tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-322347392024-03-08T15:02:10.367-08:00deostroll's Free Software EssaysA blog about my ideas regarding the subject of "free software" propounded by Richard Stallman...deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-48268897916291250442007-04-15T06:24:00.000-07:002007-06-10T05:24:06.187-07:00Why free software exists: Part 6<span style="font-size:130%;">Problems with IP</span><br /><br />People claim that their technology business only benefits them if there is some way to protect their assets from being publicly misused. Today if you had come out with a new idea sooner or later other people would want a piece of it. How they put the idea to use is totally to their discretion - their self-will. But if an idea is free, in the context of a modern society, other people have it so that they can protect it for themselves and somehow mint profit out of it. This is just one of the ways your ideas can get stolen, and later you think you can't do anything about it, except fight it out with a lawyer. This is business or the way of life in most technological sectors. You can think of many companies that do this - they are really famous for their reputation they have thus far created. If the idea of free software came into existence probably twenty years back, then life would be different.<br /><br />Protecting ideas is a 'good thing'. Ideas getting stolen is a 'bad thing'. This is so because protecting ideas and funding them to develop ideas that build on those ideas will further develop your business. However in cases where secrecy is a requirement (and it cannot be compromised) then protecting ideas is a noble move. But the whole point is that this kind of protecting ideas is something harmful in field of free software. And if you subscribe to these ideas in any way (i.e. use a computer, or an os, or software, etc) you are allowing those people to take control of something in your life. And with relevance to the scope of this blog that <span style="font-style: italic;">something</span> refers to your <u>computer system</u>.<br /><br />But if you look deeply into it <span style="font-style: italic;">what does it really mean</span>? Why are technocrats concerned about protecting their assets or ideas? Why are they ever bothered about <span style="font-style: italic;">protecting</span> in the first place? This is actually a problem with the modern human society, and the people that live in it. If you want to believe it, people are <span style="font-style: italic;">inherently protective</span>!<br /><br />Now why do I say that protecting ideas is bad? Hmm, I think I am being a bit judgmental here. I am not saying that protecting ideas is a bad thing. I believe that where it is necessary to protect ideas it is necessary to protect ideas; otherwise it is harmful to society. It can even tamper technological development.<br /><br />Now look at all of this from another perspective. We want the world 'we' live in to be 'free'; and of course, not everything should be free. Life would not be practical if everything was free. At least of the sake of technological development the ideas that are being implemented should not be concealed from the public. In reality they are being concealed. The motive here is to gain some sort of monopoly over something. If we discouraged this monopoly there would be chaos. In other words there would be a lot of things to choose from. For e.g. if the technology behind constructing microprocessors was free (in the sense everyone could manipulate to their own will) the consumer would be besieged with choices on what processor to buy. Now switch to the marketers point of view: Once he sells his product to a customer, the customer will most probably hunt down the marketer saying that the product (whatever) has got complaints and it needs to be serviced. The marketer would not play the hiding game here; he sees profit in this. But if the technology was free, then the marketer would probably never see <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> customer again. The customer would have found some other person to solve the complaint. (Remember the customer has choice which makes life even more complex). IP exists to solve the chaos from the marketers point of view.<br /><br />But what these laws never thought of were the customers or the consumes - <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">us</span>. It seems for a marketer every customer can become a <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">competitor</span> if technology was something <span style="font-style: italic;">tossed around</span> like a salad. But...do customers really care about technology? Does technology mean anything to them? The answer is no. People are blind about any technical detail. They involve themselves with the technology to the extent that they can get their jobs done. Then you might want to ask the ethical question: <span style="font-style: italic;">where would the idea of <u>technology tossing</u> work</span>?<br /><br />In university circles. This is actually why linux OSs never had an impact with non-technical customers like the way Windows had. But even the idea of technology tossing is some what <span style="font-style: italic;">protected</span> in university groups. I mean that there is always some conflict when some information from one university leaks out to another university. But if we consider <span style="font-style: italic;">one</span> university circle there is some relative development; i.e. technology tossing <span style="font-style: italic;">happens</span>!!! Sometimes some ideas even break the meanest of software patents; they often ridicule them! This is one such social circle we all need to take a closer look at; and then form rules so that we can implement them over a bigger social circle.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-11828340112631156412007-04-11T02:30:00.000-07:002007-04-11T02:37:11.852-07:00Why free software exists: Part 5<span style="font-size:130%;">Intellectual property</span><br /><br /><blockquote>In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements which attach to certain names, written and recorded media, and inventions. The holders of these legal entitlements are generally entitled to exercise various exclusive rights in relation to the subject matter of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of the mind or the intellect, though the term is a matter of some controversy.<br /><br /> <i>See</i> Wikipedia, <i>Intellectual property</i>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property" class="external free" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property</a> (optional description here) (as of Apr. 11, 2007, 08:33 GMT).<br /><br /></blockquote>The subject matter of IP is really vast; it includes copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc. In short IP refers to creations of the 'human' 'mind'. You have to treat <span style="font-style: italic;">human</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">mind</span> separately, and together. The word <span style="font-style: italic;">human</span> refers to a human being who has an <span style="text-decoration: underline;">identity</span>. And the word <span style="font-style: italic;">mind</span> refers to his or her creation that is actually a result of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">intellectual processing</span>; meaning some thought has gone into whatever that person has created. And the phrase 'human mind' has both the meanings attached to it. [Did you noticed the way I treated the phrase 'human mind'? In reality most IP documents have to be interpreted in a similar manner; it actually creates a hell lot of problems!]<br /><br />The source code you write is special; it is just like a song you write. It is your product. Everyone wants whatever they created to become known to other people. Actually this emotion is a part of us trying to be social. We all expect to be rewarded in some way, or at least get recognized. If you would have kept the song (or source code) to your self then this emotion will never be satisfied. Hence your motivation to create another similar piece of work will be lower than the previous one you had.<br /><br />You would find it exhilarating if someone (or a few people) heard your song and said it was good. You would also appreciate the fact that they know you made the song; hence in the future they'd ask you about your future songs. But if its software you make, and it turns out to be successful, people will ask you to add more features to it! They don't look at you and say, 'Wow! Whats the next application you are going to make?'. They would be interested in the next version, rather than your next application. This is how software wins.<br /><br />But lets say that you have incorporated some truly genius idea into your application, that actually helps people at what they had expected the software to do. You are happy about the work you did, but do people know that this is what you did? Your marketing manager is only interested in selling this product. Do you think you are able to convince him or her that the idea that you have used in the program deserves recognition? Well, if your idea came out from a research lab, then probably your manager would understand. Because if he did not grant you the publicity you deserve he knows that you won't work for his research anymore. Who knows, that could be the fall of his career?<br /><br />But lets be practical. Ideas don't come out of labs only. Ideas come out of your head. It is a special lab if you want to think of it that way! Sometimes you need to make your ideas open to all. If the idea is flawless or perfect, then you will be recognized for it. All of this would morally point to or suggest that we have to make the source code free to be scrutinized. Only then people will know, 'Yeah, so this is what he actually did! Its amazing.'<br /><br />This is what Stallman means when he says, that free software is what scientists would generally accept.<br /><br />But instead if you were to work the other, truly evil, way, then everything you do would still sound fair. What would your incentive to create be? Profit? Money? I forget which. In modern society this is a serious issue we all need an awareness of. A lot of Indian companies can still learn from this...if it is not too late. Learn what? All of that is deferred to the next post in this series.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-83152477569537717912007-04-10T02:57:00.000-07:002007-04-10T03:01:42.747-07:00Why free software exists: Part 4<span style="font-size:180%;">The 4 Freedoms.</span><br /><br />You can say that Richard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Stallman</span> (the founder or guru of free software) propounded these laws to promote his community. The community of free software users. Of course to understand why these laws or rules were framed you have to understand the history behind the making of the GNU/Linux OS, and you have to understand how proprietary software or proprietary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">OSs</span> eat your freedom. To many free software disciples, proprietary software is evil. Even <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Stallman</span> thinks so. However I don't actually think we can really dispense with proprietary software being evil! [I'll tell you why later, in a different post or series].<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The evil of proprietary software<br /></span><br />The term proprietary connotes <span style="font-style: italic;">ownership</span>. Which means proprietary software always have an owner (or owners). But the owner dictates the product. The success of the product (whatever it is) depends upon how you are able to utilize it, or in other words, how the product is of utility to you. And while our way of life and thinking allow us to only use the product and get satisfied with its service, we have no problem. The owner is happy; you are happy. However software is a little different. It can change. All it takes is modification of the source code! This is why we say that software is flexible. But consider the question: for whom is software actually flexible? Is it users like you and me who know programming or how to modify the program, but who do not own the product (group A)? Or is it for users that simply use the product who have no idea about how to modify the product (group B)?<br /><br />The above questions consider two groups of people. People who know how to modify the product, and people who know only how to use the software. The irony is that proprietary software is never really flexible for either group. Then for whom is this product flexible? The obvious answer to that is 'for the owners' or 'the developers' of the software. So software being flexible is actually an illusion to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">afore</span>-mentioned two groups.<br /><br />There is a negative side to this, i.e. software having owners. Proprietary software is never really distributed with the source code. The owners will say that if software is mostly for people who only care about using software (i.e. the 2<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">nd</span> group of people I've mentioned before) why should we supply source code? They will never understand it! This is the defense most proprietary owners would give. The danger is that some owners can misuse the freedom of how you want to use our computer. They do it mostly with the intention of profit or gaining recognition. And this happens, behind our backs! Most of us are really swayed by the term "free" over the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">internet</span>. That is if anything is available for free, we have the tendency to download it and use it. What we download have licenses that convey the fact of proprietary ownership. These products may behave in such a manner we never really know. Sometimes detecting this behaviour is impossible. You have a host of other proprietary programs that run or reside in your <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">pc</span>; finding the culprit program is a mammoth task. And you and I have experienced most of the problems: POP ups (in spite of downloading pop-up blockers), updates we never really want, but get us in trouble, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">spyware</span>, viruses...etc.<br /><br />All these problems exist because the source code is not available to us. If we had the source code we learn it and find out what a program actually does. Even if you did not know how to read source code, you don't have to worry. What you can do is get a trusted person to do it for you, like your developer friend, or you could hire a professional. And, if you have come to learn of an undesirable feature you can in fact ask the other person to remove it!<br /><br />Now consider the case of product upgrades. Since proprietary software does not have source code shipped with it we cannot really change anything. But the developers of the product can. Because they have the source code. This would naturally mean that if you wanted something added into the product you would have to literally depend upon the developers, and you are at his or her mercy. And suppose the developer just vanished from the surface of earth, then you are completely helpless. For the community of free software workers this is a major problem. It is not that the source code is not available. We have ways to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">decompile</span> the program and see the inner workings. (Only thing is that we don't get it in the language it was originally created). We could reverse engineer; but <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">that's</span> entirely a different issue. For anything proprietary I think reverse engineering is an ethical issue! [:)] Because, the proprietary license says that you cannot modify a program. What if your intention was to help a friend? No, you must know we cannot do that! It is punishable by law. You are not even allowed to give that person a copy of the software application you have, that might be able to help that person a lot. Being able to help a friend is something that makes the free software community survive.<br /><br />We all know most proprietary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">OSs</span> and applications are plagued by <span style="font-style: italic;">viruses</span>. Viruses are programs that run inside your computer, mostly without your knowledge, and hinder your normal use. Because of the fact that proprietary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">OSs</span> are proprietary, creating such viruses are much easier. Who can find out? Where as in the case of gnu licensed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">OSs</span> viruses are generally less. There could be a lot of sides to the statement. (I would want to discuss the different view points in another post or series). However I guess all of us agree to the fact that viruses are easier to stay hidden with proprietary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">OSs</span> and applications! If you are a person using a free software application you have the ultimate responsibility to validate the source code; see if it has any flaws or viruses in it. This is because the source code is free. But if you are someone who is not that educated about computers or programming, hire a professional; ask him or her to test the source code. Sit along with that person until the whole process is over. Be sure of the fact that there are no viruses or bugs. This way even you can learn more about interacting with the product. This exercise would become useful when you actually use the product to solve your need. You could even do this with proprietary software, but you still would not know what is happening inside!<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The rules of the community</span><br /><br />Somehow these rules are self-serving; meaning they help the community of free software users to live in harmony. They are four simple laws wherein every point has a fundamental reason.<br /><br /><ol><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Freedom 0</span> - Freedom to run the software. To be able to do anything or satisfy purpose you would need this freedom.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Freedom 1</span> - Freedom to learn and study the source code, and adapt it to your needs. This is nice because even before using the product we can actually get a vague idea of how it can be used. We can also asses if software application meets requirements.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Freedom 2</span> - Freedom to make copies and distribute them. This does not necessarily mean you give it for zero price, mind you! This will actually helps others benefit from the source code you have obtained.</li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Freedom 3</span> - Freedom to improve and make modifications to the software and release it so that other people can benefit and somehow be able to customize it for their use. Again this is aimed at helping your neighbour.<br /></li></ol><br />I have worded these four laws differently. Actually you can get the original thing from <span style="font-weight: bold;">http://www.gnu.org</span> under the title <span style="font-weight: bold;">"What is Free Software?"</span>. I hope now you have a basic idea of what free software is. It is not simply because of proprietary software, free software exists. I believe there is another purpose (an even greater one). And of course there must be a post that sorts some confusion people have about free software. So keep tuned to this series in the future.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-83035674621891009592007-04-03T11:31:00.000-07:002007-04-03T11:38:42.924-07:00A business model...Most of the software companies today face a problem. It is not a serious issue, but it is a problem in the face of free software, especially if you think of migrating everything to free software. If you are a good disciple of what free software teaches us, then you'd understand that using proprietary software along with free software is not something that grants us that much freedom. Of course the usage of the term freedom is quite vague in the last sentence. What I mean is that if you are a programmer, developer, or a system administrator you will think of things that could generally help or improve for e.g. workflow, sales, etc. These proprietary products that run in your free system will remain to be proprietary through out your life. You have the option to upgrade that product but that will again be something that is proprietary. The problem with that product being proprietary is that you have no control to modify the product. This is a major setback for a business that thinks free software.<br /><br />But there are a lot of obstacles in the way. It is not a good marketing decision to market free software because of how the gnu license controls the product, especially its copying and distribution. You need not always rely on a vendor to obtain the software; your friend can give it to you if he or she has a copy. If this is the case the company will not get any profit/incentive for each copy sold. This is probably where all proprietary companies have a problem. Hence they won’t easily adopt a business model that supports free software (or a free software business model). However in reality, even if this idea of free software never came to exist, the proprietary people would still have a problem – piracy.<br /><br />The people who use software are always those who know the computers inside out; they are not programmers. However their use of a particular product is vital for accomplishing their purpose. If for some reason they find that there is some problem in the product they expect support for it. They would want the bugs fixed, or a new feature added, or anything that would improve their productivity. Even if these are problems with a commercially available product, people (i.e. the users) will have this sort of demand. If the company that owns the product provides the necessary support and the company is indeed successful to service the users of the product, then naturally all the users will recognize the company and the product.<br /><br />Here we all should note one thing. By simply making the product and marketing it, a company cannot achieve recognition. People begin to appreciate the product only when support is issued. And this naturally means servicing customers. Hence it is in servicing customers that companies make profit. It does not come from selling the product alone. And if you look at the expense graph, more money is involved during the support stage, i.e. after the product goes into the market and while the customers are serviced. (And it goes without saying that this money is dependent upon the success of the product).<br /><br />If you wrote a book and tried to publish it, and it became successful, then you would want to pursue the vocation of writing books (provided the issue of piracy never bothered you too much). But if you wrote software and licensed it as free software you would fall and crumble. So if you are looking for a job, don’t write free software. But few people do it. They don’t do it for charity; they do it for recognition.<br /><br />Until now you must be wondering if there is a business model that supports free software. Well, there is. If you have been closely reading, you’d have the opinion that it is not the product that gains recognition; it is the support that goes with it. So if it is free software or proprietary this rule applies.<br /><br />So why not build free software for contract?deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-5592296950318957382006-11-11T04:09:00.000-08:002007-04-03T16:20:15.564-07:00The Virtual Path - [THIS IS YOUR SPACE ! ! ! ]This is not my lazy self trying to make the most of it. There was a series before with the title The Virtual Path. Not quite the appropriate name to give this post (or the previous one!). However, the purpose is clear: what are the things we have to take care of while developing applications that abide by the idea of "free software"?<br /><br />I know there are a lot of problems or hinderances while developing "free software" applications. It is another matter. Don't worry about them here. This is a place where you get to express what you think is best for developing "free software" applications. For a start, let me tell what I think:<br /><br />Well, I see people contributing their ideas in their work. (This is with respect to coding). This piece of code will be distributed to other people and so on and so forth. So if you have access to this source code it must be critical that "you" must know who originally wrote the source code. I have not come about this idea thinking about intellectual property or anything related to it. This is a must because people must know about who wrote the program. There may be ideas that others may not have understood why it has been added. To handle such problems it becomes necessary for the original author of the source code to include information about how to reach him or her. This way other people (I assume other programmers) can ask the author and get their doubts clarified.<br /><br />Although they needn't always ask the author about it in the long run, but I feel it is important. Hence something in the code that refrences the author's identity and a mode of communication is a must.<br /><br />Now its ur turn.<br />:)<br /><br />PS: You can use the comments link you see just after this post. Just click and type in ur ideas...deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-65576898570927768512006-09-16T02:12:00.000-07:002006-09-16T03:03:06.353-07:00The patent problem revisited.I have been asking doubts over a <a href="http://forums.dreamincode.net/showtopic17923.htm">forum</a> about the system of software patents. I have clearly expressed the idea that it restricts freedom to program something that ideologically trivial. Hence all free software programmers are forced to take evasive measures that harm the cult of free software.<br /><br />But there seems to be no end to this misery. Patents will exist. Be that good or bad! But what is it that really matters? There is no real drive - a <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">coalitive</span> effort - which would actually bring the masses to light. Everyone is busy in their own ferry. (I mean would a business person have insight in what I speak?). But the problem seems to be aggravated from a another perspective too. And from what I learn it regards the philosophy of free software. The argument from that angle becomes significant when you start thinking of standards to software or a system.<br /><br />When you create software and you <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">GPL</span> it, you are literally inviting other people to view its source and to make modifications on it. You also hope that all subsequent modifications will keep standards that you had originally thought of. But in practice this may not happen. It can be that people can even abuse your idea, or use it for some other purpose, or change the whole software. This happens because the <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">GPL</span> gives you this freedom. Now you may ask how will your software survive? How will the idea you've put in benefit others?<br /><br />I value this freedom. I think the <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">gpl</span> is good in spite of this small handicap. Because I believe that software will become accepted among the masses this way. But why do I believe it?<br /><br />Well, the essence of this freedom dictates the fact that anything can happen to your software as it proliferates among the masses. (The worst case being someone making it <span style="font-style: italic;">proprietary</span>). But then if you do want standards maintained, then I guess that you should somehow make people aware of the fact about what they should be; and more importantly even you should be convincing enough while you educate people that anything can happen. Because at some point of time even they might develop on your idea, and they might see the big problem (that is if they have not understood about the <span style="font-style: italic;">value</span> of this freedom).deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-41381884419407527482006-09-03T09:00:00.000-07:002006-09-03T09:43:17.279-07:00Complications Speak Out Loud...I have been trying to assess <span style="font-style: italic;">what if all companies adopted the GPL as the norm</span>?<br /><br />The answer to that I think is quite complicated. Because I have to work in a software industry to find out!!! But I took the time to discuss with a friend. He had no idea about the philosophy of free software, and the GPL. I gave an intro to him. He seemed to appreciate the idea for a while...But one question bugged him. I need to get paid for what I work, right? Then how can the GPL support this valid incentive? Hm, it seemed to be a problem. Well, it is a valid question in one sense; apparently my friend was musing on the idea of "free" as in <span style="font-style: italic;">zero price</span>. And eventually that lead him to conclude that he won't get paid for the work he does...! That seemed odd to me at first. But then I thought, well, there is a way to get paid!!!<br /><br />There is always a concept of <span style="font-weight: bold;">demand</span> coming into the picture. As long as there is demand companies can <span style="font-style: italic;">ask for a price</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">charge for the service</span> they perform. This, I guess somehow precipitates to become the salary for an employee. And who will provide the funding? The customers or the one who has made the demand! The customers can be a corporation or generally a body of people.<br /><br />This is just my version of a simple explanation. It cannot however substitute what is actually happening out there. Because I really don't know what is actually happening out there! But I can tell you this much...people don't see that much returns as when licenced through the GPL...<br /><br />And, yes, its all a choice - <span style="font-style: italic;">a decision at the management level</span>.<br /><br />However, I will give you a picture about what I think:<br /><br />If an organization XYZ figures that it needs a particular implementation of some computer-aided-assistance and, that they don't find any existing <span style="font-style: italic;">in-house</span> solutions for it, they may then decide to procure the software system through a committed organization (for e.g. ABC). The XYZ people reach the ABC organization and tell them what they need. This way ABC works on the developing the system for them. How the money or ABC's profit scheme fit into this picture? Well, I leave it for you to figure.<br /><br />This is what happens usually. You don't need to be a manager or someone who works in a software firm to figure this out. The decision to make this a free software or a libre software system is however not at all connected with this. The money that goes into the picture is the same; it flows the same. The service done by ABC is one and the same.<br /><br />But if free software were the norm, we might have to think a bit differently. For ABC to develop the system, its relatively easy, I guess. Suppose ABC is a new corporation then what they have to do in order to develop the system in my opinion is search for a solution in the Internet. There must be some idea or the other hanging loose. This way they don't have to waste time coding for the system. Most of the code they can acquire, out-house. Only those components which need be developed specially are developed in-house. So there are two things ABC needs to do:<br /><br />1. Search the Internet<br />2. develop what they cannot find.<br />3. integrate all of this into a final system and validate the whole thing.<br /><br />ABC can ask charges for these above services. XYZ will pay - they need the system, right? How ABC does all this is up to you to figure out.<br /><br />Now the next phase - <span style="font-weight: bold;">evolution</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The normal scenario</span>: that of proprietary software firms.<br />XYZ has to depend on ABC to further evolve this product. Because ABC developed it! And they would be more than happy to work on the product. By now the knowledge that has gone into developing the system is in-house. So what the in-house team has to do is learn the product and somehow incorporate the changes.<br /><br />Now what if the ABC company suddenly shut down - ran out of business? XYZ has a problem. Who will evolve the product for them? Checkmate!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The GPL scenario</span>: of course the software system is company specific. I don't think users like you and I have business with it. So lets rule out the possibility of this software system going into the piracy cycle. Suppose if ABC shuts down. What XYZ can do is approach another organizationPQR) to evolve it for them. All the documentation that has gone into the software development is given to them. And, now its a issue of how they develop the evolved system.<br /><br />And for whatever reason what if the developers of PQR find something they don't understand? - There is always the Internet!!!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion:</span><br /><br />All I wanted to emphasise was on freedom of using the GPL (GNU Public Licence). But, again I don't want people to think this can substitute all business scenarios. But somehow I believe the GPL slowly will, but the GPL has miles to go before that can happen.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1155714673625541102006-08-16T00:30:00.000-07:002006-08-16T00:51:13.643-07:00A good article on software patents...Till now I was searching for a good site that would give me some idea about what are software patents. Its not that I was not aware of it all along. Its just that in the heat of this debate that is currently unsettled, I didn't know what to believe. Somehow I was searching for an article that dealt with the issue somewhat neutrally; and one particle article stuck my eye.<br /><br />This is probably the third search listing at google when I had searched for "software patents vs no software patents". I never expected that something dealing with "free software" to come up, but it did. This article is just about that. The author uses "free software" as a line of defense. Well most of you may argue the neutrality, but I figure this makes sense. The article can be reached at :-<br /><a href="http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html">http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html </a><br /><br />Before I mention more about this subject for future posts I should clarify my point of view. I support the idea behind free software because it supports freedom. It has made me realize that the modern IP system is very restrictive. It doesn't give us that much freedom. The essence of this freedom is something that is hard to realize if you are new to the subject. For other people it my even be hard to believe. But I do believe this freedom can help us develop in a promising direction though I may not be capable of expressing the essence of this freedom in words right now.<br /><br />Well this article is biased towards free software. If you want to appreciate the argument please try to grasp what the essence of free software has to communicate to us.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1154966547804064492006-08-07T08:10:00.000-07:002006-08-07T09:02:27.850-07:00Patents and the cult of free softwareThis issue is a subject of intense debate even now as I speak. But still, software patents exists around the world. Earlier patenting software had no real logic; a simple copyright was enough to protect the author. But later people realised the economic advantages of patenting software. It so happens that these advantages somehow outweighs the disadvantages. The United States Trademark and Patent Office (USTPO) first response to patenting software was that it was not patentable. I guess they held the idea that anything that was reducable to a system of mathematical algorithms was not patentable. Later on that changed.<br /><br />Software patents are bad for the development of free software. It restricts development in fact! The nature how patents are registered in the patent office makes the situation more complicated. The best story I can think of at this moment is that of Richard Stallman's experience behind developing the GNU/Linux OS. [Read RMS essays]. Stallman gives solutions to solve the problem of software patents. But in my opinion I don't think there is one single solution that would put an end to the restrictive nature of patents!!!<br /><br />Patents put you in danger. Some of the ideas you conceive while developing software may have been patented without your knowledge. In America, the system of applying a patent is that the patentee must sign up for his patent. This process might take a year. Only after a year it gets approved and the patent licence is issued. In between this one year, anyone who has accidently violated the patent sign up is liable for a hearing from the court and for liabilities. And when the patent goes licenced, the scenario is pretty much the same. You'll get screwed for violating patents! Thats the way patents are...<br /><br />The subject matter is still under intense debate as I've mentioned before. So well, I'd rather say something that I feel is correct. Patents would sound logical if the case was an invention we are dealing with; for e.g. a new drug, or a new explosive charge. Here the inventor is claiming that he has knowledge on his invention rather than anyone else; and therefore says that I need to be the one that looks after the development of this idea. This way the society beneifts from his invention. Now if the invetion goes into other peoples' hands then it might result in some catastrophe. Imagine asking another person (other than the inventor) to look after a nuclear reactor which has something totally revolutionary in its design. I believe it is for these reasoms that patents must exist.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1154863606512876342006-08-06T04:01:00.000-07:002006-08-06T04:26:46.520-07:00A little idea about patentsEver wondered what a <span style="font-weight: bold;">patent</span> is?<br /><br />I don't have a clear idea, but I have the over all picture.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Patents </span>are just another set of intellectual property rights. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Intellectual property rights</span> again are laws that protect ideas that people have, and are genenrally not good to mess with. It is an umberalla term that is used to refer to the object of a variety of laws that includes copyright law, trademark law, etc. If you want to research on this I suggest looking though wikipedia. Click <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property">here</a>.<br /><br />If you have an invention and you know it somehow bebefits your society then you can go ahead and patent it. By doing so you are saying, "this is my invention; it is something revolutionary; I want to be the one to further develop on it. Others may not possess the aptitude to do so. Hence, this way I ensure that the society is benefitted in return."<br /><br />So this is how the philosophy of patents work.<br /><br />Now is it right to own <u>software patents</u>?deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1155049851841223682006-07-19T08:09:00.000-07:002007-04-08T06:06:12.730-07:00Why free software exists: Part 3<span style="font-size:130%;"> Free software makes sense<br /></span><br />Copyrights were once significant. That was a long time ago when the printing presses became popular. With the technology to make copies of books a bit faster people started making profits out of selling more copies behind the authors back. Sometimes these books were ill-printed; they might have contained some errors. These little things can eventually scapegoat the author, and not the publisher. Moreover the author derives his or her incentive to write if he or she was rewarded for what he or she wrote. But that time what happened was quite reverse; they didn't get paid and hence their incentive was destroyed. Hence these authors approached the law and thus copyrights became significant.<br /><br />Today we live in world where information technology has advanced to a great degree. It means that copying and distributing has become even more easier compared to the past. People download music files, e-books, and software and other stuff from the Internet. They pass it on to their friends; and thus the proliferation goes on. Licenses prohibit them to do so; but honestly no one really heeds to these licences. But there is a potential threat of being punished by international laws as long as such things go on.<br /><br />The idea of free software wasn't really introduced to obviate such a threat. It was introduced so that people recognise their freedom, and what really these proprietary licenses are doing to restrain it. But proprietary software exists and will continue to exist. It is something which came first, i.e. before free software. Hence there must be situations where you must resort to proprietary licenses. Well, I haven't thought about that yet, and moreover this post isn't meant to deal about that subject either.<br /><br />I will look to discuss these things in the future, and I will also look into extending the concept of free software over fields other than software. But next I will discuss about <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">free software</span>.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1155049745396443402006-07-19T08:08:00.000-07:002007-04-06T06:37:02.705-07:00Why free software exists: Part 2<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span class="header1">Distribution and its problems</span><br /></span><br />Let say you are a good singer. You want to be paid for any song you sing, right? You want people to recognise you through your song. And therefore you go to the studio, do your recording, get publicists, and sell copies of your album. Your publishers make the copies for you. If the recording company has made profit from selling copies of your album, then they pay you a good sum. But what if they sold copies behind your back and made off with the profit? Worse, what if someone else got hold of your album and sold copies of it? What if they sold it in a fashion that doesn't even credit you even remotely? Your identity is at a crisis; people might use some other name (preferably theirs) rather than your name even though you sang the song, and the other person may have not.<br /><br />Would you want to sing again?<br /><br />Clearly not. But as long you have a copyright you can at least fight back. You can go ahead and claim that your copyright was infringed (your identity corrupted) and then take some legal action on the other person. I guess these are truly what copyrights are meant for. But there is another side to this; you have to see it from the publishers angle.<br /><br />The publisher's motive is usually to make profit; and this is ensured as long as he or she can sell more copies. But what if someone else had the power to make a copy of the album and sell or distribute that for free or a lower rate. Clearly the publisher is at a loss. No one would want to buy copies from him. And slowly the publisher's business comes to a close.<br /><br />This is again where copyrights come to play. It a copyright says something like:-<br /><br />This is your copy. Unauthorised production of copies, broadcasting, and/or performance is prohibited.<br /><br />The above statement sums up all I've said above. But now, consider the publisher's perspective again. Although public performance or broadcasting is illegal as per the copyright law, people still continue to do these things. It's a very common occurrence here; any marriage function I go to people play the music loud. And that's not all; people also make copies by themselves. We live in the world where we possess the technology to produce copies in short time. There is a proliferation going on in public; we can't really check it.<br /><br />Until here I've been talking about music; but you must realise software is not much different. These things happen with software packages too. And it's not ever a rare phenomenon. Another good example other than software packages is books. You can get to buy books from side shops which are mainly unauthorised. They try to sell the books for a lower rate. It may not be of good quality however, but people go for these books. So in turn people are engaged in the business of making illegal copies of books and selling them behind the publishers back. It's a loss for the publisher; he can't sell his copies. No one would buy them.<br /><br />The act of infringing the copyright is called piracy or copyright theft. But really who seems to be at loss here. The author isn't usually at loss! He at least gets the kudos for his work. It's really the publishers who are at real stake. In book piracy cases pirates usually print copies preserving the authors name as well as the publishers name. This way both gets recognised. If it were not so, then the pirates are in for real trouble. However this may not be the real reason why pirates are doing such a thing. They probably think the people who buy the book are clever. They won't buy books from unfamiliar authors or publishers.<br /><br />Distribution poses to be a problem as far as software is concerned. Software cannot be distributed unless it is copied in a sense. The software has to be installed for first use and in this sense it is equivalent to copying. It is therefore that you might see most software licenses prohibit distribution. Books or music cds don't restrict distribution because that way it serves the purpose of what the book was actually made for. This is the reason why you see libraries lending books for people to read.<br /><br />We can never have software libraries! Because most licenses prohibit copying and distribution. But yet we still see that copies are being made; they are being distributed. We have no control on this. Whether the purpose or motive behind this phenomenon is good or evil it will go on. And what more, know that this statement will be a major blow to all proprietary license holders, but the only reason why proprietary software packages are being popular are because of such things happening everyday.<br /></span>deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1154792912880335742006-07-19T08:00:00.000-07:002006-08-08T08:18:32.460-07:00Why free software exists: Part 1<span style="font-size:130%;"><span class="header2"><span class="header1">Modifiable software</span></span></span><br /><br />In the most basic sense software is a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">computer program</span> that assists us at doing a task. For e.g., <span style="font-weight: bold;">MS Word</span> is software that allows you to write documents; <span style="font-weight: bold;">Adobe Photoshop</span> is software that allows you to edit image files, and so on. Software is inherently <span style="font-style: italic;">flexible</span>; which means changing/adding some feature (for e.g. adding a spell checking feature to your plain text editor) only requires change in the program's source code. The source code is actually a file which contains instructions telling the computer what to do; but however it is in a language that we human beings can read, provided we know the language; the computer cannot understand this language. The source code is converted into computer readable format (or machine language) so it becomes easy for the computer to carry out the instructions. This is where things like the compiler and the assembler come into play. The compiler reads the source code; and if the code is free of errors it translates the file to assembly language. Assembly language is another language which intermediates our source-code-language with the machine's language. The assembly language converts assembly code into machine readable format. This format is usually in 1s or 0s; and it is commonly referred to as the binary system or machine code. The machine code is bundled into a unique file called an executable (.exe).<br /><br />We cannot do much with an exe file, except run the application. Because it is machine code; we don't read machine code. But incidentally this is the way most software applications are distributed. The problem with such software applications comes when you want to change something. Most software products that are sold by companies go through a life-cycle called the software life cycle. At one-point in this cycle the product is upgraded: certain new requirements are added, some are removed, and so on. This is also called evolution. What happens during evolution is that the developing team (which may consist of entirely new members or members who have worked on the product before) pool together and incorporate new suggestions given by people. They may have to work with the original source code which they already possess. Then the story is the same as before when the product was created from scratch<br /><br />So if you wanted something to change or be added we have to be virtually dependent on the original developers of the software. You don't have the freedom to change it if the product is proprietary-licensed. Nor, can you seek other developers (from a different company) to rectify/evolve the product. Because they don't have the source to work with. I guess this is one limitation of proprietary software packages.<br /><br />If you wanted to help a friend with adding a feature or fixing an existing feature wouldn't you want to do it? Even if you are a good developer, you can't possibly read machine code! This is freedom that doesn't come with the software package. And usually these software packages are known as proprietary software; proprietary because it comes along with a proprietary license. This license usually says you cannot distribute or make copies of the software. If you do then you are violating the licence; you may be arrested or tried in court!<br /><br />A proprietary license has another issue: what if you somehow got hold of the source code? What if you were able to modify the software source code? What if you could have the power to change the software functionality yourself? I guess it wouldn't be a morbid problem if you've used it for yourself. The problem comes when you distribute the software. Once this issue reaches the hands of the concerned company who had created the software could claim that their intellectual property right has been violated and thus you can be punished for that.deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1154792735735984532006-07-19T07:30:00.000-07:002006-08-08T08:19:22.853-07:00Why free software exists: Introduction<p class="MsoNormal">Here I am going to tell you about my idea about how and why the idea of free software came about. You’ll see that my lines of reasoning are somewhat same as that used by Richard Stallman in his essays/speeches. But some part of my idea has a logical reasoning which is a product of my own understanding after reading Stallman. I think I may have contributed a little bit more.<br /></p> Stallamn’s essay mainly deals with his lifetime experiences and brings about the concept of free software simultaneously with the development of the GNU/Linux operating system. Reading his essays will give you a proper foundation, but I suggest all of you, irrespective of whether you are a computer expert or not, you must come to discover faults with the current system of proprietary software licenses on your own. But in the end you must understand the choice is however yours in deciding between the two.<br /><br />I’ve divided this topic into a series of posts:<br /><ul> <li>Part 1</li> <li>Part 2</li> <li>Part 3<br /></li> </ul>deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32234739.post-1154792602883457982006-07-18T08:39:00.000-07:002006-08-08T08:16:56.400-07:00The purpose of this blog...I've created this blog to share my ideas about <span style="font-weight: bold;">free software</span>. Free software is any software that comes with a gnu license which allows you to freely make copies of the same and distribute it at your will. This licence also allows you to modify the source code and customize the software to cater your own needs. The concept of free software was initially developed by a group called the free software community. It was a small online community that existed not long ago who believed that the modern software protection laws didn't make sense, and that they needed to revolutionize these laws somehow to suit the modern generation.<br /><br />The idea of free software is a popular topic thanks to the work of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) headed by Richard Stallman. Their main mission is to propogate the concept. As a result of this, you have people around the world delivering free seminars and other campaigns to publish the idea of free software.<br /><br />Later in this blog you will find posts dealing with varoius issues dealing with free software, some definitions, and my personal views.<br /><br />On a last note I'd rather say that free software isn't about software that is sold free. Selling it for free is a personal or an organisational decision. The meaning of "free" in it says that after acquiring this software you have realtively more freedom as against similiar proprietary software packages.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Ultimately free software is about freedom, not price</div>deostrollhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02445597059149292139noreply@blogger.com