[Kde-pim] Are we a free software project, or not? I'm getting desperate... [was: Thread termination]

[Christian Weilbach]

*THEREFOR THIS DISCUSSION IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS MAILINGLIST, TOO!
I would like to know what others here say to that discussion, or is the GPL 
some random license for you?

Personal german foreword to Rudolf:

Lieber Rudolf,

es ist wirklich schade zu sehen, wie Sie eine einfache Wahlfreiheit und 
Konsumfreiheit mit dem Freiheitsbegriff verwechseln. Freiheit ist immer ein 
Prinzip mit einem ganzheitlichen Ansatz, sonst wird sie absurd. Freiheit is 
Freiheit von etwas, von einem Mangel. Gerade als Deutscher, wovon ich bei 
Ihnen ausgehe, sollten wir den Wert aus unserer langen philosophischen und 
gesellschaftlichen Tradition schöpfen und seit den Nationalsozialisten auch 
wissen, warum wir das tun. 
Es ist bitter zu sehen, dass Sie in derselben Gemeinschaft in der ich lebe, 
eine derartig indifferente Meinung vertreten.
Ich hoffe in unser beider Interesse, dass Sie einen Zugang zu meiner 
Argumentation finden und sich die Zeit nehmen mit ihr auseinanderzusetzen. 
Ich habe mir auch meinen Samstagabend genommen um Ihnen sinnvoll zu 
antworten. 
Ich weiß aus eigener Erfahrung, ich habe meine ersten beiden Semester regulär 
und erfolgreich Mathematik und Informatik studiert, dass man 
als "Naturwissenschaftler", was immer "Natur" denn jetzt auch heißen mag, 
gerne einen Argwohn und gewisse in der Schule anerzogene Eitelkeiten gegen 
das Geschwätz von Geisteswissenschaft und hier im besonderen der Philosophie 
und Soziologie hegt. 
Sicher gibt es viele Schwätzer, aber wenn man sich auf die tatsächliche 
Argumentation einlässt, spürt man, dass jemand seine Lebenszeit über diese 
Probleme nachgedacht hat und versucht hat menschliche Probleme zu lösen oder 
zumindest zu bessern. Für ein technikkritisches Verständnis, denn Technik 
dient immer einem Zweck außerhalb der Technik, kann ich das IT-Urgestein 
Weizenbaum empfehlen. Ansonsten ist man als Techniker immer der Sklave dieses 
Zwecks, den man selbst gar nicht kennt.
Ich würde mich freuen Sie als freiheitlichen Denker und überzeugten freie 
Software Anhänger im KDE Projekt wiederzusehen, sodass auch ich wieder gerne 
and KDE mitentwickle.

Christian Weilbach

> Christian Weilbach wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 24 Juni 2007 schrieb Daniel Molkentin:
> > > Am Sonntag 24 Juni 2007 schrieb Rudolf Germer:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > Coders get the money for _their_ code. They don't get it for GNU code
> > > > because the GNU one is free anyway. So why should they _have to_ give
> > > > back code? They do it anyway - if they want! That's what I call
> > > > freedom. Millions of users and companies won't give back a single
> > > > line of code.
> >
> > And that's why I don't care about Windows users. I don't think that
> > competing with the Windows Desktop will help us a lot.
>
> That's another story. There also are millions of Linux and KDE users
> who won't help you. They just use *your* code and won't give back
> anything. Millions! I already wrote that, see above.

Yes and that does not make it better, but even worse. And no this is not a 
different story, because this discussion is about the general attitude 
towards KDE software. Windows users definetly have no idea about free (GPL) 
software and rising the user base in a hype 10 times larger won't improve 
things. The interests towards open source dramatically change by the majority 
of commercial focussed users, who don't care about any freedom ideas. Their 
interest can even change laws or introduce patent rules, see the Novell case.

>
> > > > Why should programmers be forced to do that?
> >
> > Because it is my code that I contribute and I want it to be used freely.
>
> Then why do you want to tie strong GPL conditions to your code? That's
> not "free" in my opinion. Maybe Richard Stallman will call it "free".
> If he does, he may also call murder "reduction of our population".

Mmmh, it's amazing to see how nowadays Germans still have a that bad idea 
about freedom and use this bad comparison. Over 200 years after Kant and 
enlightenment and roughly 140 years after Marx, after the Nazis and the 
critical theory of Adorno and Marcuse, you still don't even read and try to 
understand in what kind of society you live and why they want you to live?
Freedom is not given from above. It is a highly critical and personal issue 
for everybody, everyday, every decision.*

Most likely you don't even care and know how other's interests use you, but 
that is your problem in the end and your personal fault. You still have not 
stated your definition of freedom here and I'm really keen to read what it 
is. At least to make clear that we talk about a completely 
different "freedom" here and this discussion is senseless.
Otherwise polemic statements like above happen and we all want to discuss 
seriously, don't we?

>
> > I want my time to be useful to people who also share their time with
> > the community and don't get their money from my time.
>
> Why would you want that? Is it evil to make money? Is it evil to write
> software? GPL folks always tell that users can make money with *support*
> for GPL software. That would be fine. So it's o.k. for companies to
> use your code (and giving anything back) and to make paid support
> for your software but it's *evil* to make money when a programmer
> just uses your code to make a cool application? Most of the people
> who are reading this are programmers. Using the GPL just makes
> programmers potentially hurt programmers. The ones who are potentially
> able to help developing free/open source software.

Free software is against making money and yes it is evil for free software. 
This is the whole idea about free software. Please read at least the 
GNU-homepage before mixing up the freedom definition. (free-beer vs. 
freedom?)
You are argumenting capitalistic and that is exactly what in my opinion is the 
great threat to open source software. Free software is a categorial 
different "world" than what the commercial software world is. And the GPL is 
the document, which states that. The target of the GPL is the growth of GPL 
software because it is about giving all people free access to modern 
communication devices. Therefore it may not respect the commercial use of its 
software.

>
> Besides that: Nobody will make money with your software, Christian.
> There's a difference between *your* GPL'ed software and a *different*
> application who just *uses* your GPL library. Your library will still
> be "free". If someone writes an application using your software, he
> just holds a copyright for *his* part.

Of course he does. He uses my software stack. He wants something from me. I 
don't care about his software, but he wants to safe time and uses my 
software. And at least freedom means deciding over your time. He decides over 
my time and not the other way around.

>
> > GPL is about copyleft not copyright.
>
> Copyleft is just like "Make GNU software. Make more GNU software".

Yes exactly.

>
> > Without that you wouldn't even have ten percent the free software we
> > have today.
>
> That has nothing to do with GPL but with open source in general. Before
> the GPL arised, public domain was very popular. Today other licenses
> (BSD, MIT) and many applications using other licenses (X11, Ruby ...)
> are also very popular. The GPL license is not a precondition for
> voluntary work.
>

You don't argue that companies will give something back, if they can get money 
out of it, do you? The GPL definetly assures the consistence and the growth 
of the free software stack. I just want to mention wine here, who has been 
made to cash by cedega without giving back and caring about wine today. 
That's why they have changed their license from X11 to GPL.

> [...]
>
> > P.S.: You know that Richard Stallman and the FSF made free software
> > possible since more than 30 years, Rudolf? I don't think you will develop
> > for free software in more than 30 years, if this is your opinion.
>
> You know that there was free/open source software *before* Richard
> Stallman invented the GPL, Christian? And there still is and will be
> unless we all think that GPL is a good idea. In my opinion Richard
> Stallman's fantasies are dangerous for programmers.

This is your personal opinion and if you take it serious than don't contribute 
to a GPL project like KDE is. If you want to be part of KDE you have to at 
least accept the license.
By the way, are we talking about Richard Stallman or free software here?

>
> RG
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 3 Monate
> kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220
>
> _______________________________________________
> kde-pim mailing list
> kde-pim at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
> kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/


_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/