4 ms·

I think it's wrong to speak of a hacker ethic in such strict terms. I would not say somebody is instantly not a hacker if he holds the believe that it is alrigh

I think it's wrong to speak of a hacker ethic in such strict terms. I would not say somebody is instantly not a hacker if he holds the believe that it is alright to make a project openly available and sell a corporate version with specific features for example. Where to cross the line is up to each person, the extreme example being rms, who even refuses to use a computer where the BIOS isn't free (which many hackers would say is exorbitant). Also there are quite many companies and business models around free software / open source software. Additional examples (granted, some of them no big shots): -) Canonical -) Codeweavers -) id Software (engines under GPL, older games -> source code available) -) Mandriva / Novell Also there are sometimes open source strategies for certain products (OpenOffice as Open Source Variant of StarOffice for example). And what about the hosting providers and Linux / BSD support companies, which granted, aren't global players, but there is a vast amount of them. Is FOSS compatible with Profit? Yes https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html Is FOSS evenly compatible with profit compared to proprietary products? No, not with today's corporate and economical structures (and the strict copyright) What goes against "Hacker Ethic" and what not? Debatable

Teapot 14y ago
-) DuckDuckGo https://duckduckgo.com?q=duckduckgo+about https://duckduckgo.com?q=duckduckgo+about
mindcrime 14y ago
Great examples. I almost mentioned Novell in my post, given their stewardshp of SuSE, but I haven't been paying a lot of attention to them lately, and wasn't sure if they'd been up to any weird shenanigans. Canonical and Codeweavers and id are good examples as well. I should have thought of them. IBM is an interesting case also. They certainly aren't a "pure play" F/OSS company the way Red Hat is, but IBM do contribute a lot to the F/OSS world, and they make a lot of knowledge available for free. But they also patent a LOT of stuff and pump out a ton of proprietary software. I'm on the fence about them.
cookiecaper 14y ago
FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mindcrime 14y ago
  FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential. But it's only incompatible if you believe that you must have monopolistic copyright control in order to derive a profit. I think Red Hat (and others) disprove this premise. RH make money and pretty much everything they "sell" is available for free. In the case of RHEL, you can grab CentOS or Scientific Linux, and for the JBoss products, they make binary downloads freely available themselves. And most of the JBoss products are under even more liberal licenses than Linux (historically JBoss used the LGPL as their main license).

Teapot 14y ago

-) DuckDuckGo https://duckduckgo.com?q=duckduckgo+about https://duckduckgo.com?q=duckduckgo+about

mindcrime 14y ago

Great examples. I almost mentioned Novell in my post, given their stewardshp of SuSE, but I haven't been paying a lot of attention to them lately, and wasn't sure if they'd been up to any weird shenanigans. Canonical and Codeweavers and id are good examples as well. I should have thought of them. IBM is an interesting case also. They certainly aren't a "pure play" F/OSS company the way Red Hat is, but IBM do contribute a lot to the F/OSS world, and they make a lot of knowledge available for free. But they also patent a LOT of stuff and pump out a ton of proprietary software. I'm on the fence about them.

cookiecaper 14y ago

FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mindcrime 14y ago
FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential. But it's only incompatible if you believe that you must have monopolistic copyright control in order to derive a profit. I think Red Hat (and others) disprove this premise. RH make money and pretty much everything they "sell" is available for free. In the case of RHEL, you can grab CentOS or Scientific Linux, and for the JBoss products, they make binary downloads freely available themselves. And most of the JBoss products are under even more liberal licenses than Linux (historically JBoss used the LGPL as their main license).