Nokia charging for open source software
White Spirit
Hadron
> How can they charge £3 for Stellarium?
>
> http://store.ovi.com/content/51934?clickSource=homepage
They are not. He is. And so what?
Homer
Because it's licensed under the GPL, which does not actually prohibit
selling the software:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stellarium/stellarium/trunk/annotate/head%3A/COPYING
Commercial != Proprietary.
It's misconception deliberately spread by Free Software antagonists like
Microsoft, to discourage commercial software companies from supporting
GNU/Linux, because they then believe the reason people use GNU/Linux is
because they're unwilling to pay, rather than simply protecting their
freedom.
If you don't want to contribute financially towards this project, then
you can simply download the sources from here:
https://code.launchpad.net/stellarium/
[quote]
Download Stellarium Mobile for N900 on OVI Store.
Quick Start Guide (pdf) [550Kb] describes how to get started with the
application. It also provides an overview of the app if you want to
learn more before trying it.
Source code of the GUI plugin. The rest of the code (Maemo optimizations
+ OpenGL ES port) is already merged in the Stellarium source code trunk
available on launchpad.
[/quote]
http://stellarium-mobile.org/?page_id=3
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 25 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that White Spirit spake thusly:
>> How can they charge �3 for Stellarium?
>>
>> http://store.ovi.com/content/51934?clickSource=homepage
>
> Because it's licensed under the GPL, which does not actually prohibit
> selling the software:
>
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stellarium/stellarium/trunk/annotate/head%3A/COPY
> ING
>
> Commercial != Proprietary.
>
> It's misconception deliberately spread by Free Software antagonists like
> Microsoft, to discourage commercial software companies from supporting
> GNU/Linux, because they then believe the reason people use GNU/Linux is
> because they're unwilling to pay, rather than simply protecting their
> freedom.
The GPL is one valid license... it limits "freedoms" in some ways.
Commercial licenses limit them in other ways.
You support one but not the other, which is hypocritical.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
White Spirit
> Verily I say unto thee, that White Spirit spake thusly:
>> How can they charge £3 for Stellarium?
> Because it's licensed under the GPL, which does not actually prohibit
> selling the software:
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~stellarium/stellarium/trunk/annotate/head%3A/COPYING
I won't dispute that they are allowed to charge for it, and there are
many circumstances where it is perfectly reasonable to charge for
products that use open source code. I just don't understand how they
can think it's reasonable to charge £3 for a simple port.
Clogwog
news:ibc0hr$gak$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
When freetard'ism has become a way of life?
Notice how [H]omer aka [M]oron approves selling under GPL and condemns
selling commercial software.
With every post, he makes a a bigger fool of himself!
Homer
Well if you're just challenging the price, rather than the principle,
then £3 is not exactly a fortune. Apart from the work that went into
developing the port, however much or little that may be, hosting a
heavily downloaded piece of software also incurs costs. Personally, I
think £3 is perfectly reasonable. A pint of beer in London costs double
that, and is considerably less useful.
Hadron
Of course you cant because you're a clueless freetard. This "simple"
port involves an entire new UI.
It takes time. And time is money.
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:ibc0hr$gak$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> How can they charge ??3 for Stellarium?
>>>
>>> http://store.ovi.com/content/51934?clickSource=homepage
>>
>> They are not. He is. And so what?
>
> When freetard'ism has become a way of life?
> Notice how [H]omer aka [M]oron approves selling under GPL and condemns
> selling commercial software.
> With every post, he makes a a bigger fool of himself!
Did you read Homer's post about charging $3 for Stellarium.
He was quite supportive.
--
A well-known friend is a treasure.
Homer
Cloggedbrain is confusing "commercial" with "proprietary". It's a common
mistake. I have in fact never had any objections to selling software, or
selling anything in particular. /Selling/ is not the issue. Restricting
access to knowledge with "IP" is the issue. /Proprietary/ software does
that; Free Software like Stellarium, even when it's sold for profit,
does not. Simple.
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 26 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
White Spirit
> Well if you're just challenging the price, rather than the principle,
> then £3 is not exactly a fortune. Apart from the work that went into
> developing the port, however much or little that may be, hosting a
> heavily downloaded piece of software also incurs costs. Personally, I
> think £3 is perfectly reasonable. A pint of beer in London costs double
> that, and is considerably less useful.
I never pay more than £3 for a pint of beer in London and I suspect far
more work goes into brewing quality ale than porting existing code.
Homer
When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're charging
today.
So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
software?
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 26 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 09/11/2010 18:34, Homer wrote:
>
>> Well if you're just challenging the price, rather than the principle,
>> then ??3 is not exactly a fortune. Apart from the work that went into
>> developing the port, however much or little that may be, hosting a
>> heavily downloaded piece of software also incurs costs. Personally, I
>> think ??3 is perfectly reasonable. A pint of beer in London costs double
>> that, and is considerably less useful.
>
> I never pay more than ??3 for a pint of beer in London and I suspect far
> more work goes into brewing quality ale than porting existing code.
True. I've got a big batch of code just sitting there in a vat, fermenting
until it becomes "good code". :-)
--
A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs.
White Spirit
> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're charging
> today.
I never drink at Covent Garden. I think it exists for tourists to be
ripped off :P
There are some pubs that still charge less than £2 for a pint of ale.
> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
> software?
Nokia is putting out free software for the N900 that must require much
more effort to port from Symbian OS. I just take exception to buying
something that I can install for free on my desktop computer.
White Spirit
> True. I've got a big batch of code just sitting there in a vat, fermenting
> until it becomes "good code". :-)
Don't forget to add bottom-fermenting yeast to let it undergo secondary
fermentation so that it reaches maturation in situ.
Gregory Shearman
> Verily I say unto thee, that White Spirit spake thusly:
>> On 09/11/2010 18:34, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Well if you're just challenging the price, rather than the principle,
>>> then £3 is not exactly a fortune. Apart from the work that went into
>>> developing the port, however much or little that may be, hosting a
>>> heavily downloaded piece of software also incurs costs. Personally, I
>>> think £3 is perfectly reasonable. A pint of beer in London costs
>>> double that, and is considerably less useful.
>>
>> I never pay more than £3 for a pint of beer in London and I suspect
>> far more work goes into brewing quality ale than porting existing
>> code.
>
> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're charging
> today.
Ughhh!
All the really delicious pommy beers you can enjoy and you pick a
Fosters??? You couldn't have picked a worse Australian beer.
> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
> software?
Whatever the market will bear....
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
chrisv
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> ToiletClog wrote:
>>> asshole wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They are not. He is. And so what?
>>>
>>> When freetard'ism has become a way of life?
>>> Notice how [H]omer aka [M]oron approves selling under GPL and
>>> condemns selling commercial software.
>>> With every post, he makes a a bigger fool of himself!
>>
>> Did you read Homer's post about charging $3 for Stellarium.
>> He was quite supportive.
>
>Cloggedbrain is confusing "commercial" with "proprietary". It's a common
>mistake. I have in fact never had any objections to selling software, or
>selling anything in particular. /Selling/ is not the issue. Restricting
>access to knowledge with "IP" is the issue. /Proprietary/ software does
>that; Free Software like Stellarium, even when it's sold for profit,
>does not. Simple.
The trolling assholes are always lying to attack us. There's *never*
anything wrong with putting your product and/or service on the market
for a price, assuming that it is a free and healthy market. The
consumer then has the complete freedom of accepting or rejecting the
offer.
--
"Freeloaders, thieves and general scroungers will indeed take
advantage. It's why the most used commercial SW projects in the world
do not give out their source codes as a general rule." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
Hadron
> On 10/11/2010 11:08, Homer wrote:
>
>> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
>> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
>> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're charging
>> today.
>
> I never drink at Covent Garden. I think it exists for tourists to be
> ripped off :P
>
> There are some pubs that still charge less than £2 for a pint of ale.
>
>> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
>> software?
>
> Nokia is putting out free software for the N900 that must require much
Erm, it still costs to develop it. Are you really this stupid? See if
you can work out WHY Nokia produces this SW and releases it "for free".
> more effort to port from Symbian OS. I just take exception to buying
> something that I can install for free on my desktop computer.
Of course you do. You're a clueless freetard.
Homer
> On 2010-11-10, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
>> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
>> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're
>> charging today.
>
> Ughhh!
>
> All the really delicious pommy beers you can enjoy and you pick a
> Fosters??? You couldn't have picked a worse Australian beer.
IIRC the only other lager they were selling was Stella, which IMHO is
overrated, and in that particular pub also grossly overpriced. I was
already shocked to have to pay six quid for a Fosters, I wasn't going to
stretch any further just for a Stella.
They had plenty of speciality ales though, but apart from the equally
extortionate prices, I've never really been much of an ale drinker, and
of course these days I don't drink alcohol at all, so it's all rather
moot.
>> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
>> software?
>
> Whatever the market will bear....
I certainly think there's a case for capping prices, especially where
there's a monopoly or some other "captured audience" effect, and the
vendor is clearly profiteering. But three quid for a bit of software is
very far from extortionate, especially for something as good as
Stellarium.
Homer
>
>> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
>> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
>> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're charging
>> today.
>
> I never drink at Covent Garden. I think it exists for tourists to be
> ripped off :P
>
> There are some pubs that still charge less than £2 for a pint of ale.
No doubt. Had I actually known someone in London, they might have taken
me somewhere less touristy, I'm sure.
One thing I will say for Covent Garden, is the hotdog stands on the
Embankment serve(d) some of the best "dogs" I've ever had. The one (OK,
several) that I bought were bloody /huge/, and IIRC only cost me a quid
each. They were more like Polish sausages than Wieners. Add some
caramelised onions and /English/ mustard, and that's one helluva snack.
[side note: aspell apparently recognises "helluva" as a real word, but
ironically not "aspell" >oo< ]
>> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
>> software?
>
> Nokia is putting out free software for the N900 that must require much
> more effort to port from Symbian OS. I just take exception to buying
> something that I can install for free on my desktop computer.
Well that's you're prerogative I suppose, but frankly I don't think it's
a big deal. The software is Free, however much it costs, and three quid
is /really/ not a lot of money for something as good as Stellarium.
Clogwog
news:ibcjj9$v9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
restricts access to the code, because it's their intellectual property.
Do you work for nothing, Chris?
White Spirit
> Verily I say unto thee, that White Spirit spake thusly:
>> Nokia is putting out free software for the N900 that must require much
>> more effort to port from Symbian OS. I just take exception to buying
>> something that I can install for free on my desktop computer.
> Well that's you're prerogative I suppose, but frankly I don't think it's
> a big deal. The software is Free, however much it costs, and three quid
> is /really/ not a lot of money for something as good as Stellarium.
I can buy three vintage safety razors for £3 that were made as far back
as the 1930s. In vintage razor currency, it's not a good deal.
Gregory Shearman
> Verily I say unto thee, that Gregory Shearman spake thusly:
>> On 2010-11-10, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
>>> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
>>> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're
>>> charging today.
>>
>> Ughhh!
>>
>> All the really delicious pommy beers you can enjoy and you pick a
>> Fosters??? You couldn't have picked a worse Australian beer.
>
> IIRC the only other lager they were selling was Stella, which IMHO is
> overrated, and in that particular pub also grossly overpriced. I was
> already shocked to have to pay six quid for a Fosters, I wasn't going to
> stretch any further just for a Stella.
Stella is a crap. My first wife was Belgian and she wouldn't let it in
the house.
Czech and German lagers are worth the money IMHO... especially Budvar
and Weihenstephaner.
> They had plenty of speciality ales though, but apart from the equally
> extortionate prices, I've never really been much of an ale drinker, and
> of course these days I don't drink alcohol at all, so it's all rather
> moot.
I like beer, but only 1 with dinner. I can't stand getting drunk.
>>> So how much do you think people should charge for porting and hosting
>>> software?
>>
>> Whatever the market will bear....
>
> I certainly think there's a case for capping prices, especially where
> there's a monopoly or some other "captured audience" effect, and the
> vendor is clearly profiteering. But three quid for a bit of software is
> very far from extortionate, especially for something as good as
> Stellarium.
When I say "market" I mean a market undistorted by monopoly or
"captured audience" effects. There's probably no such thing in real life
and hence the usual requirement for some kind of regulation.
Homer
You know, I was sitting here trying to think of something non-perishable
but useful that one can buy for less than three quid.
Still thinking...
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 27 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
RonB
> You know, I was sitting here trying to think of something non-perishable
> but useful that one can buy for less than three quid.
>
> Still thinking...
If I had a Nokia phone, and wanted to install Stellarium on it, I wouldn't
think the price was unreasonable. I remember a time when a program like
this one -- with many less features -- would have cost a hundred, maybe
two hundred dollars.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Chris Ahlstrom
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> schreef in bericht
> news:ibcjj9$v9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Clogwog pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:ibc0hr$gak$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> How can they charge ??3 for Stellarium?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://store.ovi.com/content/51934?clickSource=homepage
>>>>
>>>> They are not. He is. And so what?
>>>
>>> When freetard'ism has become a way of life?
>>> Notice how [H]omer aka [M]oron approves selling under GPL and condemns
>>> selling commercial software.
>>> With every post, he makes a a bigger fool of himself!
>>
>> Did you read Homer's post about charging $3 for Stellarium.
>> He was quite supportive.
>>
> Well, I like good freeware and also everyone who's selling good software and
> restricts access to the code, because it's their intellectual property.
> Do you work for nothing, Chris?
Sure I do. After the day's labor is done, of course.
Anyway, I prefer software without restricted access to the code.
It used to be the norm that you'd get the source code, until
Bill figured he could seduce people into buying it from him without code.
--
Remember, DESSERT is spelled with two `s's while DESERT is spelled with
one, because EVERYONE wants two desserts, but NO ONE wants two deserts.
-- Miss Oglethorp, Gr. 5, PS. 59
White Spirit
> If I had a Nokia phone, and wanted to install Stellarium on it, I wouldn't
> think the price was unreasonable. I remember a time when a program like
> this one -- with many less features -- would have cost a hundred, maybe
> two hundred dollars.
Yeah, but think of the lifetime of use you'll get out of an open comb
razor made in the 1930s :)
RonB
Thing is, if you want and have the skills, you can port it yourself to
your Nokia. (And maybe someone else has already done it for free, I don't
know.) But if you really want the program and don't want to bother doing
the work on your own, I don't think the price is unreasonable. I know I
would pay it just for the convenience.
When I was a teenager, my family business was vending machines. Back then
the price for a candy bar was usually a bit more than you would pay for
one in the store. When asked why, we would tell our customers we were
selling the service. (Bringing the candy bar to them.) And it was true. A
vending machine has to be bought, maintained and it costs a lot more to
regularly fill many vending machines than it does to stock candy bars on a
shelf. Besides you have to pay commission to the company where you've set
up your vending machine.
When you pay for Stellarium for the Nokia, you're paying for the service
-- and they're probably paying the website owner commission. You have to
decide how much that is worth to you. If the price is too high for this
very good program on the Nokia platform, don't pay it.
Glenn Hall
> It used to be the norm that you'd get the source code, until
> Bill figured he could seduce people into buying it from him without code.
The original IBM PC up until the XT or maybe the AT(?) had the
source code to the BIOS listed in the Technical Reference Book.
I believe the Commodore machines also had all or part of the
source code listed as well.
Homer
> Clogwog pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@xzoozy.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:ibcjj9$v9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Did you read Homer's post about charging $3 for Stellarium. He was
>>> quite supportive.
>>>
>> Well, I like good freeware and also everyone who's selling good
>> software and restricts access to the code
You "like" being restricted?
That's what you just wrote.
>> because it's their intellectual property.
Bullshit.
>> Do you work for nothing, Chris?
What has licensing got to do with wages?
> Sure I do. After the day's labor is done, of course.
>
> Anyway, I prefer software without restricted access to the code.
Yes, note how Cloggedbrain shifted the argument from payment to
licensing, implying that one must write proprietary software in
order to be paid.
Someone ought to inform Red Hat's engineers pronto.
> It used to be the norm that you'd get the source code, until Bill
> figured he could seduce people into buying it from him without code.
It used to be that "IP" simply didn't exist at all.
People seem to forget that little fact, when claiming their supposedly
inherent "rights".
Homer
>
> Thing is, if you want and have the skills, you can port it yourself to
> your Nokia. (And maybe someone else has already done it for free, I
> don't know.) But if you really want the program and don't want to
> bother doing the work on your own, I don't think the price is
> unreasonable. I know I would pay it just for the convenience.
It's things like this that vindicate Free Software as a business model,
so I just find it rather disappointing when people criticise it. We have
to work very hard to reverse the false stigma Microsoft and others
attach to Free Software, so complaining about having to pay a meagre
three quid, for something that is nonetheless Free, is highly counter
productive. It's basically affirming the stigma.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I won't dispute that they are allowed to charge for it, and there are
> many circumstances where it is perfectly reasonable to charge for
> products that use open source code. I just don't understand how they
> can think it's reasonable to charge £3 for a simple port.
It’s a free market. Based on how many people stump up the asking fee, either
they’ll recoup their investment or they won’t.
That’s how commercial businesses usually work.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The GPL is one valid license... it limits "freedoms" in some ways.
> Commercial licenses limit them in other ways.
Who says the GPL isn’t a “commercial” licence?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I just take exception to buying something that I can install for free on
> my desktop computer.
That’s fine. That’s why it’s a free, competitive market.
Now with proprietary software, the fact that you can get it for free through
an alternative channel would be labelled “piracy”.
Snit
7:30 PM:
> In message <C8FED8D2.82692%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>
>> The GPL is one valid license... it limits "freedoms" in some ways.
>> Commercial licenses limit them in other ways.
>
> Who says the GPL isnšt a łcommercial˛ licence?
What would you suggest as a better term?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibfkfu$krj$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
> 11/10/10 7:30 PM:
>
>> In message <C8FED8D2.82692%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> The GPL is one valid license... it limits "freedoms" in some ways.
>>> Commercial licenses limit them in other ways.
>>
>> Who says the GPL isn¹t a ³commercial² licence?
>
> What would you suggest as a better term?
Better term for “commercial”? It means engaging in “commerce”, also known as
“business”, also known as “making money”—an activity which the GPL (and Free
Software in general) has no objection to, indeed even encourages.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> When I was a teenager, my family business was vending machines. Back then
> the price for a candy bar was usually a bit more than you would pay for
> one in the store. When asked why, we would tell our customers we were
> selling the service. (Bringing the candy bar to them.) And it was true. A
> vending machine has to be bought, maintained and it costs a lot more to
> regularly fill many vending machines than it does to stock candy bars on a
> shelf. Besides you have to pay commission to the company where you've set
> up your vending machine.
But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
Snit
10:47 PM:
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Do you believe plagiarism is wrong? If so why? Do you believe people
should follow the restrictions of the GPL? If so why?
--
[insert .sig here]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
None of the above to your liking? What’s your problem?
Peter Köhlmann
Snit Michael Glasser needs another term for a Snot Circus
And someone he can atribute something to which that person never said
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Sinister Midget III
True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
service.
It's also going to require some incentive to keep providing the service
(usually known as profit) or the service won't exist. Altruism doesn't
put food on the table, and neither do appreciation or a plethora of
grateful comments.
--
Programming is an unnatural act.
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows
Hadron
Quit whining. If you dont want it, dont buy it. Jesus you're a
miserable, freeloading wanker. Why dont YOU overhaul the UI and put
months into polishing it and making it work with the Nokia APIs?
Snit
12:48 AM:
It is a serious question: I accept that "commercial" is not a good word for
the type of licenses used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other
companies... so what term would you use?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:17:48 +0000, White Spirit wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/10 20:57, RonB wrote:
>>
>>> If I had a Nokia phone, and wanted to install Stellarium on it, I
>>> wouldn't think the price was unreasonable. I remember a time when a
>>> program like this one -- with many less features -- would have cost a
>>> hundred, maybe two hundred dollars.
>>
>> Yeah, but think of the lifetime of use you'll get out of an open comb
>> razor made in the 1930s :)
>
> Thing is, if you want and have the skills, you can port it yourself to
> your Nokia. (And maybe someone else has already done it for free, I don't
> know.) But if you really want the program and don't want to bother doing
> the work on your own, I don't think the price is unreasonable. I know I
> would pay it just for the convenience.
Unreasonable? Look, White Spirit is an arse. Porting stuff like this to
a handset involves a LOT of work. A wonderful piece of SW like that for
the price of a pint of beer? Puhleaze. Ignore the tight fisted moron. He
is the definition of freetard : takes everything, gives nothing,
begrudges everyone.
Clogwog
news:C9014A1D.8295E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibg755$vqt$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
> 11/11/10
> 12:48 AM:
>
>> In message <C900D97E.8292D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibg01v$rep$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
>>> 11/10/10 10:47 PM:
>>>
>>>> In message <C900A828.82915%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibfkfu$krj$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
>>>>> 11/10/10 7:30 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <C8FED8D2.82692%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GPL is one valid license... it limits "freedoms" in some ways.
>>>>>>> Commercial licenses limit them in other ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you suggest as a better term?
>>>>
>>>> known
>>>> as 占쏙옙business占쏙옙, also known as 占쏙옙making money占쏙옙占쏙옙an activity which the
>>>> (and Free Software in general) has no objection to, indeed even
>>>> encourages.
>>>
>>> What would you suggest as a better term?
>>
>
> It is a serious question: I accept that "commercial" is not a good word
> for
> the type of licenses used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other
> companies... so what term would you use?
>
>
:-? A "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC PAID FREETARD" license.
Snit
12:56 PM:
...
>>>>> Better term for “commercial”? It means engaging in “commerce”, also known
>>>>> as “business”, also known as “making money”―an activity which the GPL (and
>>>>> Free Software in general) has no objection to, indeed even encourages.
>>>>>
>>>> What would you suggest as a better term?
>>>>
>>> None of the above to your liking? What’s your problem?
>>>
>> It is a serious question: I accept that "commercial" is not a good word for
>> the type of licenses used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other
>> companies... so what term would you use?
>
> :-? A "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC PAID FREETARD" license.
Hmmmm... no, I do not think that is quite it. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Clogwog
news:slrnidlutf.8n...@netscape.net...
> On 2010-11-10, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Gregory Shearman spake thusly:
>>> On 2010-11-10, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When I went into the "Punch and Judy" in Covent Garden several years
>>>> ago, I was charged £6 for a rather uninspiring pint of Fosters lager,
>>>> and I didn't even get a seat. I dread to think how much they're
>>>> charging today.
>>>
>>> Ughhh!
>>>
>>> All the really delicious pommy beers you can enjoy and you pick a
>>> Fosters??? You couldn't have picked a worse Australian beer.
>>
>> IIRC the only other lager they were selling was Stella, which IMHO is
>> overrated, and in that particular pub also grossly overpriced. I was
>> already shocked to have to pay six quid for a Fosters, I wasn't going to
>> stretch any further just for a Stella.
>
> Stella is a crap. My first wife was Belgian and she wouldn't let it in
> the house.
>
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc6rge_domino-de-biere-belge_fun
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> claimed:
>
>> But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
>
> True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
> service.
Then the customers go elsewhere. That’s how “competition” works.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> I accept that "commercial" is not a good word for the type of licenses
> used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other companies... so what term
> would you use?
The usual one: “proprietary”.
Sinister Midget III
> In message <pp0tq7-...@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>
>> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>> claimed:
>>
>>> But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
>>
>> True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
>> service.
>
> Then the customers go elsewhere. That’s how “competition” works.
Somebody's going to recoup business costs. Whether it's the one who
puts the product in front of you, or the one who makes you go down the
street to get the same thing.
That's how /BUSINESS/ works.
The same is true of taxes. Businesses don't pay them. They make their
customers do it.
--
My weight is perfect for my height... which varies.
Snit
1:30 PM:
Isn't the GPL itself proprietary... owned by the Free Software Foundation?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Homer
So how do those competitiors meet /their/ business costs, without
charging for products or services?
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 28 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
Hadron
> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> claimed:
>> In message <pp0tq7-...@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>>> claimed:
>>>
>>>> But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
>>>
>>> True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
>>> service.
>>
>> Then the customers go elsewhere. That’s how “competition” works.
>
> Somebody's going to recoup business costs. Whether it's the one who
> puts the product in front of you, or the one who makes you go down the
> street to get the same thing.
>
> That's how /BUSINESS/ works.
>
> The same is true of taxes. Businesses don't pay them. They make their
> customers do it.
You're either insane, as dumb as an ox or trolling. Which is it?
Taxes are paid based on income you blithering idiot.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Verily I say unto thee, that Lawrence D'Oliveiro spake thusly:
>
>> In message <pp0tq7-...@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>>> claimed:
>>>
>>>> But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
>>>
>>> True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
>>> service.
>>
>> Then the customers go elsewhere. That’s how “competition” works.
>
> So how do those competitiors meet /their/ business costs, without
> charging for products or services?
Who says they can’t charge for products or services?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> claimed:
>
>> In message <pp0tq7-...@home.harry.net>, Sinister Midget III wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-11-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>>> claimed:
>>>
>>>> But your business costs are not part of the “service”.
>>>
>>> True. Except if the business costs aren't met, there will /be/ no
>>> service.
>>
>> Then the customers go elsewhere. That’s how “competition” works.
>
> Somebody's going to recoup business costs.
The one who has less of them to recoup in the first place can offer lower
prices and win the market.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Nope. As witness variations created by others, like the AGPL.
Snit
2:35 PM:
You are incorrect. The GPL is copyrighted by the FSF.
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
-----
In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits
only verbatim copying of the entire GPL.
-----
The APGL and LGPL are *also* owned by the Free Software Foundation.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sinister Midget III
True. Also entering into the mix is the cost of going elsewhere to get
the product, the ability to go get it and usually the (in)convenience
of one source over another.
We're back where we began.
--
Hi! I can't remember your name either.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibhnji$sdl$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
> 11/11/10 2:35 PM:
>
>> In message <C901A70D.82A7B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibhjq2$q07$5...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
>>> 11/11/10 1:30 PM:
>>>
>>>> In message <C9014A1D.8295E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I accept that "commercial" is not a good word for the type of licenses
>>>>> used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other companies... so what
>>>>> term would you use?
>>>>
>>>> The usual one: ³proprietary².
>>>
>>> Isn't the GPL itself proprietary... owned by the Free Software
>>> Foundation?
>>
>> Nope. As witness variations created by others, like the AGPL.
>
> You are incorrect. The GPL is copyrighted by the FSF.
The Affero GPL was originated by Affero, not by the FSF. That’s why it’s
called the “Affero” GPL <http://www.affero.org/oagf.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License>.
Snit
3:57 PM:
> In message <C901B2E5.82AAF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibhnji$sdl$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
>> 11/11/10 2:35 PM:
>>
>>> In message <C901A70D.82A7B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post ibhjq2$q07$5...@lust.ihug.co.nz on
>>>> 11/11/10 1:30 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <C9014A1D.8295E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I accept that "commercial" is not a good word for the type of licenses
>>>>>> used by MS and Apple and Adobe and most other companies... so what
>>>>>> term would you use?
>>>>>
>>>>> The usual one: ³proprietary².
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the GPL itself proprietary... owned by the Free Software
>>>> Foundation?
>>>
>>> Nope. As witness variations created by others, like the AGPL.
>>
>> You are incorrect. The GPL is copyrighted by the FSF.
>>
>> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
>> -----
>> In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits
>> only verbatim copying of the entire GPL.
>> -----
>>
>> The APGL and LGPL are *also* owned by the Free Software Foundation.
> The Affero GPL was originated by Affero, not by the FSF. That’s why it’s
> called the “Affero” GPL <http://www.affero.org/oagf.html>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License>.
So we each have been corrected... and learned. Excellent.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> We're back where we began.
Except that the idea that you somehow have a right to charge more, just
because your costs are higher, has been debunked.
Sinister Midget III
*SIGH*
You have the right to charge what your customers will pay. You have a
right to _TRY_ to recoup your expenses. You have a right to make your
past customers go to whatever lengths they need to go to in order to
receive any product they aren't willing to pay your price to get.
In other words, you have the absolute right to charge anything you'd
like, whether it's 1% markup, an increase of 30,000% or a loss of
100%. What you _don't_ have the right to do is force the customer to
pay that price unless they get the item from you.
At least, that's how it works in free and semi-free countries.
Debunked my ass!
--
What is Life? It's the cereal Mikey likes.