Nokia spreading FUD?

[Matthias Kirschner]

Hi all,

just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce
selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia.
http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736

I am interested in your opinion.

Regards,
Matthias

[Antenore Gatta]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Hi all,

Hello Matthias!

Post by Matthias Kirschner
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce
selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia.
http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736

Thank you very much for the article, I was not aware of the deal yet!

Post by Matthias Kirschner
I am interested in your opinion.

Indeed at the beginning I was quite happy of the decision, honestly is
better for Qt, to be far from the rotten and infected nails of
Microsoft.

I even thought that Nokia made a mistake giving it away to a small
company, there are several examples of great works made by small
companies in the Free Software scenes. So I screamed hooray! A new
Trolltech!

But, unlucky, looking at the Digia history I cannot find out its
commitment in the Free Software and/or Open Source, but just this news
(16/02):

http://www.digia.com/C2256FEF0043E9C1/0/405002245

That sounds to me like lubricant to make it less painful, I hope you
(all) get my point ;-(

So, yes, this is a nefarious news

We need a fork or forget Qt... Personally I'm trying to not use any Qt
based application since few weeks.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Regards,
Matthias

Regards
Antenore

--

Antenore Gatta
Free Software Foundation Europe
FSFE fellow #1881
http://www.fsfeurope.org
http://fslug.simbiosi.org

[Bernhard Reiter]

Post by Antenore Gatta
We need a fork or forget Qt...

There is no need to avoid Qt, on the contrary, the Nokia
investment in it and the licensing change has made it a better
technical product with a wider community. Read from someone who knows:

It's the Free Software, stupid!
Submitted by mirko on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 20:59
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/4394

What we must respond to is the crap about restrictions somewhere.
We need to educate potential customers to demand Free Software services.

Best,
Bernhard
--
FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible: www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110323/8b40a212/attachment.pgp

[Jelle Hermsen]

Hiya,
It's really sad what's happening with Nokia. To me it just proves the
point that important FLOSS projects are best off being governed by an
independent foundation. I'm not sure what this all means to the KDE
QT Foundation
(http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php ), but
quite frankly I don't care much about the "commercial" side of things.
I intentionally use the quotes, because I strongly agree with the FSF
that "commercial" is a word to avoid
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial ).
FLOSS can be commercial, but I don't agree with David Wheeler that
it's (almost) always the case. It's too much a spin on words and
definitions if you ask me. It's a typical problem when you hijack a
word and mix it up with several legal viewpoints. This creates a big
mush in which you can 'prove' almost anything. When you look at the
legal definitions of a word, you can only and exclusively use those
definitions inside the specific domain it applies to. Lifting it from
its context and trying to prove a much larger, 'universal' point is
generally a bad idea, because it can create much haziness which helps
nobody.

Regarding Qt, I can say I never really warmed up to it. When Trolltech
finally managed to fix the licensing issues I already turned my back
to it and never really returned. However, it is a real important
project, and I sincerely hope the development of Qt won't be depending
on all the dark business voodoo that's going on around Nokia.

On the supposed restrictions on the use of FLOSS in defense &
aerospace I call a big "crap alert". You only need to point to the
programming language Ada, which is an international standard and its
major implementation GNAT is Free Software. GNAT is part of the GNU
Compiler Collection and is used widely among aerospace & defence
around the world. You only need to remind someone that the DoD itself
created the language in the first place and opened it up.

Thanks for the blog post, it's great food for thought!

Cheers,
Jelle

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Hi all,
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce
selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia.
I am interested in your opinion.
Regards,
Matthias

[Matthias Kirschner]

Hello Jelle,

Post by Jelle Hermsen
I intentionally use the quotes, because I strongly agree with the FSF
that "commercial" is a word to avoid
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial ).
FLOSS can be commercial, but I don't agree with David Wheeler that
it's (almost) always the case. It's too much a spin on words and
definitions if you ask me.

Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people
are paid to develop it?

Does anybody here see a difference between the amount of
- commercial non-free software and commercial Free Software or
- non-commercial non-free software and non-commercial Free Software?

The only advantage in this case: you know that people have no clue about
Free Software when they use commercial software as an antonym?to Free
Software.

Regards,
Matthias

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people
are paid to develop it?

I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and
commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the
crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of
some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting
donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if
it pulls in a considerate amount each month.

I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?

Regards,
Matthias

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?

To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that
it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community
add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I
certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.

I also don't know where you'd draw the line. If Ubuntu is, is Kubuntu?
Is Xubuntu? It doesn't work like that.

If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people
are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are
paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial,
sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True Scotsman
fallacy.

For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction
to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun
"software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Hugo Roy]

Post by Alex Hudson
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a
transaction
to obtain/use it.

A transaction isn't always monetary. You can see a "contract" as a
transaction too. The GPL can be seen as a transaction too.

Plus, you can pay to get a copy of Free Software by paying. As RMS puts
it "Selling Free Software is OK!"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

I guess it proves there is no point in saying "commercial software" or
"non commercial software". To me, all software is commercial unless
forbidden (for instance, with creative commons non commercial, but
that'd be silly). And the GPL does not forbid commercial use.

Best,

[Sam Liddicott]

Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and
conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to
commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).

Free software would not be commercial because the grant of use and
conveyance for the recipient does not require commercial consideration.

It would be commercial software because restricted administration of the
rights of use and conveyance of software is the basis of commerce for
the rights holder.

Sam

Post by Hugo Roy

Post by Alex Hudson
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a
transaction
to obtain/use it.

A transaction isn't always monetary. You can see a "contract" as a
transaction too. The GPL can be seen as a transaction too.
Plus, you can pay to get a copy of Free Software by paying. As RMS puts
it "Selling Free Software is OK!"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
I guess it proves there is no point in saying "commercial software" or
"non commercial software". To me, all software is commercial unless
forbidden (for instance, with creative commons non commercial, but
that'd be silly). And the GPL does not forbid commercial use.
Best,

--
[FSF Associate Member #2325]
<http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=2325>

<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110315/47db894c/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wrtOa+MS+fAAAAAielRYdFNvZnR3YXJlAAB42isvL9fLzMsuTk4sSNXLL0oHADbYBlgQU8pcAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
Type: image/png
Size: 2820 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : Loading Image...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 497470.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2416 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : Loading Image...

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Sam Liddicott
Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and
conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to
commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).

What commercial considerations should prevent the freedom to use and
share?

Regards,
Matthias

[simo]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Sam Liddicott
Maybe "commercial software" is software where the rights of use and
conveyance for the recipient must be negotiated with respect to
commercial considerations (transfer of value in return).

What commercial considerations should prevent the freedom to use and
share?

Maybe someone should define what 'commercial' means in the context of
software, and then you can check each case that matches.

But the problem of using the terms 'commercial software' is not in it's
definition but in the fact that, when used as antonym for 'free
software' it gives the idea that you cannot do commerce (ie make money)
with free software.

This is certainly wrong, therefore from a free software activist point
of view, using the term commercial software to identify proprietary
software is counterproductive, as it puts the person you are talking to
in the wrong state of mind with regard to the perception of free
software as a valuable commercial tool.

Simo.

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?

To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that
it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community
add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I
certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.

(Still not satisfied with the answers, so I will continue to ask stupid
questions.)

Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu
commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company
for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/
do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why
wouldn't the software be commercial software?

About the 10%: If a company sells distilled water is this not a
commercial product? Because it is less than 10% what they change?

Post by Alex Hudson
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people
are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are
paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial,
sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True
Scotsman fallacy.

Why would that be a version of the true scotman? A lot of software is
commercial software (be it non-free or Free Software). But I am sure we
can find some examples of software which was developed by people who
never got money for it. Several Free Software programs started as
non-commercial software, but than turned into commercial software.

Post by Alex Hudson
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction
to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun
"software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.

So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay
for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which
you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?

Than the whole Ubuntu distribution consists of commercial software,
because my parents once bought a PC with it preinstalled. And all the
software from Debian, too because I friend of mine bought a laptop with
Debian GNU/Linux preinstalled.

Regards,
Matthias

[Sam Liddicott]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?

To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that
it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community
add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I
certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.

(Still not satisfied with the answers, so I will continue to ask stupid
questions.)
Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu
commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company
for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/
do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why
wouldn't the software be commercial software?

By your definition if I use some non-commercial software and then
someone else starts selling it, then all of a sudden I am using
commercial software.

That means it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial
software or not unless I know that no-one else in the world is selling
it (or undertaking some qualifying commercial activity).

If it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software, then
it becomes a useless definition in normal life.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
About the 10%: If a company sells distilled water is this not a
commercial product? Because it is less than 10% what they change?

Perhaps the argument is about the meaning of the word "software". You
can point to a bottle of water and perhaps get some agreement on that
particular bottle of water. But when we say "software" it is hard to
tell if it means "specific installation of software on that computer" or
not.

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people
are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are
paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial,
sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True
Scotsman fallacy.

Why would that be a version of the true scotman? A lot of software is
commercial software (be it non-free or Free Software). But I am sure we
can find some examples of software which was developed by people who
never got money for it. Several Free Software programs started as
non-commercial software, but than turned into commercial software.

And what if someone else turned it into commercial software (whatever
that means) but the author/rights-holder did not? Is that possible under
your meaning of commercial software?

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction
to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun
"software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.

So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay
for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which
you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?
Than the whole Ubuntu distribution consists of commercial software,
because my parents once bought a PC with it preinstalled. And all the
software from Debian, too because I friend of mine bought a laptop with
Debian GNU/Linux preinstalled.

But much of that software is available also non-commercially - I think
so far we hinge on the use of the word "software" to mean specific
installation or abstract package that is developed and available to be
copied.

Sam
--
[FSF Associate Member #2325]
<http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=2325>

<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110315/4b4c9eb9/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wrtOa+MS+fAAAAAielRYdFNvZnR3YXJlAAB42isvL9fLzMsuTk4sSNXLL0oHADbYBlgQU8pcAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
Type: image/png
Size: 2820 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : Loading Image...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 497470.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2416 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : Loading Image...

[Hugo Roy]

[Sam Liddicott]

From what I can read, we cannot reach a definition of "commercial
all software is "commercial" unless forbidden, for instance with a non
commercial license: which is a bad idea btw).
You may agree or not. But anyway: what's the point?
Does it disturb you that we may call all Free Software "commercial"
software? Why? Isn't it a good thing that people are free to make money
out of it? What's negative about "commercial"? As long as we stand for
our freedoms, this should include the freedom to business, right?
On the other hand, if you push for a definition of commercial software
that may exclude most Free Software, you see where you're going: you're
not doing a favour to people's freedom, because you exclude Free
Software from the marketplace.

If we learn from the weasels we need terms like commercial software that
can mean what we like; that can include free software after the
discussion is closed and the EU recommendations have been adopted.

Sam

[Michael Kesper]

Hi,

Post by Sam Liddicott
By your definition if I use some non-commercial software and then
someone else starts selling it, then all of a sudden I am using
commercial software.
That means it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial
software or not unless I know that no-one else in the world is
selling it (or undertaking some qualifying commercial activity).
If it is impossible to know if I am not using commercial software,
then it becomes a useless definition in normal life.

That's true.
The only use is of people who want to claim that Free Software would
be an antagonism to "commercial software".

Best wishes
Michael
--
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfe.org)
Treten Sie der Fellowship bei! [][][] (http://fellowship.fsfe.org/join)
Ihre Spende erm?glicht unsere Arbeit! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110315/8ecf58c9/attachment-0001.pgp

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Cannonical is doing buisiness with Ubuntu. So why isn't Ubuntu
commercial? Same if I use Debian to implement a solution with my company
for another company (like some of http://www.debian.org/consultants/
do). This solution includes software. If I sell the solution, why
wouldn't the software be commercial software?

Post by Alex Hudson
If you say software is commercial if at any point some group of people
are poised to make money out of it or services surrounding it, or are
paid to contribute to it, then basically all software is commercial,
sure. But that seems to me just another version of the One True
Scotsman fallacy.

Because basically your argument here is reducing to "if I can find
anyone gaining in some way by virtue of <product>, it is a commercial
product" - and you then have nice malleable boundaries that you can
stretch around anything.

Is Debian non-commercial? No true non-commercial piece of software could
be _sold_ for _money_ !! ... (etc. etc.)

I'm just not sure I buy that logic, "non-commercial" ends up being the
empty set.

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
For me, software is commercial software if you enter into a transaction
to obtain/use it. "Commercial" is the adjective applied to the noun
"software", not the developers, the financiers, or anyone else.

So in your view software can only be commercial if a) you have to pay
for license fees or b) the software is bundled with hardware for which
you pay (e.g. Free Software on your mobile, your dsl router, your PC)?

No. I would view Emacs as being commercial being (as was, at least) the
FSF would sell copies of it. I view RHEL has being commercial. They're
both free software.

Look, this whole thing is an attempt to divide software into two
categories which aren't even mutually exclusive. Free vs. non-free _is_
mutually exclusive, so obviously you can't sensibly map from one to the
other.

But that doesn't mean that "commercial" doesn't have a broad meaning
which is understood in similar terms by most people: it does. And
honestly, the argument that "all free software can be commercial!" which
technically true is essentially an attempt to avoid a discussion about
how people can earn money directly from software development without
needing to resort to services/other ancillary offerings. Being honest,
most free software isn't commercial, and authoring free software as a
vocation is extremely difficult to turn into an earning job.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Bjoern Schiessle]

Hi Alex,

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call
Ubuntu commercial.

How do you argue when you explain that Ubuntu is not commercial?

To be honest it's never come up. I've never met anyone who thought that
it was. I don't see that the 10% or whatever polish the Ubuntu community
add to Debian as making it amazingly different to Debian, and I
certainly don't see Debian as commercial software.

I think we have to differentiate. Talking about commercial software I see
four kind of commercialization:

- development: software was developed in a commercial environment,
paid programmers create Free Software during their day-to-day job
- usage: the software is used in a commercial environment. For example a
software company uses gcc to compile their software or LibreOffice to
write their letters, etc.
- distribution: software gets sold to customers.
- support: you provide commercial support for your software

Of course you are not forced to do any of this activities commercially
but Free Software is the only license model which always allows you to
provide support, develop, use and distribute the software commercially.
By contrast the proprietary license model knows a lot of exception, for
example students versions often exclude commercial usage.

Therefore I would say that Free Software is the only license model which
allows complete commercialisation and Free Software is the only software
where you can be sure that you are able to leverage the full commercial
potential.

Coming back to your statement about Debian I would say that Debian isn't
a commercial distribution, doesn't have a commercial development process
and don't provide commercial support. But the software distributed by
Debian is (can be) commercial. We don't know the development process of
every peace of software distributed by Debian but looking at the license
it could be a commercial process, people are using Debian in commercial
environments, several companies provide commercial support and there
exist commercial distributions of Debian.

best wishes,
Bj?rn

[Ben Finney]

Post by Alex Hudson
I think there's a difference between software developed commercially
and commercial software - just because people are paid to write it
isn't the crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got
soliciting donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial
for me, even if it pulls in a considerate amount each month.
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

So much for examples of things you exclude from ?commercial software?.
(Many of which I disagree with.)

What, then, is your definition of that term so we know what you *would*
apply it to?

[simo]

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people
are paid to develop it?

I think there's a difference between software developed commercially and
commercial software - just because people are paid to write it isn't the
crucial difference for me. Indeed, even if people got compensation of
some sort, I wouldn't necessarily call it commercial: soliciting
donations, for example, doesn't make software commercial for me, even if
it pulls in a considerate amount each month.
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?

Post by Alex Hudson
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Bollocks.

Simo

[Alex Hudson]

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?

Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say
"commercial software" I'm referring to the software.

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Bollocks.

Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all
commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be
expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?

If that's what you believe, fine.

Cheers,

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[simo]

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?

Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say
"commercial software" I'm referring to the software.

I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware
commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally
sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is
unlawfully copied ?

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Bollocks.

Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all
commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be
expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?

Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially
made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you
mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I
have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after
payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
Free Software ?

Post by Alex Hudson
If that's what you believe, fine.

Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as
there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its
meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.

Simo.

[Jelle Hermsen]

I'm with Simo on this one. I don't think discussing commercial software when you don't agree on the definition is rather pointless. And yeah, RHEL is Free Software according to the (well-defined) definition.

Jelle
-----Original Message-----
From: simo <idra at samba.org>
Sender: discussion-bounces at fsfeurope.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:36:15
To: Alex Hudson<home at alexhudson.com>
Cc: <discussion at fsfeurope.org>
Subject: Re: Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?

Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say
"commercial software" I'm referring to the software.

I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware
commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally
sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is
unlawfully copied ?

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Bollocks.

Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all
commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be
expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?

Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially
made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you
mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I
have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after
payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
Free Software ?

Post by Alex Hudson
If that's what you believe, fine.

Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as
there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its
meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.

Simo.

[Jelle Hermsen]

Errata: I DO think the discussion is pointless :)
-----Original Message-----
From: simo <idra at samba.org>
Sender: discussion-bounces at fsfeurope.org
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:36:15
To: Alex Hudson<home at alexhudson.com>
Cc: <discussion at fsfeurope.org>
Subject: Re: Commercial Software (was: Re: Nokia spreading FUD?)

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
I would struggle to label most free software as commercial on that
basis. RHEL would be an example I suppose, but I wouldn't call Ubuntu
commercial.

They sell support contract for Ubuntu, why not ?

Because the support contract is the commercial good. When I say
"commercial software" I'm referring to the software.

I guess you have to define what you mean then, is shareware/freeware
commercial ? Is a demo commercial ? Is proprietary software normally
sold commercial ? Even when it is donated ? Is it commercial if it is
unlawfully copied ?

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by simo

Post by Alex Hudson
Of course commerciality isn't equivalent to non-freedom but it's pretty
indicative and if you used it as a rule of thumb you'd probably be right
99.999% of the time.

Bollocks.

Ignoring the language; you honestly think that if we made a list of all
commercial software available and we picked out, say, 100, it would be
expected that at least one free software app would be in that pick?

Maybe not entirely made of freesoftware, but probably at least partially
made from free software, but then again, you need to define what you
mean by "commercial software available", because as you define it, I
have no clue what are the boundaries. Given RHEL is offered only after
payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
Free Software ?

Post by Alex Hudson
If that's what you believe, fine.

Yes, this is the problem, we are discussing on what people believe as
there isn't a standardized definition of commercial software. Its
meaning is very fuzzy and can vary greatly depending on who you talk to.

Simo.

[Alex Hudson]

Simo,

Post by simo
Given RHEL is offered only after
payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
Free Software ?

Given I have already stated my opinion on both those questions, twice
now, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read my contributions
to this thread.

It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss this, because you a) don't know my
definition [because you didn't read it], and b) are asking me to defend
points of view I don't hold [hence the false dichotomy above].

Again, for the record; Yes, I do say RHEL is commercial. No, I do not
claim it is not free software.

Thanks

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[simo]

Post by Alex Hudson
Simo,

Post by simo
Given RHEL is offered only after
payment, would you say it is not commercial ? Or do you claim it is not
Free Software ?

Given I have already stated my opinion on both those questions, twice
now, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read my contributions
to this thread.
It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss this, because you a) don't know my
definition [because you didn't read it], and b) are asking me to defend
points of view I don't hold [hence the false dichotomy above].
Again, for the record; Yes, I do say RHEL is commercial. No, I do not
claim it is not free software.

Alex,
the question was rhetoric and only meant to stress that "commercial
software" is not an antonym to "free software", therefore discussing in
those terms is pointless, and for a free software activist even harmful.

It isn't worthwhile to discuss because the discussion is pointless, as
Jelle pointed out.

That was my point :)

Have a nice day.

Simo.

[Alex Hudson]

Post by simo
Alex,
the question was rhetoric and only meant to stress that "commercial
software" is not an antonym to "free software", therefore discussing in
those terms is pointless, and for a free software activist even harmful.

Attempting to shut down discussions, particularly on the basis of views
which aren't even on offer, isn't a terribly polite thing to do.

I don't need protection from words, thanks, and I don't think using
words which are in common parlance is particularly dangerous or
harmful.

What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on
one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Michael Kesper]

Post by Alex Hudson
I don't need protection from words, thanks, and I don't think using
words which are in common parlance is particularly dangerous or
harmful.

Words can be very harmful, even though they're used in "common parlance".
Think about that conglomerate of different subjects thrown together as
"intellectual property".

Post by Alex Hudson
What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on
one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.

I see a real and great danger in the classification of software as
"commercial" as every time I saw this phrase used, it was used to sell
proprietary licences as "licences for commercial use".
By the repeated use of phrases like that, the impression is built that
commercial use is not possible with Free Software licences.
So it _is_ harmful to try to classify software as "commercial" or not.

Best wishes
Michael
--
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfe.org)
Treten Sie der Fellowship bei! [][][] (http://fellowship.fsfe.org/join)
Ihre Spende erm?glicht unsere Arbeit! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110316/c8bedc25/attachment.pgp

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Michael Kesper

Post by Alex Hudson
What is harmful, though, is attempting to portray people as siding on
one side when they're actually on the other. It's divisive.

I see a real and great danger in the classification of software as
"commercial" as every time I saw this phrase used, it was used to sell
proprietary licences as "licences for commercial use".
By the repeated use of phrases like that, the impression is built that
commercial use is not possible with Free Software licences.
So it _is_ harmful to try to classify software as "commercial" or not.

Except that you're conflating two different things there.

Classifying software as either "free software" or "commercial" is simply
factually wrong. I object to being lumped into that, and that's what I'm
complaining about.

Classifying software as either "commercial" or "not commercial" is a
matter of opinion. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. Having an
opinion on the subject does not make one a free software supporter or
not.

Saying you can't call software commercial because people might infer
that you're saying free software is non-commercial, is a sad argument
based on Orwellian new-speak.

It's not just "commercial". People label software licenses as
"professional", or "enterprise", or "business", or any other number of
terms. These words are _also_ not harmful!

What matters is if software is free or not. I use the word "free", even
though in its regular use in English, 99% of people do not understand my
meaning. So I explain it. If people have it explained _clearly_ to them,
the commercial/professional/enterprise/whatever problem just doesn't
come up.

Nokia have a table on their licensing page which helps explain the
differences:

http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/

This whole topic was about whether they're spreading FUD. Actually, I
think they do a pretty good job of saying "proprietary" in the right
places.

Instead of all this argument to- and fro- about whether or not this word
is harmful, or that word is harmful, why don't we just e-mail Nokia and
suggest to them that under the "GPL" section of that licensing page they
make clear that such applications could be sold commercially so long as
the source is made available gratis?

Is there anything else missing/wrong with the page?

Cheers

Alex.



--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Michael Kesper]

Hi,

Post by Alex Hudson
Classifying software as either "commercial" or "not commercial" is a
matter of opinion. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. Having an
opinion on the subject does not make one a free software supporter or
not.

I'm saying (and seem not to be the only one), that this classification
makes no sense and is just used by people who want to sell proprietary
licences.

Post by Alex Hudson
Saying you can't call software commercial because people might infer
that you're saying free software is non-commercial, is a sad argument
based on Orwellian new-speak.

I'd rather say every software is commercial and so, as stated above,
this classification makes no sense.

Post by Alex Hudson
It's not just "commercial". People label software licenses as
"professional", or "enterprise", or "business", or any other number of
terms. These words are _also_ not harmful!

You say this is not harmful.
For you and me, this may be true. But for people who don't know enough about
freedom of software, all these labels can be used to create the impression
that there are two different "kinds" of software:
"commercial" vs. "free"
"enterprise" vs. "hackerware"
"business" vs. "hobbyist" etc. etc.
So, these labels can (and I'd say _are_) used to create negative
connotations for Free Software (resp. Free Software licences)

Post by Alex Hudson
What matters is if software is free or not. I use the word "free", even
though in its regular use in English, 99% of people do not understand my
meaning. So I explain it. If people have it explained _clearly_ to them,
the commercial/professional/enterprise/whatever problem just doesn't
come up.

Yes, but if people already have got these false images, your work is
harder.

Post by Alex Hudson
Instead of all this argument to- and fro- about whether or not this word
is harmful, or that word is harmful, why don't we just e-mail Nokia and
suggest to them that under the "GPL" section of that licensing page they
make clear that such applications could be sold commercially so long as
the source is made available gratis?

They misnamed their proprietary licence as "commercial", that's the main
mistake I see here. Probably _nobody_ would care about this licence if it
wouldn't be named like that.

Best wishes
Michael
--
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfe.org)
Treten Sie der Fellowship bei! [][][] (http://fellowship.fsfe.org/join)
Ihre Spende erm?glicht unsere Arbeit! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110316/e4cfa674/attachment.pgp

[Sam Liddicott]

Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software",
and always use it when we also refer to free software?

If there is any confusion, the explanation that must follow will raise
the image of free software among those who misunderstand it.

Sam

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Sam Liddicott
Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software",
and always use it when we also refer to free software?

I wouldn't go that far.

If people ask me about commercialism, I generally say that "Yes, it's
commercial, anyone can use it and anyone who wishes to can sell it" (or
along those lines). This gets across some important concepts:

* that free software doesn't have to be sold;
* that were it is sold, the money doesn't always accrue to the author;
* that even where it isn't sold it can be used in commercial contexts.

It also differentiates it from non-commercial software (which at least I
believe exists; e.g. CC: BY-NC licensed software) in both copying and
use restrictions.

I also think the pro-commercial aspects are one of the strongest
arguments for free software. It's a mistake to ignore them imho. But
equally, if you say it's commercial, you can imply restrictions which
are not present.

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

[Sam Liddicott]

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Sam Liddicott
Do we need to hi-jack the ghastly mis-used term "commercial software",
and always use it when we also refer to free software?

I wouldn't go that far.
If people ask me about commercialism, I generally say that "Yes, it's
commercial, anyone can use it and anyone who wishes to can sell it" (or
* that free software doesn't have to be sold;
* that were it is sold, the money doesn't always accrue to the author;
* that even where it isn't sold it can be used in commercial contexts.
It also differentiates it from non-commercial software (which at least I
believe exists; e.g. CC: BY-NC licensed software) in both copying and
use restrictions.
I also think the pro-commercial aspects are one of the strongest
arguments for free software. It's a mistake to ignore them imho. But
equally, if you say it's commercial, you can imply restrictions which
are not present.

In my natural mind I agree with what you say.

But... by not letting the word commercial imply or stand-for those
restrictions, then the restrictions get brought out into the open:

2 pieces of commercial software - one has restrictions, and folk
re-learn what what proprietary really means

Closed-source software then becomes wrong footed because they can't use
the respectable word commercial to cover their deficiencies.

Sam

[Theo Schmidt]

Matthias Kirschner schrieb:
...

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people
are paid to develop it?

Yes, I would disagree. People can and do develop free software as part of their
jobs, e.g. the Linux kernel. This doesn't make the software commercial per se.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Does anybody here see a difference between the amount of
- commercial non-free software and commercial Free Software or
- non-commercial non-free software and non-commercial Free Software?
The only advantage in this case: you know that people have no clue about
Free Software when they use commercial software as an antonym to Free
Software.

Well you have made my head spin and I havn't a clue!

Theo Schmidt

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Theo Schmidt
...

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Would anyone here disagree that software is commercial as soon as people
are paid to develop it?

Yes, I would disagree. People can and do develop free software as part of their
jobs, e.g. the Linux kernel. This doesn't make the software commercial per se.

Why isn't it commercial software, when a company sees commercial
interest and pays for the development of the software? When would you
say that something is commercial software?

Post by Theo Schmidt
Well you have made my head spin and I havn't a clue!

Sorry about that.

Regards,
Matthias

[Kostas Boukouvalas]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Hi all,
just wrote a blog article about Nokia's statement where they announce
selling the proprietary Qt business to Digia.
http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=736
I am interested in your opinion.
Regards,
Matthias

I wrote also the following as a comment on the blog but didn't appear.

The first problem is that many people don?t understand that Free
Software is not a matter of price but freedom of software.

The second ? and more serious argument regarding the "restrictions" ? is
that the model of Free Software cannot apply to mechanics software
development because of the significance of its application on human life.

Although this second argument its not so justifiable as it seems I
believe that the Free Software Community should answer. Also the
creation of quality Free Software about architecture, design and
aerospace could be a bomb to the foundations of mega corporations that
now are monopolies on the market.

[MJ Ray]

Post by Jelle Hermsen
It's really sad what's happening with Nokia. To me it just proves the
point that important FLOSS projects are best off being governed by an
independent foundation. I'm not sure what this all means to the KDE
QT Foundation
(http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php ) [...]

I feel that FLOSS projects are best off being governed by a
contributor-led democratic association.

Foundations often either give special rights to the founders (like
Nokia's two seats on the KDE Qt Foundation), or the organisation has a
founding endowment which enables them more-or-less to ignore the
wishes of contributors if its leaders decide to do that.

Isn't democracy usually a good way of ensuring enduring freedom?

Regards,