YouTube goes free

  • 61 Replies
  • 5451 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2010, 04:28:43 PM »
software can't be owned.
lolwat?

If I make a program (software), it is mine.

Not rationally, and not necessarily legally either.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2010, 04:40:16 PM »
software can't be owned.
lolwat?

If I make a program (software), it is mine.

Not rationally, and not necessarily legally either.
Oh, so I am not entitled to what I create, with my own equipment, on my own time?

*

Lorddave

  • 16357
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2010, 04:58:24 PM »
Meh, probably mostly "you can't modify this, you can't steal it, you can't claim it as your own, you can't use it to hack people, ect..."

You can't steal any software, because software can't be owned. Also, people can't be hacked; what you are probably referring to is cracking, often misrepresented in mainstream media as "hacking".
Sorry, talking to GF at the same time.  Divides my attention.
Software can be owned or rather the specific code and how it does what it does can be owned.  The idea, basically.  And you're right, people can't be hacked.  I meant to say breaking into another user's computer system without their knowledge.

Quote
Not a problem for me.  And since I'm the user, that's all that matters to me.

Of course, you have the right to use non-free software if you choose. I would just rather you didn't claim it to be free when doing so.
If I don't have to pay for it, it fits my definition of free.  It may not be free to modify, but it's free to use.

Quote
Isn't that what Beta Testing is for?  Peer review?  And bug reports?  And customer service?
Just because you don't have an army of programmers examining your code doesn't mean it's not being evaluated.

The key word we're looking at here is "peer". Proprietary software testers and developers are not peers, because they don't have equal rights to the software. A more appropriate term would be "minion testing", which has a fundamentally different outcome because the testers can't see the whole picture, only what the developers want them to see.

Well the peers would be fellow programmers.  Why is it different if the peers are total strangers or someone who works with you?  They're not going to see different code.  Yes, the more people you have looking at something the more errors you see, BUT the more people you have trying to do the same thing, the more variation you have in what that is.  Why not just have the group of paid programmers who are familiar with the code AND the project look at it instead of increasing the group size to everyone who wants to have a voice?
I can see the logic, but I can't see how it works effectively without some kind of control.

Quote
Also, scientists are often funded by people who can see a profit in the application of science. (ie. technology).  Profit results in more funding.

While I agree with this, I also fail to see what relevance it has to the conversation.
The relevance is that if the source code for Adobe CS6 was open source then Adobe wouldn't make any money on it so why would they even bother paying anyone to write the software in the first place?  Programmers are the scientists being funded by the corporations who want to use what the programmers come up with to get money.

Quote
If all software was open source, it would be like Linux:
Lots of Variations(not the kernal but you know what I mean) that crash very very easily.

You forgot to finish that sentence: "... as well as lots of variations that can run for years without a glitch." In any case, this isn't true, because typically what happens is that a program only gets forked when someone is really unhappy with the current direction it's taking, and then there will be a giant flame war and everyone will end up switching to one of the forks and the other one dies. It's very rare that you get a successful split with enough users to maintain both projects independently. GNU+Linux distributions work slightly differently because they're not programs per se, but collections of programs designed to work together (with varying degrees of success at this aim).

Yeah but let's face it: The motivation of people to fix the glitch/bugs/direction is pride or frustration.  This isn't exactly the best way to do anything.

And while I'm sure there are plenty that can run without a glitch for years, it all depends on what it does.  If it's a simple web server, it's not doing much.  They test of any OS is it's ability to be flexible and stable with what it does.  A web server, a gaming server for 2 games simultaneously, and doing SETI calculations all at the same time (Yes I realize how stupid it would be to try to do all that on a home PC) would be a better test.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Lorddave

  • 16357
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2010, 04:58:57 PM »
software can't be owned.
lolwat?

If I make a program (software), it is mine.

Not rationally, and not necessarily legally either.
Oh, so I am not entitled to what I create, with my own equipment, on my own time?

Not if you signed a contract for your place of employment that says it owns anything you create, no.
IBM did that for it's programmers.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2010, 05:07:30 PM »
Not if you signed a contract for your place of employment that says it owns anything you create, no.
IBM did that for it's programmers.
I was implying free from all legal constraints, sorry for not making that clear enough.

*

Lorddave

  • 16357
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2010, 05:14:21 PM »
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.
If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.
How would someone control all points if the system is decentralized? Sure, people can sell their point, but the important thing is that they can't sell other people's point (what Facebook is doing by releasing tons of personal info to advertisers).

Worms are very good at doing that.  All it takes is a user who isn't security minded and clicks on things they shouldn't.  This, by the way, is why Linux and Windows don't have a large overlapping user base; Those who want it easy aren't usually security minded. 
The point is, Facebook hijacks your personal information deliberately. It's not a worm, it's systematic and built into the network by design.

Yeah and they do it for their benefit.  I don't have any personal problem against it; not that I put anything on Facebook anyway but even if I did, what would they know that is so horrifying for me that I wouldn't tell someone who asked? The only reason I keep things private is mostly due to my employment.  The last thing I want kids to do is find out all there is to know about me, then bring it up in class.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2010, 05:31:22 PM »
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png

I fail to see the connection between open-source faggotry and Facebook secretly selling personal info to businesspeople.
If the masses were using an open-source social network like the Diaspora software (still in development), there would have been no centralized point of control and therefore no potential for abuse.

Why?  Just because there's no central point of control doesn't mean someone can't control all points or sell their point.
How would someone control all points if the system is decentralized? Sure, people can sell their point, but the important thing is that they can't sell other people's point (what Facebook is doing by releasing tons of personal info to advertisers).

Worms are very good at doing that.  All it takes is a user who isn't security minded and clicks on things they shouldn't.  This, by the way, is why Linux and Windows don't have a large overlapping user base; Those who want it easy aren't usually security minded. 
The point is, Facebook hijacks your personal information deliberately. It's not a worm, it's systematic and built into the network by design.

Yeah and they do it for their benefit.  I don't have any personal problem against it; not that I put anything on Facebook anyway but even if I did, what would they know that is so horrifying for me that I wouldn't tell someone who asked?
Some of us have problems with our personal information being given out without our consent or knowledge.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2010, 05:51:33 PM »
Oh, so I am not entitled to what I create, with my own equipment, on my own time?

That depends on what you mean by "entitled to", whether you are talking about a legal perspective or simply a rational consideration of property, and if you mean a legal perspective it further depends on the law where you wrote it and what the software does.

Sorry, talking to GF at the same time.  Divides my attention.
Software can be owned or rather the specific code and how it does what it does can be owned.  The idea, basically.  And you're right, people can't be hacked.  I meant to say breaking into another user's computer system without their knowledge.

It is possible to own the copyright to a specific piece of code. Owning a bit of text itself is ludicrous, however. Also, Adobe should not restrict you from using their software for illegal purposes; the law does that quite well on its own.

If I don't have to pay for it, it fits my definition of free.  It may not be free to modify, but it's free to use.

The word "free" has developed a secondary meaning in modern society; it is used to mean "free of charge" or "gratis", but this makes it difficult for the uninitiated English speaker to even think about the idea of freedom because the word for it doesn't exist in their language. With the aim of eliminating this confusion, I prefer not to use the word "free" to mean "gratis".

Well the peers would be fellow programmers.  Why is it different if the peers are total strangers or someone who works with you?  They're not going to see different code.  Yes, the more people you have looking at something the more errors you see, BUT the more people you have trying to do the same thing, the more variation you have in what that is.  Why not just have the group of paid programmers who are familiar with the code AND the project look at it instead of increasing the group size to everyone who wants to have a voice?
I can see the logic, but I can't see how it works effectively without some kind of control.

Control is provided by the implicit regulations of the hacker community. In the absence of any central authority, hacker culture has developed its own methodology which many hackers are not even consciously aware of, but which nonetheless regulates software development to avoid the confusion that would be caused by a proliferation of forks. This isn't just theory, there is empirical evidence for its effectiveness, not least of which is the kernel Linux, arguably the crown jewel of open source development (earlier free software projects were developed using conventional methods, rather than open source methods).

In any case, this is straying from the crucial point that it is the software user's right to modify the software should it become necessary. Again, the comparison with the right to sue works well here; if you're a non-programmer or non-lawyer, you hope never to need to exercise the right, but it makes no sense to give it up just because someone offers you a shiny toy to play with.

The relevance is that if the source code for Adobe CS6 was open source then Adobe wouldn't make any money on it

There's no reason why this should be the case. Selling software isn't the only way people make money on it; in fact, most programming jobs don't depend on sale value of software at all. In any case, the authoring software need not be free in order to make the format specification and the player free.

Yeah but let's face it: The motivation of people to fix the glitch/bugs/direction is pride or frustration.  This isn't exactly the best way to do anything.

The validity of the first part of this statement is circumstantial, and the latter portion is an opinion.

And while I'm sure there are plenty that can run without a glitch for years, it all depends on what it does.  If it's a simple web server, it's not doing much.  They test of any OS is it's ability to be flexible and stable with what it does.  A web server, a gaming server for 2 games simultaneously, and doing SETI calculations all at the same time (Yes I realize how stupid it would be to try to do all that on a home PC) would be a better test.

GNU+Linux is well known for its performance, flexibility and stability. Unfortunately, what it's well known for isn't its primary advantage, which is freedom.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2010, 05:56:19 PM »
Oh, so I am not entitled to what I create, with my own equipment, on my own time?

That depends on what you mean by "entitled to", whether you are talking about a legal perspective or simply a rational consideration of property, and if you mean a legal perspective it further depends on the law where you wrote it and what the software does.
From a rational consideration of property.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2010, 05:57:41 PM »
Question for Parsifal: Do you believe that replacing the explosives in US bomb casings with GNU/Unix installation CDs would be more effective at spreading freedom?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2010, 05:59:37 PM »
From a rational consideration of property.

Okay, and does "entitled to" mean "entitled to use it", "entitled to not give it to others" or "entitled to give it to others but tell them they can't do certain things with it"?

GNU/Unix

wat
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.


*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2010, 06:05:59 PM »
From a rational consideration of property.

Okay, and does "entitled to" mean "entitled to use it", "entitled to not give it to others" or "entitled to give it to others but tell them they can't do certain things with it"?
All of the above.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2010, 06:06:18 PM »
Question for Parsifal: Do you believe that replacing the explosives in US bomb casings with free, open-source, and non-proprietary OS installation CDs would be more effective at spreading freedom?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2010, 06:10:38 PM »
From a rational consideration of property.

Okay, and does "entitled to" mean "entitled to use it", "entitled to not give it to others" or "entitled to give it to others but tell them they can't do certain things with it"?
All of the above.

Yes to the first two, no to the third one.

Question for Parsifal: Do you believe that replacing the explosives in US bomb casings with free, open-source, and non-proprietary OS installation CDs would be more effective at spreading freedom?

Probably not. Those installation CDs would be more useful inside CD-ROM drives which are connected to functional computers.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2010, 06:16:31 PM »
Question for Parsifal: Do you believe that replacing the explosives in US bomb casings with free, open-source, and non-proprietary OS installation CDs would be more effective at spreading freedom?

Probably not. Those installation CDs would be more useful inside CD-ROM drives which are connected to functional computers.
I'm sure the Taliban have computers.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2010, 06:40:25 PM »
Yes to the first two, no to the third one.
If I borrow a friend a car, and do not want him to go out of state with it, do I not have the right? Isn't it better to have people willingly accept software, with conditions, then no software at all?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2010, 06:42:35 PM »
If I borrow a friend a car, and do not want him to go out of state with it, do I not have the right? Isn't it better to have people willingly accept software, with conditions, then no software at all?

Did you make the car?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2010, 06:45:26 PM »
If I borrow a friend a car, and do not want him to go out of state with it, do I not have the right? Isn't it better to have people willingly accept software, with conditions, then no software at all?

Did you make the car?
I own all rights to the car. Everyone with previous rights to any part of the car forfeited those rights to me.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2010, 07:37:19 PM »
If I borrow a friend a car, and do not want him to go out of state with it, do I not have the right? Isn't it better to have people willingly accept software, with conditions, then no software at all?

Did you make the car?
I own all rights to the car. Everyone with previous rights to any part of the car forfeited those rights to me.
It would be illegal for you to reproduce the car.

*

Lorddave

  • 16357
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2010, 07:37:30 PM »
Sorry, talking to GF at the same time.  Divides my attention.
Software can be owned or rather the specific code and how it does what it does can be owned.  The idea, basically.  And you're right, people can't be hacked.  I meant to say breaking into another user's computer system without their knowledge.

It is possible to own the copyright to a specific piece of code. Owning a bit of text itself is ludicrous, however. Also, Adobe should not restrict you from using their software for illegal purposes; the law does that quite well on its own.
But it must.
If it doesn't, then it could be considered an accessory to the crime, perhaps an instigator.  Yes it's stupid but yes it happens.  It would be like if you gave away guns to anyone who came by.  If one of those guns was used for murder, it's not your fault they were murdered, but you DID help him.  

Quote
If I don't have to pay for it, it fits my definition of free.  It may not be free to modify, but it's free to use.

The word "free" has developed a secondary meaning in modern society; it is used to mean "free of charge" or "gratis", but this makes it difficult for the uninitiated English speaker to even think about the idea of freedom because the word for it doesn't exist in their language. With the aim of eliminating this confusion, I prefer not to use the word "free" to mean "gratis".

Very well.  I'll try to keep that in mind when speaking to you on the subject.

Quote
Well the peers would be fellow programmers.  Why is it different if the peers are total strangers or someone who works with you?  They're not going to see different code.  Yes, the more people you have looking at something the more errors you see, BUT the more people you have trying to do the same thing, the more variation you have in what that is.  Why not just have the group of paid programmers who are familiar with the code AND the project look at it instead of increasing the group size to everyone who wants to have a voice?
I can see the logic, but I can't see how it works effectively without some kind of control.

Control is provided by the implicit regulations of the hacker community. In the absence of any central authority, hacker culture has developed its own methodology which many hackers are not even consciously aware of, but which nonetheless regulates software development to avoid the confusion that would be caused by a proliferation of forks. This isn't just theory, there is empirical evidence for its effectiveness, not least of which is the kernel Linux, arguably the crown jewel of open source development (earlier free software projects were developed using conventional methods, rather than open source methods).

In any case, this is straying from the crucial point that it is the software user's right to modify the software should it become necessary. Again, the comparison with the right to sue works well here; if you're a non-programmer or non-lawyer, you hope never to need to exercise the right, but it makes no sense to give it up just because someone offers you a shiny toy to play with.
Why is it their right?  Is it the user's right to modify a book?  A movie?  We're not talking about a physical item here, we're talking about an idea, intellectual property.  I can't go out, take Harry Potter, rename all the characters, make them American, and put it back out as "Steve Plotter" so why should it be a right for me to take your hard work, your beautifully written algorithms, change them to fit my needs, then redistribute it claiming they're mine?
And that is the real key of the matter: ownership.  With a physical item like a car or a chair, you can modify it then re-sell it.  But when you sell it, you can't RE-sell it.  You buy one car, modify it, sell it, then you no longer have it.  A complete transfer of ownership.
With software you can't do that.  If I take CS6, modify it, then give it to my friend, I still have it.  I can do this forever with no cost to me.  Now if I had spent a long time writing CS6 for money, I'd be really angry if someone gave it away for free.  Especially if the money I would make off selling copies is the only way I get to eat for the next year.

Quote
The relevance is that if the source code for Adobe CS6 was open source then Adobe wouldn't make any money on it

There's no reason why this should be the case. Selling software isn't the only way people make money on it; in fact, most programming jobs don't depend on sale value of software at all. In any case, the authoring software need not be free in order to make the format specification and the player free.

Most programming jobs do depend on the sale of the software.  If the software doesn't do well, there might not BE another title for you to program.  Especially now when loans are hard to get, and you know that no software development company (unless they're huge) can afford years of development without taking out massive loans.

And the format DOES need to be locked, even for the player.  If it wasn't, anyone with sufficient skill could write their own tools.  Obviously this has already happened with Adobe PDF and PSD files though the copies are not as good as the original since they makers didn't have access to the source code.  But imagine if they did: Adobe Flash Tools - Free.  Who would pay for it if it's gratis?
Adobe would then have no reason to continue writing their software.  Why would they?  If someone else is going to do it almost as good and draw the customers, what would they make money on?  Customer support?  Not for the Free ones they can't. (since they didn't make it)

Quote
Yeah but let's face it: The motivation of people to fix the glitch/bugs/direction is pride or frustration.  This isn't exactly the best way to do anything.

The validity of the first part of this statement is circumstantial, and the latter portion is an opinion.

Perhaps, but to do something well, people need motivation.  That you can't deny.  And the most universal motivator in the world right now is Money.  Not saying it's the best not saying it's the worst, but it's the most common.

Quote
And while I'm sure there are plenty that can run without a glitch for years, it all depends on what it does.  If it's a simple web server, it's not doing much.  They test of any OS is it's ability to be flexible and stable with what it does.  A web server, a gaming server for 2 games simultaneously, and doing SETI calculations all at the same time (Yes I realize how stupid it would be to try to do all that on a home PC) would be a better test.

GNU+Linux is well known for its performance, flexibility and stability. Unfortunately, what it's well known for isn't its primary advantage, which is freedom.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't linux based OSes crash really easily until you have them setup just right?  You know the jokes: Install a new video card, break your linux install.
I think the difference is that those who use Linux based OSes can fix their own stuff so they don't complain as much.  Those who can't fix their own stuff get very angry very quickly when something goes wrong.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2010, 01:55:39 AM »
But it must.
If it doesn't, then it could be considered an accessory to the crime, perhaps an instigator.  Yes it's stupid but yes it happens.  It would be like if you gave away guns to anyone who came by.  If one of those guns was used for murder, it's not your fault they were murdered, but you DID help him.  

No free software has any such restriction on the use of the program; that's part of the definition of free software. Some of them request that you don't use it to perform illegal tasks (for example, a program I quite like called Convert Lit which converts Microsoft Reader .lit files into free eBook formats requests that you don't use it for illegal eBook sharing), but there's no legally binding agreement to that effect. As far as I know, no free software developer has ever been held liable for any such instigation.

Why is it their right?  Is it the user's right to modify a book?  A movie?  We're not talking about a physical item here, we're talking about an idea, intellectual property.  I can't go out, take Harry Potter, rename all the characters, make them American, and put it back out as "Steve Plotter" so why should it be a right for me to take your hard work, your beautifully written algorithms, change them to fit my needs, then redistribute it claiming they're mine?

This paragraph has so many issues I would like to address that it's difficult to know where to start. I guess I will begin by pointing out that the term "intellectual property" is vacuous propaganda; first, because it suggests that it is possible to own an idea, but also because it refers collectively to a group of laws that have nothing important in common as though they are somehow related, including copyright law, patent law and trademark law.

The next point I'd like to make is that books and movies are works of art, not functionality. A computer program, with a few exceptions including computer games, exists to serve some functional purpose, to perform some kind of task. Therefore, the need for control over its operation is much greater than for a work that exists simply for entertainment purposes. So, even were I to concede that books and movies are beyond the scope of what should be free to modify, there is no implication there for software.

Thirdly, however, I would like to stress that I do not concede that books and movies are beyond the scope of what should be free to modify. Adaptation of artistic works is the process by which culture develops and evolves; if every artistic work exists inside its own little bubble that can't be touched by anyone else, we don't so much have culture as stasis. To emphasise this point, consider that Shakespeare would have been liable for copyright infringement on several of his plays if today's copyright law had been in effect when he wrote them.

Finally, I don't suggest for a minute you should be allowed to redistribute someone else's software claiming that it is your own, and as far as I know neither does anyone else in the free software community. Nearly every free software licence I know of (the exception being the rather amusing DWTFYWWI licence) expressly requires that the original author's name be included in redistributed versions, whether they have been modified or not. Just because you're free to improve on someone else's work doesn't mean you're free to strip their name away from it.

And that is the real key of the matter: ownership.  With a physical item like a car or a chair, you can modify it then re-sell it.  But when you sell it, you can't RE-sell it.  You buy one car, modify it, sell it, then you no longer have it.  A complete transfer of ownership.
With software you can't do that.  If I take CS6, modify it, then give it to my friend, I still have it.  I can do this forever with no cost to me.  Now if I had spent a long time writing CS6 for money, I'd be really angry if someone gave it away for free.  Especially if the money I would make off selling copies is the only way I get to eat for the next year.

Well, that would probably be down to short-sightedness on your part for choosing such an unsustainable means of making money. When you have to restrict others from doing what their technology would naturally allow them to do in order to make money, you're doing it wrong. The fact that copies of software can be so easily made is precisely the reason why software needs to be free; so that people can use the technology at hand to its full potential.

A computer isn't a printing press - it's much lighter on resources, for a start - and so the concept of copyright that was developed in order to regulate the use of the printing press cannot be applied without revision to the computer; when people attempt this, ridiculous concepts like ownership of software result. Unfortunately, this concept is now so widely accepted by mainstream culture that the natural state of affairs is viewed as a revolutionary idea, and the greatest obstacle to free software becoming more widely used is the propaganda now taught in schools all throughout Western society.

Most programming jobs do depend on the sale of the software.  If the software doesn't do well, there might not BE another title for you to program.  Especially now when loans are hard to get, and you know that no software development company (unless they're huge) can afford years of development without taking out massive loans.

Why don't you try looking at any job website or employment section of a newspaper sometime? Try counting how many programming jobs are based on selling software to the public, and how many programming jobs involve developing software for internal use within a business. Judging by what you've said here, I think you'll be surprised at how little work out there actually depends on selling software.

And the format DOES need to be locked, even for the player.  If it wasn't, anyone with sufficient skill could write their own tools.  Obviously this has already happened with Adobe PDF and PSD files though the copies are not as good as the original since they makers didn't have access to the source code.  But imagine if they did: Adobe Flash Tools - Free.  Who would pay for it if it's gratis?
Adobe would then have no reason to continue writing their software.  Why would they?  If someone else is going to do it almost as good and draw the customers, what would they make money on?  Customer support?  Not for the Free ones they can't. (since they didn't make it)

The PDF specification is free (an important contribution to the free software and internet communities, for which I thank Adobe), and Adobe still seems to be managing just fine with their implementation of it. Not that I support the sale of proprietary software, mind you, but evidently an open specification doesn't mean that proprietary implementations of it are necessarily doomed. But that's missing the real point here; you seem to be arguing that Adobe's profit margins are more important than the rights of the consumer. Who cares if the people are locked into using software that they can't share, can't maintain and can't get support for from anyone other than Adobe, as long as Adobe keeps making money?

If your argument held any weight at all, and sale of software was necessary to produce good results, then people would still use Adobe's implementation, that being the only good one. The fact that you think free alternatives are a threat to Adobe's proprietary implementation shows that even you acknowledge the potential of free software to come to a standard at least comparable with proprietary software.

Finally, you seem to be missing a key point with regard to support for free software. The whole idea is that the support monopoly present when software is proprietary disappears, and anyone with the skill to program and familiarity with the code can offer it; in this way, the free support market will drive support prices down and quality of support will improve. It doesn't matter whether or not Adobe created a free implementation of Flash; they can still offer support for it because anyone can offer support for it, since everyone has the right to share and modify it.

Perhaps, but to do something well, people need motivation.  That you can't deny.  And the most universal motivator in the world right now is Money.  Not saying it's the best not saying it's the worst, but it's the most common.

You've only addressed the second part of what I said. The fact remains that subjugating one's user base is not the only means to make money with software; much like robbing a bank, it's a way to get a lot of money quickly if you know what you're doing, but it isn't the right thing to do, nor is it a sustainable form of development. In fact, charging for software in this way encourages shelfware - software that a lot of people will buy but almost never use - because money is made from sales and spent on support. The more people buy it, the more money is made; similarly, the fewer people are using it, the lesser the expense of supporting the product. In other words, the proprietary software model works best when people are developing flashy, but useless software.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't linux based OSes crash really easily until you have them setup just right?  You know the jokes: Install a new video card, break your linux install.
I think the difference is that those who use Linux based OSes can fix their own stuff so they don't complain as much.  Those who can't fix their own stuff get very angry very quickly when something goes wrong.

I've never had any major issues with GNU+Linux; the occasional X11 glitch, and from time to time issues caused by user error (i.e., me typing commands into a root terminal without thinking), but the base system itself is extremely stable. Drivers are another issue, and often have more to do with hardware vendors not supporting GNU+Linux than a flaw in the operating system itself.

I will add, however, that a flaw in the GNU+Linux system which doesn't exist in either Windows or Mac OS is that Linux is a monolithic kernel; in other words, all of the file system management, process management, device drivers and such are contained within a single program. If one part of it crashes, the whole thing goes down. Fortunately, because Linux crashes are so rare, this usually isn't a problem, but it also means that none of these parts of the kernel can be modified without having root privileges and recompiling the whole thing (with the exception of dynamically loadable kernel modules). The GNU kernel, being a microkernel, won't have this problem, but it's still quite some way from being stable. As for Windows and Mac OS, they both use hybrid kernels (the NT kernel and XNU, respectively) which are somewhere between monolithic kernels and microkernels.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2010, 06:34:18 PM »
Parsifal brings up some good points.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #53 on: May 25, 2010, 06:35:59 PM »
I posted that four days ago and haven't had a response yet. Shall we chalk this one up as a win for free software?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #54 on: May 25, 2010, 06:37:27 PM »
AND ANOTHER WIN FOR FES! Free Electronic Software
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Weegee Board

  • 10323
  • Pokemon Master
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2010, 08:21:54 AM »

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16669
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2010, 08:33:41 AM »
As a computer scientist, I can personally say almost all the jobs I do are selling software of some type or another.  You would put me in the poor house.  Furthermore, most the jobs I see out there right now are for selling software, even if it is for internal use by whatever company I'm selling it to.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2010, 08:40:16 AM »
As a computer scientist, I can personally say almost all the jobs I do are selling software of some type or another.  You would put me in the poor house.  Furthermore, most the jobs I see out there right now are for selling software, even if it is for internal use by whatever company I'm selling it to.

There's nothing wrong with selling free software; for instance, selling it to businesses under terms that give them full rights to the source code. It's selling the right to use proprietary software that I object to.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Weegee Board

  • 10323
  • Pokemon Master
Re: YouTube goes free
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2010, 09:20:24 AM »
As a computer scientist, I can personally say almost all the jobs I do are selling software of some type or another.  You would put me in the poor house.  Furthermore, most the jobs I see out there right now are for selling software, even if it is for internal use by whatever company I'm selling it to.

There's nothing wrong with selling free software; for instance, selling it to businesses under terms that give them full rights to the source code. It's selling the right to use proprietary software that I object to.

Honestly, does anybody give two shits about this besides you and your free software fuckbuddies?