FFmpeg or VLC or Linux. The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. As for "but I'm a poor developer, etc" then you have two choices: 1. Use the GPL code and comply with the GPL. This is actually a good thing if you care about your users' freedom. 2. Don't use the GPL code. Simple as that. There is no third "but I want to use the GPL without complying" option.
        voaie 11y ago
        > The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. Still, you cannot exactly explain what the freedom is. Proprietary softwares can copy the ideas without contributing back. I know manpower is important, so another great softwares similar to FFmpeg/VLC/Linux with MIT/BSD/... licenses won't appear very soon. If your freedom just means 1. Hey, just look at our GPL-licensed softwares, you propietary softwares can't use our code directly without any contribution. 2. Everyone should sell services, not code, for a more open world. then I've already understood. And I don't believe GPL can do much better than MIT/...
icebraining 11y ago
"upgrading to the next version of OpenERP required sending the database (full of patients' medical data) to OpenERP's server for reformatting." "Required" is a big overstatement. OpenERP (now Odoo) is FOSS, and uses a standard Postgres database. The thing is that Odoo didn't release the migration scripts when a new version was released, but you weren't required to use their service; OpenUpgrade[1], a community project for implementing these scripts, is proof of that - we've successfully used it to migrate all our clients from version 6.1 to 7 to 8. Disclaimer: I don't work for Odoo S.A., but I do work for a company that sells services based on the software. [1] https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/
- belorn 11y ago
  Why do Odoo S.A. not release the migration scripts? Is it the core of their business model that people do not have access to migration and are thus forced to buy from Odoo?
  - pinky07 11y ago
    Two years ago, it used to be our business model: selling maintenance services to bigger companies (includes unlimited technical support for bugfixes and upgrades). We tried hard to grow on services rather than selling proprietary features. (I don't think another open source software vendor succeeded to push a business model relying on services that far) We grew up to 300 employees with this model but reached the limit of the model. (most companies don't want to pay for bugfixes and prefer to buy upgrades later) Now, we rely on 3 different offers: https://odoo.com/pricing https://odoo.com/pricing Since we switched to the new open core model, everything is simpler. Revenues grew a lot (monthly MRR growth is 242% higher than before) and we can invest more in the development of the open source product. Relationship with partners is easier too. Disclaimer: I am the founder/CEO of Odoo.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      > We grew up to 300 employees with this model but reached the limit of the model Why do you need to grow more? 300 sounds like a very big company already.
na85 11y ago
As usual, RMS is content to sit back and complain rather than take action to try to effect positive change. Has he written any code in the last decade, or is he still going around giving the same tired speeches over and over? Do his anachronistic computing habits contribute to his continued irrelevance? Ubiquitous broadband connectivity has changed the world and it seems RMS is still living in the past. I hate SaaS models just as much as the next user, but I am also a realist. There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy your family groceries.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  > There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy your family groceries. I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. But there does have to be someone advocating for this, because free software is in general a social good and is unarguably indispensable in our industry. It's not impossible to make money off it either; look at Red Hat and Canonical, for example. But I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. It's a common trolling/derailing technique: you make a general point, and people reply with these very specific and extreme situations that "disprove" it. I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. Why not?
anonbanker 11y ago
This article made me change my[0] business' choice from Odoo to Tryton. Thanks to RMS for pointing me/us to this better option. http://medicalcannab.is http://medicalcannab.is
- icebraining 11y ago
  Your site's tirade against "broken encryption" is weird. You do know that no major desktop browser uses OpenSSL, right?
  - andreasvc 11y ago
    But most HTTP servers do use OpenSSL, so the tirade is not wrong.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      But that's up to them, to choose a server which doesn't. Whereas currently, people are being redirected to the safe site from a completely unprotected landing page, so they can get MITM'ed and sent to a honeypot instead.
      - anonbanker 11y ago
        please let me know how someone can be MITM'ed when connecting to medicalcannab.is over Tor. When you connect to the domain with torbrowser, the server detects your IP, then redirects to the appropriate .onion site if coming from an exit node. In order to be MITM'd, you'd have to either be using a Tor exit node that was compromised, or my server would have to be completely compromised beforehand. neither of these seem like likely scenarios, so I'm curious as to what you see that I don't.
        detaro 11y ago
        You should assume Tor exit nodes to be hostile. There have been exit nodes that injected malicious code into binaries downloaded through them, and running an exit node is an obvious choice for an attacker, hoping for people running unencrypted traffic through them.
jhoechtl 11y ago
Free Software exists because employees of non-free software pay thevwages that free software can be written in the free time
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  This is true for some of the biggest and best: majority of commits are sponsored by commercial sector. Not all and I won't say majority unless I see data.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Hi! I'm a developer working for a company (which happens to work with the software mentioned in the article) and which pays me to write AGPL/LGPL licensed code. And I can assure you there are many similar companies around the world, usually not behemoths like MS or Google, yet writing business critical software for very large companies, often based on the cooperation that only FOSS allows.
  - paxcoder 11y ago
    Where does is the money coming from? I'd like to know what business model the company you work for employs.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      A company needs some kind of software that doesn't exist (or which is too expensive when they only need a subset), so we build it for them on top of Odoo. We also offer hosting, training, support, data migration, etc. Note: while our software is FOSS, we don't publicly publish all of it, though our clients are free to do so.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        "Note: while our software is FOSS, we don't publicly publish all of it, though our clients are free to do so." That sounds like what I used to do with my trade secrets that I semi-publish. Enough detail out that hardworking specialists can build it. I'm curious what you mean by it though. Ive considered a model that sounds similar as I figured companies would be incentivized to keep paying anyway so updates/support have steady quality. Was worried about cloning, though.
pinky07 11y ago
I am the founder of OpenERP / Odoo and I can't believe what I just read. Just wrote this mail to RMS, hope he will fix his post: Although we do sell a service to help companies upgrade, there is also an open source tool by the Odoo Community Association to upgrade OpenERP: OpenUpgrade. [1] There is not a single dependency in OpenERP/Odoo against proprietary software or services. We have always fought about any kind of lock-in. Can you fix your post? it's probably not the intention of gnu.org to make FUD against others open source project. I guess you have been misinformed by Luis since he has done a lot of misinformation when he decided to fork to promote his project. Having said that, you should have a look at what we do. We replace thousands of proprietary management software by Odoo, converting whole governments [2], SMEs and big companies as well as NGOs. (60% of the top 10 NGOs are run by Odoo: doctors without borders, red cross, ...) [1] https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ [2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/portugals-annual-school-teacher-allocation-handled-open-source-erp https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/portugals-an...
- jordigh 11y ago
  > an open source tool I expect rms is gonna say something about being told about "open source", heh. > There is not a single dependency in OpenERP/Odoo against proprietary software or services. So, do your servers just run OpenUpgrade? Are you basically just helping others with the overhead of running OpenUpgrade? Or do you have secret sauce that works stronger, faster, higher than OpenUpgrade?
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    RMS may think he is the definition of what is open source and what isn't, that doesn't mean he is or can't be wrong.
    - matthewn 11y ago
      RMS does not think this at all. RMS rejects the term "open source" outright, and is rather strident about it.
    - 11y ago
imron 11y ago
When I first saw SaaSS I figured RMS had his own acronym for SaaS, and sure enough further in the article he spells it out - Service as a Software Substitute. I like it!
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Isn't 'substitute' implicit? I don't see the point.
  - imron 11y ago
    It is implicit, the point is this makes it explicit.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      But why? It's obvious. Making it explicit has no benefit, and makes you waste a bunch of words explaining yourself.
      - ashitlerferad 11y ago
        Making it explicit has the benefit of making people actually think about who has control over the computers they are using.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Saying it's a service already makes the control explicit. Adding the word 'substitute' does nothing on that front.
        ashitlerferad 11y ago
        It seems to me that people rarely think about the software behind a service, this is a mechanism to bring that secret software into people's minds and discussions.
      - 11y ago
guhcampos 11y ago
Okay, so he mentions OpenERP, but I think we all know he means Github, right?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Isn't Github a standard closed-source service? I don't see how the article would apply. It's close to the opposite; migration from git host to git host is easy and open-source.
  - guhcampos 11y ago
    Not when all your code, bug reports, wiki, etc. etc. etc are on a single platform, as a service. Don't get me wrong: I'm not nearly as fanatic about this as Stallman and I'm fine using GitHub for everything, but it is a non-free dependency for every single project hosted on it.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      That's still just a simple proprietary service. There's no connection to what the article focuses on. Part you can't migrate, and the part that does migrate does so with open-source tools.
systoll 11y ago
Leaving aside the factually inaccuracy in the example... If you want to stick with 'N', you can. And you can fix it to suit your needs. If you want to convert your database, there are no barriers in your way -- and you can distribute your results. Or maybe you want N+1 to work with the old format -- either way, nothing's stopping you. If you're not categorically against proprietary software, the converter may be a really good purchase; better than any of the above options. But you're not 'trapped' into buying it -- no more so than, say, GIMP 'traps' you into using photoshop by lacking non-destructive editing features. The fact that the situation would be kind of lame is because for almost everyone, in practice, It's vastly more useful for your software to be actively maintained than it is for it to be 'open' -- and the developers abandon 'n' when they move on.
barbs 11y ago
I recently came across this situation when attempting to hack on Keepass2Android [0], a Keepass client for Android. It was written with Xamarin, which was a closed-source framework at the time. Having to download and use software with a 30-day trial to hack on an open-source project seemed wrong. Now that the Xamarin SDK is open-source[1] it looks like it's moving towards being freed, which I think is a good thing. That said, I'm not sure the IDE is available on Linux yet, so I guess it's still relying on non-free software. [0] https://keepass2android.codeplex.com/ https://keepass2android.codeplex.com/ [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/xamarin-now-free-in-visual-studio/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/xamari...

126 points by stargrave 11y ago

voaie 11y ago

Proprietary software companies trap you, so you utilize GPL to trap more lazy programmers? Selfish people are always selfish, lazy ones are still lazy. I don't like this model.

justinlardinois 11y ago
While I'm not a fan of the GPL and its viral nature either either, the kind of trapping you're referring to is not at all the same thing. If GCC was the only C compiler in the world, my Apache licensed (or hell, public domain) C project wouldn't really be "trapped" by GCC being GPL licensed, because that license allows me and my users unfettered access to GCC whenever we want, so there's no one who can't access compilation of my project, now or ever.
- voaie 11y ago
  Your example does not solve this problem: You may rely on some excellent GPLed softwares, but you want to distribute it with some close-source softwares. Then you might become the lazy programmers. I can see how GPL fans hate close-source software, but they can also choose another license, so programmers could share their works easier, also get more ideas from non-GPL fans. ADDED: This same problem originates from close-source software, so GPL is another extreme I don't like. People from both sides still continue to develop great softwares, but what about MIT/Apache/BSD/...-licensed softwares? I choose the golden mean. I don't mean GPL is a bad thing, I just don't want to blindly support it. Times are changing.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    The world of free software would not exist today without the GPL. If everyone had used lax licenses, companies would've made proprietary forks and driven free software out of existence. Also, choosing MIT because "it's the middle ground" is a middle of the road fallacy. The GPL ensures users will always have freedom when using the software. Lax licenses provides no such assurance and proprietary software obviously doesn't provide anyone freedom. The purpose of the GPL is to halt malicious companies from using free software to mistreat users. The middle ground isn't better in this case.
    - voaie 11y ago
      Even if the source is guarded by GPL, the idea behind the source can be copied and represented in another form. Then the freedom defined by GPL is obscure to me. MIT licenses saves me from time-consuming copycat situations. Yeah, I am lazy, but I'm more willing to share (hard-working now) if you don't push me to extreme. I know the pattent laws in the past were somewhat ridiculous compared to what they are today (though still ridiculous sometimes), so GPL was/is really great then, just like the Creative Commons licenses.
      - justinlardinois 11y ago
        Free software licenses have to do with copyright law, not patent law. And the only major change in copyright law in the last few decades was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which isn't super relevant to the issues in free software.
        voaie 11y ago
        Oh yes, thank you. I always relate free software to patent trolls, because software patents have huge impact on software development. When I relate GPL to Creative Commons, I mean they are good role models for defending legal rights and interests.
      - cyphar 11y ago
        Patents and copyright are not related. But yes, software patents are still ridiculous, and getting more so. As for "the idea behind the source". Feel free to take the "idea behind the source" of FFmpeg or VLC or Linux. The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. As for "but I'm a poor developer, etc" then you have two choices: 1. Use the GPL code and comply with the GPL. This is actually a good thing if you care about your users' freedom. 2. Don't use the GPL code. Simple as that. There is no third "but I want to use the GPL without complying" option.
        voaie 11y ago
        > The point is that you can't make changes to the free software and then take away your users freedom. Still, you cannot exactly explain what the freedom is. Proprietary softwares can copy the ideas without contributing back. I know manpower is important, so another great softwares similar to FFmpeg/VLC/Linux with MIT/BSD/... licenses won't appear very soon. If your freedom just means 1. Hey, just look at our GPL-licensed softwares, you propietary softwares can't use our code directly without any contribution. 2. Everyone should sell services, not code, for a more open world. then I've already understood. And I don't believe GPL can do much better than MIT/...

icebraining 11y ago

"upgrading to the next version of OpenERP required sending the database (full of patients' medical data) to OpenERP's server for reformatting." "Required" is a big overstatement. OpenERP (now Odoo) is FOSS, and uses a standard Postgres database. The thing is that Odoo didn't release the migration scripts when a new version was released, but you weren't required to use their service; OpenUpgrade[1], a community project for implementing these scripts, is proof of that - we've successfully used it to migrate all our clients from version 6.1 to 7 to 8. Disclaimer: I don't work for Odoo S.A., but I do work for a company that sells services based on the software. [1] https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/

belorn 11y ago
Why do Odoo S.A. not release the migration scripts? Is it the core of their business model that people do not have access to migration and are thus forced to buy from Odoo?
- pinky07 11y ago
  Two years ago, it used to be our business model: selling maintenance services to bigger companies (includes unlimited technical support for bugfixes and upgrades). We tried hard to grow on services rather than selling proprietary features. (I don't think another open source software vendor succeeded to push a business model relying on services that far) We grew up to 300 employees with this model but reached the limit of the model. (most companies don't want to pay for bugfixes and prefer to buy upgrades later) Now, we rely on 3 different offers: https://odoo.com/pricing https://odoo.com/pricing Since we switched to the new open core model, everything is simpler. Revenues grew a lot (monthly MRR growth is 242% higher than before) and we can invest more in the development of the open source product. Relationship with partners is easier too. Disclaimer: I am the founder/CEO of Odoo.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    > We grew up to 300 employees with this model but reached the limit of the model Why do you need to grow more? 300 sounds like a very big company already.

na85 11y ago

As usual, RMS is content to sit back and complain rather than take action to try to effect positive change. Has he written any code in the last decade, or is he still going around giving the same tired speeches over and over? Do his anachronistic computing habits contribute to his continued irrelevance? Ubiquitous broadband connectivity has changed the world and it seems RMS is still living in the past. I hate SaaS models just as much as the next user, but I am also a realist. There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy your family groceries.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
justinlardinois 11y ago
> There's just no reason for corporations to take RMS's "ethical" route when the profits lie squarely in the other direction. Lofty academic ideals don't buy your family groceries. I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. But there does have to be someone advocating for this, because free software is in general a social good and is unarguably indispensable in our industry. It's not impossible to make money off it either; look at Red Hat and Canonical, for example. But I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I agree he's a bit too extreme; I recall a video where he told a proprietary software developer that between continuing to do his job and letting his children starve, he should do the latter. I'd like to know the context, because that sounds like a "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer" situation. It's a common trolling/derailing technique: you make a general point, and people reply with these very specific and extreme situations that "disprove" it. I'd never argue that all software has to be free or that everyone should do it. Why not?

anonbanker 11y ago

This article made me change my[0] business' choice from Odoo to Tryton. Thanks to RMS for pointing me/us to this better option. http://medicalcannab.is http://medicalcannab.is

icebraining 11y ago
Your site's tirade against "broken encryption" is weird. You do know that no major desktop browser uses OpenSSL, right?
- andreasvc 11y ago
  But most HTTP servers do use OpenSSL, so the tirade is not wrong.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    But that's up to them, to choose a server which doesn't. Whereas currently, people are being redirected to the safe site from a completely unprotected landing page, so they can get MITM'ed and sent to a honeypot instead.
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      please let me know how someone can be MITM'ed when connecting to medicalcannab.is over Tor. When you connect to the domain with torbrowser, the server detects your IP, then redirects to the appropriate .onion site if coming from an exit node. In order to be MITM'd, you'd have to either be using a Tor exit node that was compromised, or my server would have to be completely compromised beforehand. neither of these seem like likely scenarios, so I'm curious as to what you see that I don't.
      - detaro 11y ago
        You should assume Tor exit nodes to be hostile. There have been exit nodes that injected malicious code into binaries downloaded through them, and running an exit node is an obvious choice for an attacker, hoping for people running unencrypted traffic through them.

jhoechtl 11y ago

Free Software exists because employees of non-free software pay thevwages that free software can be written in the free time

nickpsecurity 11y ago
This is true for some of the biggest and best: majority of commits are sponsored by commercial sector. Not all and I won't say majority unless I see data.
icebraining 11y ago
Hi! I'm a developer working for a company (which happens to work with the software mentioned in the article) and which pays me to write AGPL/LGPL licensed code. And I can assure you there are many similar companies around the world, usually not behemoths like MS or Google, yet writing business critical software for very large companies, often based on the cooperation that only FOSS allows.
- paxcoder 11y ago
  Where does is the money coming from? I'd like to know what business model the company you work for employs.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    A company needs some kind of software that doesn't exist (or which is too expensive when they only need a subset), so we build it for them on top of Odoo. We also offer hosting, training, support, data migration, etc. Note: while our software is FOSS, we don't publicly publish all of it, though our clients are free to do so.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      "Note: while our software is FOSS, we don't publicly publish all of it, though our clients are free to do so." That sounds like what I used to do with my trade secrets that I semi-publish. Enough detail out that hardworking specialists can build it. I'm curious what you mean by it though. Ive considered a model that sounds similar as I figured companies would be incentivized to keep paying anyway so updates/support have steady quality. Was worried about cloning, though.

pinky07 11y ago

I am the founder of OpenERP / Odoo and I can't believe what I just read. Just wrote this mail to RMS, hope he will fix his post: Although we do sell a service to help companies upgrade, there is also an open source tool by the Odoo Community Association to upgrade OpenERP: OpenUpgrade. [1] There is not a single dependency in OpenERP/Odoo against proprietary software or services. We have always fought about any kind of lock-in. Can you fix your post? it's probably not the intention of gnu.org to make FUD against others open source project. I guess you have been misinformed by Luis since he has done a lot of misinformation when he decided to fork to promote his project. Having said that, you should have a look at what we do. We replace thousands of proprietary management software by Odoo, converting whole governments [2], SMEs and big companies as well as NGOs. (60% of the top 10 NGOs are run by Odoo: doctors without borders, red cross, ...) [1] https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ https://doc.therp.nl/openupgrade/ [2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/portugals-annual-school-teacher-allocation-handled-open-source-erp https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/portugals-an...

jordigh 11y ago
> an open source tool I expect rms is gonna say something about being told about "open source", heh. > There is not a single dependency in OpenERP/Odoo against proprietary software or services. So, do your servers just run OpenUpgrade? Are you basically just helping others with the overhead of running OpenUpgrade? Or do you have secret sauce that works stronger, faster, higher than OpenUpgrade?
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  RMS may think he is the definition of what is open source and what isn't, that doesn't mean he is or can't be wrong.
  - matthewn 11y ago
    RMS does not think this at all. RMS rejects the term "open source" outright, and is rather strident about it.
  - 11y ago

imron 11y ago

When I first saw SaaSS I figured RMS had his own acronym for SaaS, and sure enough further in the article he spells it out - Service as a Software Substitute. I like it!

Dylan16807 11y ago
Isn't 'substitute' implicit? I don't see the point.
- imron 11y ago
  It is implicit, the point is this makes it explicit.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    But why? It's obvious. Making it explicit has no benefit, and makes you waste a bunch of words explaining yourself.
    - ashitlerferad 11y ago
      Making it explicit has the benefit of making people actually think about who has control over the computers they are using.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        Saying it's a service already makes the control explicit. Adding the word 'substitute' does nothing on that front.
        ashitlerferad 11y ago
        It seems to me that people rarely think about the software behind a service, this is a mechanism to bring that secret software into people's minds and discussions.
    - 11y ago

guhcampos 11y ago

Okay, so he mentions OpenERP, but I think we all know he means Github, right?

Dylan16807 11y ago
Isn't Github a standard closed-source service? I don't see how the article would apply. It's close to the opposite; migration from git host to git host is easy and open-source.
- guhcampos 11y ago
  Not when all your code, bug reports, wiki, etc. etc. etc are on a single platform, as a service. Don't get me wrong: I'm not nearly as fanatic about this as Stallman and I'm fine using GitHub for everything, but it is a non-free dependency for every single project hosted on it.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    That's still just a simple proprietary service. There's no connection to what the article focuses on. Part you can't migrate, and the part that does migrate does so with open-source tools.

systoll 11y ago

Leaving aside the factually inaccuracy in the example... If you want to stick with 'N', you can. And you can fix it to suit your needs. If you want to convert your database, there are no barriers in your way -- and you can distribute your results. Or maybe you want N+1 to work with the old format -- either way, nothing's stopping you. If you're not categorically against proprietary software, the converter may be a really good purchase; better than any of the above options. But you're not 'trapped' into buying it -- no more so than, say, GIMP 'traps' you into using photoshop by lacking non-destructive editing features. The fact that the situation would be kind of lame is because for almost everyone, in practice, It's vastly more useful for your software to be actively maintained than it is for it to be 'open' -- and the developers abandon 'n' when they move on.

barbs 11y ago

I recently came across this situation when attempting to hack on Keepass2Android [0], a Keepass client for Android. It was written with Xamarin, which was a closed-source framework at the time. Having to download and use software with a 30-day trial to hack on an open-source project seemed wrong. Now that the Xamarin SDK is open-source[1] it looks like it's moving towards being freed, which I think is a good thing. That said, I'm not sure the IDE is available on Linux yet, so I guess it's still relying on non-free software. [0] https://keepass2android.codeplex.com/ https://keepass2android.codeplex.com/ [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/xamarin-now-free-in-visual-studio/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/xamari...