Navigacija
Lista poslednjih: 16, 32, 64, 128 poruka.

RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.

[es] :: Advocacy :: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.

Strane: 1 2 3

[ Pregleda: 9064 | Odgovora: 54 ] > FB > Twit

Postavi temu Odgovori

Autor

Pretraga teme: Traži
Markiranje Štampanje RSS

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 02:24 - pre 210 meseci
U taboru ljudi koji podrzavaju MS/Windows postoji misljenje da softver pod GPL licencom ne moze obezbediti da programeri zive samo od njegovog razvoja. S druge strane iz mog sopstvenog tabora cuju se glasovi da Linux ni u kom slucaju i ni na koji nacin ne treba da bude izvor prihoda. I zbog jednih i zbog drugih u ovoj temi cu postovati citate iz eseja RMSa i drugih clanova FSFa u kojima se to opovrgava.

Za pocetak sama definicija termina "slobodan softver".

Citat:
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


Source i binarni kod.

Citat:
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.


O placanju za ili prodaji slobodnog softvera:

Citat:
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.


O copyleftu i drugim licencama za slobodan softver:

Citat:
In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.


Izvor: The Free Software Definiton
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Vodic kroz licence za koriscenje i razlike izmedju njih:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Izvod iz NPP I28.06.2005. u 02:49 - pre 210 meseci
Izvod iz najcesce postavljanih pitanja.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html


Does free software mean using the GPL?
Not at all--there are many other free software licenses. We have an incomplete list. Any license that provides the user certain specific freedoms is a free software license.

Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software licenses?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

Does all GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license?
Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few GNU programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL. When we do this, it is a matter of strategy.

Why does the GPL permit users to publish their modified versions?
A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate. It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.

Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other.

Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.

 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Izvod iz NPP II28.06.2005. u 02:50 - pre 210 meseci
Can I have a GPL-covered program and an unrelated non-free program on the same computer?
Yes. The "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL makes this permission explicit, but that only reinforces what we believe would be true anyway.

What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Am I required to claim a copyright on my modifications to a GPL-covered program?
You are not required to claim a copyright on your changes. In most countries, however, that happens automatically by default, so you need to place your changes explicitly in the public domain if you do not want them to be copyrighted.

Whether you claim a copyright on your changes or not, either way you must release the modified version, as a whole, under the GPL. (if you release your modified version at all)

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.

The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Izvod iz NPP III28.06.2005. u 02:52 - pre 210 meseci
I want to get credit for my work. I want people to know what I wrote. Can I still get credit if I use the GPL?
You can certainly get credit for the work. Part of releasing a program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you are the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice.

How do I get a copyright on my program in order to release it under the GPL?
Under the Berne Convention, everything written is automatically copyrighted from whenever it is put in fixed form. So you don't have to do anything to "get" the copyright on what you write--as long as nobody else can claim to own your work.

However, registering the copyright in the US is a very good idea. It will give you more clout in dealing with an infringer in the US.

The case when someone else might possibly claim the copyright is if you are an employee or student; then the employer or the school might claim you did the job for them and that the copyright belongs to them. Whether they would have a valid claim would depend on circumstances such as the laws of the place where you live, and on your employment contract and what sort of work you do. It is best to consult a lawyer if there is any possible doubt.

If you think that the employer or school might have a claim, you can resolve the problem clearly by getting a copyright disclaimer signed by a suitably authorized officer of the company or school. (Your immediate boss or a professor is usually NOT authorized to sign such a disclaimer.)

I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

Why is the original BSD license incompatible with the GPL?
Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein.

The advertising clause provides just such a further restriction, and thus is GPL-incompatible.

The revised BSD license does not have the advertising clause, which eliminates the problem.

Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.

We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't claim to own the contributions.

Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes in the public domain.

If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please contact <[email protected]> if you want more information.

Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to <[email protected]> for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.

Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.




[Ovu poruku je menjao bobzilla dana 28.06.2005. u 03:53 GMT+1]
 
Odgovor na temu

Sundance

Član broj: 7510
Poruke: 2559
*.sava.sczg.hr.



Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 02:54 - pre 210 meseci
Komunistički manifesto.....
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon NPP IV28.06.2005. u 03:01 - pre 210 meseci
I want to make binaries available for anonymous FTP, but send sources only to people who order them.
If you want to distribute binaries by anonymous FTP, you have to distribute sources along with them. This should not be hard. If you can find a site to distribute your program, you can surely find one that has room for the sources.

The sources you provide must correspond exactly to the binaries. In particular, you must make sure they are for the same version of the program--not an older version and not a newer version.

You can make the sources and binaries available on different machines, provided they are equally easy to get to, and provided that you have information next to the binaries saying where to find the sources.

How can I make sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets the source?
You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the source and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the user whether to download the source.

Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the users can get the source code, not to force users to download the source code even if they don't want it.

A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.

In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

Who has the power to enforce the GPL?
Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders. Learn more about reporting GPL violations.



[Ovu poruku je menjao bobzilla dana 28.06.2005. u 04:02 GMT+1]
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon NPP V28.06.2005. u 03:03 - pre 210 meseci
If I port my program to GNU/Linux, does that mean I have to release it as Free Software under the GPL or some other Free Software license?
In general, the answer is no--this is not a legal requirement. In specific, the answer depends on which libraries you want to use and what their licenses are. Most system libraries either use the GNU Lesser GPL, or use the GNU GPL plus an exception permitting linking the library with anything. These libraries can be used in non-free programs; but in the case of the Lesser GPL, it does have some requirements you must follow.

I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?
No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
 
Odgovor na temu

Slobodan Miskovic

Član broj: 4967
Poruke: 5814
*.dialup.neobee.net.



+105 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:06 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
Komunistički manifesto.....


Sta je tu lose?
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Izvodi iz teksta the GNU GPL and the American way28.06.2005. u 03:15 - pre 210 meseci
Ovo ne spada ovde, ali vidim da se Sunny javlja na temi. Pa eto nesto i za njega.

Izvodi iz teksta the GNU GPL and the American way
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html

Citat:
Microsoft describes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as an "open source" license, and says it is against the American Way. To understand the GNU GPL, and recognize how it embodies the American Way, you must first be aware that the GPL was not designed for open source.

The Open Source Movement, which was launched in 1998, aims to develop powerful, reliable software and improved technology, by inviting the public to collaborate in software development. Many developers in that movement use the GNU GPL, and they are welcome to use it. But the ideas and logic of the GPL cannot be found in the Open Source Movement. They stem from the deeper goals and values of the Free Software Movement.

The Free Software Movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration comes from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community, and voluntary cooperation. This is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech, and to free software.

As in "free enterprise" and "free speech", the "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not price; specifically, it means that you have the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software you use. These freedoms permit citizens to help themselves and help each other, and thus participate in a community. This contrasts with the more common proprietary software, which keeps users helpless and divided: the inner workings are secret, and you are prohibited from sharing the program with your neighbor. Powerful, reliable software and improved technology are useful byproducts of freedom, but the freedom to have a community is important in its own right.


O Microsoftu:

Citat:
Microsoft surely would like to have the benefit of our code without the responsibilities. But it has another, more specific purpose in attacking the GNU GPL. Microsoft is known generally for imitation rather than innovation. When Microsoft does something new, its purpose is strategic--not to improve computing for its users, but to close off alternatives for them.

Microsoft uses an anticompetitive strategy called "embrace and extend". This means they start with the technology others are using, add a minor wrinkle which is secret so that nobody else can imitate it, then use that secret wrinkle so that only Microsoft software can communicate with other Microsoft software. In some cases, this makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft program when others you work with use a Microsoft program. In other cases, this makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft program for job A if you use a Microsoft program for job B. Either way, "embrace and extend" magnifies the effect of Microsoft's market power.

No license can stop Microsoft from practicing "embrace and extend" if they are determined to do so at all costs. If they write their own program from scratch, and use none of our code, the license on our code does not affect them. But a total rewrite is costly and hard, and even Microsoft can't do it all the time. Hence their campaign to persuade us to abandon the license that protects our community, the license that won't let them say, "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine." They want us to let them take whatever they want, without ever giving anything back. They want us to abandon our defenses.

But defenselessness is not the American Way. In the land of the brave and the free, we defend our freedom with the GNU GPL.

 
Odgovor na temu

Sundance

Član broj: 7510
Poruke: 2559
*.sava.sczg.hr.



Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:17 - pre 210 meseci
@bobzilla:
Zašto floodaš forum? Šta misliš da se svima da čitati ovaj bullshit?

Citat:
STELLANOVA: Sta je tu lose?


S obzirom da je komunizam povijesno-osuđena, zločinačka ideologija, čiji su izvorni idealni se malformirali u većini implementacija u totalitarizam, i čija je osnovna premisa lišavanje bazičnih liberalnih principa pojedinca, prava na kojima je bazirana tisuće godina iščekivana demokracija, i s obzirom da se implementacijski pokazala kao ekonomski-neodrživa fantazija, puki koncept, balon koji se rasplinuo brže nego .COM boom, rekao bih sa stajališta umno-retardiranog pijuna nesposobnog da utilizira više od 3 neurona u toj tikvi što je nosi na ramenima: Ne, nema ništa loše u tome.

Ne, ovo zadnje se ne odnosi na tebe...znaju oni tko su :>

[Ovu poruku je menjao Sundance dana 28.06.2005. u 04:37 GMT+1]

[Ovu poruku je menjao Sundance dana 28.06.2005. u 04:52 GMT+1]
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:36 - pre 210 meseci
Gledajuci neka opsta pravila i citajuci GPL (za koju postoji i nezvanicni prevod na Srpski) mozemo videti da prodaja GPL softvera nije zabranjena. Ali uz sam softver mora doci i kod i source. Jednom kad je softver pod GPL pusten u distribuciju, korisnici mogu softver distribuirati dalje. Za neke komercijalne upotrebe moze se bolje upotrebiti LGPL, ali FSF ne preporucuje upotrebu iste. O patentiranju i preporukama FSF u vezi toga postoji nekoliko odgovora u listi najcesce postavljenih pitanja.

Nisam citirao sada, ali nacicu kasnije, ali u jednom eseju RSM govori i o naplacivanju podrske kao jednom o modaliteta zarade na GPL softveru. Sam softver moze biti prodavan, ali pod uslovom da dolazi i u binarnom i u source obliku. Nigde ne kaze da GPL softver mora imati dokumentaciju pod GPDL, tako da je i to jedan od modaliteta zarade. Ovo su veoma znacajni izvori zarade, ako su u pitanju komercijalni kupci kojima je u interesu da dobiju stabilan i dobro odrzavan sistem sa odlicnom podrskom. Jos jedan od modaliteta zarade je obuka zaposlenih.

Naravno da profit nije onoliki koliki bi imale softverske kompanije koje razvijaju komercijalni softver, ali to i nije toliko bitno. Vazno je da postoji model poslovanja kojim se omogucuje stalan razvoj slobodnog softwarea.

Mada FSF ne preporucuje i savetuje da se to ne radi, u nekim slucajevima se mogu upotrebiti neke licence ne toliko orijentisane ka slobodi, nego vise ka mogucnosti komercijalne prodaje. U tom slucaju to nije GPL. Koriscenjem ovakve licence gusite slobodu koja je propisana GPL. Takodje koriscenjem ove licence, nemate pravo da u taj proizvod uvodite bilo koji element licenciran pod GPL (sem u specificnim slucajevima obradjenim u NPP). Ako u svom proizvodu upotrebite bilo koji element licenciran pod GPL, ceo proizvod mora biti distribuiran pod GPL licencom.
 
Odgovor na temu

degojs

Član broj: 4716
Poruke: 5096



+51 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:45 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.


Dobar sistem, moraju da se daju i uputstva kako da se živi od toga :)))

Ne moraš dalje..

[Ovu poruku je menjao degojs dana 28.06.2005. u 04:46 GMT+1]
Commercial-Free !!!
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:49 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
Dobar sistem, moraju da se daju i uputstva kako da se živi od toga ))


hehe Deki provokatoru. Ajde ti zavrsi tu tvoju skolu i vrati se u ovu nasu Srbijicu, ako smes. Lako je filozofirati iz daljine. Pokusaj nesto uraditi ovde, a da ne bude fazon Zarka Radosavljevica.
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:50 - pre 210 meseci
A filozofirati iz blizine je vec druga stvar. :D
 
Odgovor na temu

Sundance

Član broj: 7510
Poruke: 2559
*.sava.sczg.hr.



Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:51 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
bobzilla: Gledajuci neka opsta pravila i citajuci GPL (za koju postoji i nezvanicni prevod na Srpski) mozemo videti da prodaja GPL softvera nije zabranjena.


Ali ga nažalost malo tko zaista kupuje. Tj. nitko.

Citat:
Ali uz sam softver mora doci i kod i source. Jednom kad je softver pod GPL pusten u distribuciju, korisnici mogu softver distribuirati dalje.


I to isključivo iz ovih razloga

Citat:
Za neke komercijalne upotrebe moze se bolje upotrebiti LGPL, ali FSF ne preporucuje upotrebu iste.


Što je krunski dokaz da je RMS u finalnom stadiju <unesi omiljeni psihički poremećaj ovdje>-a.

Citat:
Nisam citirao sada, ali nacicu kasnije, ali u jednom eseju RSM govori i o naplacivanju podrske kao jednom o modaliteta zarade na GPL softveru.


http://www.elitesecurity.org/tema/119161-The-Open-Source-Heretic

Citat:
"One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap--because if you give them software that works, what is the point of service?" McVoy says. "The other problem is that the services model doesn't generate enough revenue to support the creation of the next generation of innovative products. Red Hat has been around for a long time--for a decade now. Yet try to name one significant thing--one innovative product--that has come out of Red Hat."


Citat:
Sam softver moze biti prodavan, ali pod uslovom da dolazi i u binarnom i u source obliku.


Ali ga de facto nitko ne kupuje, već svi skidaju sa neta ili kopiraju od prijatelja, sl. kao što ti i tvoji pajdaši radite ovdje:

http://www.elitesecurity.org/tema/88691-Razmena-distribucija

Čak ga i šalju doma besplatno i to 10 komada (Ubuntu), pa opet nitko ne želi to smeće...

Citat:
Nigde ne kaze da GPL softver mora imati dokumentaciju pod GPDL, tako da je i to jedan od modaliteta zarade.


Yeah, pisat ćemo HTML Help fajlove i njih ćemo prodavat.

Citat:
Ovo su veoma znacajni izvori zarade


Evo ekonomija se već okreće na stomak od smijeha, zbog količine bullshita koju si upravo rekao.

Citat:
ako su u pitanju komercijalni kupci kojima je u interesu da dobiju stabilan i dobro odrzavan sistem sa odlicnom podrskom. Jos jedan od modaliteta zarade je obuka zaposlenih.


Pa istina, mogli bi naplaćivati obuku za korištenje linuxa, pošto mu je usability NULA. Ali čemu gubiti vrijeme na to, kad mogu platiti windoze i eliminirati taj dodatni trošak+vrijeme.

Citat:
Naravno da profit nije onoliki koliki bi imale softverske kompanije koje razvijaju komercijalni softver, ali to i nije toliko bitno.


Naravno, a mi svi znamo, da je poanta zaraditi što "manje" para. Društvena solidarnost....ring any bells? :D (hint: komunizam)

Citat:
Vazno je da postoji model poslovanja kojim se omogucuje stalan razvoj slobodnog softwarea.


Koji ubija konkurenciju, ne poštuje IP, ubija pravo na ideju i time efektivno ubija sve "male" programere.

Citat:
Mada FSF ne preporucuje i savetuje da se to ne radi, u nekim slucajevima se mogu upotrebiti neke licence ne toliko orijentisane ka slobodi, nego vise ka mogucnosti komercijalne prodaje. U tom slucaju to nije GPL. Koriscenjem ovakve licence gusite slobodu koja je propisana GPL.


Džaba ti sva sloboda svijeta kad od nje nema 'leba. Evo matrix slobodnjak, eliminirao korištenje piratskih windoza prihvaćanjem ljinuxa, a na koji je stavio piratski oracle......cccc....koja hipokrizija, to riječi ne mogu opisati.
 
Odgovor na temu

Sundance

Član broj: 7510
Poruke: 2559
*.sava.sczg.hr.



Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:56 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
degojs: Dobar sistem, moraju da se daju i uputstva kako da se živi od toga :)))

Ne moraš dalje..


Naravno da moraju...inače će jadničci završiti na klupi u parku kao svojem novom "slobodnom" domu....free as in homefree, hehehehe.
 
Odgovor na temu

degojs

Član broj: 4716
Poruke: 5096



+51 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:56 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
Ajde ti zavrsi tu tvoju skolu i vrati se u ovu nasu Srbijicu, ako smes. Lako je filozofirati iz daljine.


Školu sam završio davnih dana i znaš šta sam naučio: ako brod tone, ne moram i ja.

Naravno da je lakše filozofirati iz daljine, ali baš zato sam i otišao.

Inače, nisam baš iz Srbije, tako da ne znam da li bi se na mene uopšte odnosilo nešto kao da se tamo vraćam.

[Ovu poruku je menjao degojs dana 28.06.2005. u 04:58 GMT+1]
Commercial-Free !!!
 
Odgovor na temu

bobzilla
Bojan Popović
Beograd, Srbija

Član broj: 61783
Poruke: 342



+2 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:57 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
Ali ga de facto nitko ne kupuje, već svi skidaju sa neta ili kopiraju od prijatelja


Cini mi se da Linux najvise kritikuju oni koji se nisu snasli u njemu. Ono... Svi imaju dual-boot kao argument. Retko ko od postovalaca Linuxa koji se javlja na advocacy-ju ima dual-boot. A svi Windowsashi imaju dual-boot. Strange.
 
Odgovor na temu

Sundance

Član broj: 7510
Poruke: 2559
*.sava.sczg.hr.



Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 03:58 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:
bobzilla: Cini mi se da Linux najvise kritikuju oni koji se nisu snasli u njemu. ;) Ono... Svi imaju dual-boot kao argument. Retko ko od postovalaca Linuxa koji se javlja na advocacy-ju ima dual-boot. A svi Windowsashi imaju dual-boot. Strange. :)


Ako je to jedini argument koji imaš na moju repliku, onda je bolje da se nisi ni javljao.
 
Odgovor na temu

Ivan Dimkovic

Administrator
Član broj: 13
Poruke: 16290
*.yubc.net.



+7108 Profil

icon Re: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.28.06.2005. u 09:13 - pre 210 meseci
Citat:

Cini mi se da Linux najvise kritikuju oni koji se nisu snasli u njemu.


Cini mi se da GPL najvise hvale studenti i nezaposleni ;-)

Kad budes imao posao i racune koje ces morati da placas, videcemo kako to sljaka.

Jos ne videsmo nekog na forumu da zivi od GPL-a... ;-)
DigiCortex (ex. SpikeFun) - Cortical Neural Network Simulator:
http://www.digicortex.net/node/1 Videos: http://www.digicortex.net/node/17 Gallery: http://www.digicortex.net/node/25
PowerMonkey - Redyce CPU Power Waste and gain performance! - https://github.com/psyq321/PowerMonkey
 
Odgovor na temu

[es] :: Advocacy :: RMS citati: kako ziveti od razvoja slobodnog softvera.

Strane: 1 2 3

[ Pregleda: 9064 | Odgovora: 54 ] > FB > Twit

Postavi temu Odgovori

Navigacija
Lista poslednjih: 16, 32, 64, 128 poruka.