Opera to support theora by default

[Wally Balljacker]

I wasn't referring to religion in a traditional sense.

Well then please explain it to me, because I don't understand what you mean by "religious" in this case. I'm very good at English, but obviously not perfect.

If you stay true to your cause, and reject proprietary software, in their minds, you are somehow more ethical than everyone else. FSF and GNU people claim that using Windows is an immoral, and unethical act. How does that methodology differ from any other cult or religion?

[Tsuroerusu]

I wasn't referring to religion in a traditional sense.

Well then please explain it to me, because I don't understand what you mean by "religious" in this case. I'm very good at English, but obviously not perfect.

If you stay true to your cause, and reject proprietary software, in their minds, you are somehow more ethical than everyone else. FSF and GNU people claim that using Windows is an immoral, and unethical act. How does that methodology differ from any other cult or religion?

OK, I looked up the word "religious" on Wikitionary (Wikimedia's free dictionary), and it says this:

Adjective
religious (comparative more religious, superlative most religious)

Concerning religion.
It is the job of this court to rule on legal matters. We do not consider religious issues.

Committed to the practice of religion.
I was much more religious as a teenager than I am now.

Highly dedicated, as one would be to a religion.
I'm a religious fan of college basketball.

So I assume that by "religious" you just mean "highly dedicated", which I would consider myself to be of both free software and free speech.

Free software is a philosophy, it is not a religion, nor a cult in my opinion. If you want to label it as an extremist fringe group, or whatever, go ahead, but I personally don't agree.
Richard Stallman didn't found a religion, LOL he's not the Mohammed of free software, he just started a movement that agreed with a certain philosophy.

By the way, almost any opinion you may have can be a philosophy. Like your views of proprietary software being 100% fine. That is no less philosophical or political than the views of Richard Stallman or myself, it's just the other direction.
That's different from a religion in my opinion as it's not something you believe in, like you may believe in god, Allah, Shiva etc. etc.).

[CptnObvious999]

I think what Wally is trying to say is that saying any and all programs that are not open source are evil is rather extremist and one sided. Most people that are open minded do not lean directly on one side or the other and see the need for exceptions (such as Opera in this case). When you look at everything in black and white and refuse to accept that there are exceptions it becomes similar to a cult.

[Tsuroerusu]

I think what Wally is trying to say is that saying any and all programs that are not open source are evil is rather extremist and one sided. Most people that are open minded do not lean directly on one side or the other and see the need for exceptions (such as Opera in this case). When you look at everything in black and white and refuse to accept that there are exceptions it becomes similar to a cult.

Well, it really depends on one's personal definition of "evil", Richard Stallman has his, as we all know.
I personally think the word "evil" is a little inappropriate, unless a proprietary program actually does something that I would consider evil.
For example, if a proprietary program spied on a Chinese citizen, and sent information to the police that got that citizen sent to prison for 10 years (Or how ever long a sentence human rights advocacy might be in China). That I consider evil, very much so in fact. So in this case I think it's absolutely evil. Now, I consider it unethical when a user of a program is not given these four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).

I've already written a "novel" (To Mr. Warren: I'm flattered by that categorization) on how I view computing. Having those views, I feel that it's unethical to not give computer users that freedom.

If you see me as being narrow minded (Or whatever you're referring to when you talk about being open minded), because I use only free software, allow me to present it from a little bit of a different angle.
When we buy something (Not just software), we buy it because we want, or need, something (Gee that sure sounded dirty, didn't it?). Like I buy warm clothes during winter, because I want warmth so that I don't freeze when I'm outside. A lot of girls buy new clothes every week because they have a need to waste their money. Those are both needs we have, and we present requirements from the products we buy.
Now, when it comes to computing, my requirements are that I have absolutely control over the stuff I use. If I want to use a cool KDE application, that I have discovered on GNU/Linux, on OpenBSD, I want to be able to do that. If I want to audit the source code of the web browsers I use, I want to be able to do that (Now I am not a programmer, but I could have a friend audit it for me, the guy freaking wrote a very basic OS in a Assembly!!).
These are not just something I would like to have, these are requirements. If Microsoft would sell me a copy of Microsoft Office and give me the four freedoms, I wouldn't have a problem accepting that offer. Now I might pick OpenOffice.org because it's cheaper, but that's not the point.

Some people only buy certain products, because they feel that only those products satisfy their consumer requirements. Only free software provides me with what I want. Some people use the programs they see as powerful or reliable, I use the ones that give me the four freedoms, because I find them extremely valuable, both for technical reasons, but very very much because of ethical reasons.

If you really want to speak the open source language, I could say "Why should I use a program that provides less value than others?", and to me, that value would be the four freedoms.

Two times now, I have paid for OpenBSD (I have the 3.9 and 4.0 CD-sets), because this system not only gives me the four freedoms (Which is the most important thing), but the way it does things (With the exception of the MBR partitioner maybe), really really works well for me.


Also, another thing I've been meaning to say. Wally Balljacker has mentioned doesn't like the political campaign of the free software movement ,and prefers the open source approach instead. See, this is where I get extremely (No pun intended) confused (No joke intended). I don't see how your views are less political than mine, or Richard Stallman's for that matter, it's just another political view. Like two sides on a coin, they're different sides, but it's still a coin.

[CptnObvious999]

Well, it really depends on one's personal definition of "evil", Richard Stallman has his, as we all know.
I personally think the word "evil" is a little inappropriate, unless a proprietary program actually does something that I would consider evil.
For example, if a proprietary program spied on a Chinese citizen, and sent information to the police that got that citizen sent to prison for 10 years (Or how ever long a sentence human rights advocacy might be in China). That I consider evil, very much so in fact. So in this case I think it's absolutely evil. Now, I consider it unethical when a user of a program is not given these four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).

You still see these "laws" as black and white, there are no exceptions in your mind. Ethics IMHO should never be so one-sided. Ethics is about what you feel is right and wrong and if something is wrong just because it doesn't follow the rules of those 3 sentances then I think your ethics are flawed.

Also, another thing I've been meaning to say. Wally Balljacker has mentioned doesn't like the political campaign of the free software movement ,and prefers the open source approach instead. See, this is where I get extremely (No pun intended) confused (No joke intended). I don't see how your views are less political than mine, or Richard Stallman's for that matter, it's just another political view. Like two sides on a coin, they're different sides, but it's still a coin.

A political campaign is vastly different then a political view. A political campaign is about changing your view, a political view is about expressing it.

[Wally Balljacker]

This thread has gotten WAY off track, but what the hell.

@ Troels

The reason why Open Source isn't political is because Open Source is simply a method of developing software in an open fashion. The Free Software movement is a war against proprietary software. There is no higher agenda with Open Source, and there are no campaigns against people and organizations that don't share their views.

[Tsuroerusu]

The reason why Open Source isn't political is because Open Source is simply a method of developing software in an open fashion. The Free Software movement is a war against proprietary software. There is no higher agenda with Open Source, and there are no campaigns against people and organizations that don't share their views.

Hmmm, OK.

[allix]

Two times now, I have paid for OpenBSD (I have the 3.9 and 4.0 CD-sets), because this system not only gives me the four freedoms (Which is the most important thing), but the way it does things (With the exception of the MBR partitioner maybe), really really works well for me.

You are not paying for the four freedoms, the software is available of http/s , ftps, rsync, torrent and so on without you having to pay a penny. The fact that you bought it was because you like the artwork, supporting them and the "geekness" of having openbsd cds

On the other hand there are commercial linux and free software distributors that offer the source code with purchasing the product not a free download which although does meet the four freedoms is kinda odd. If you gave Microsoft £1000,0000,0000,00,99 , you would also get the four freedoms , so i believe any gpl source code must be available for free with no catch at all.

[Tsuroerusu]

Two times now, I have paid for OpenBSD (I have the 3.9 and 4.0 CD-sets), because this system not only gives me the four freedoms (Which is the most important thing), but the way it does things (With the exeception of the MBR partitioner maybe), really really works well for me.

You are not paying for the four freedoms, the software is available of http/s , ftps, rsync, torrent and so on without you having to pay a penny.

Allix, you are focusing waaay too much on the fact that I can get OpenBSD free of charge. Because that, to me, really is very irrelevant. The reason I buy OpenBSD as opposed to Mac OS X, is first of all because it gives me the four freedoms, and in addition to that, I really like the system in general. As I say, with the exception of OpenBSD's MBR partitioner, this system really fits me exceptionally well. Extremely secure out of the box, very minimal system with nearly no services running, really good, and up to date, KDE packages etc. etc.

The fact that you bought it was because you like the artwork, supporting them and the "geekness" of having openbsd cds

Well, it's some of that that (Supporting them, that is), but mostly because I really like the system and I don't have a problem paying the people who write the software that I benefit from, as long as that software is free software of course.

Also since OpenBSD does a lot of crypto stuff (Both development, like OpenSSH, and just integration of crypto). I hope that I, to some degree, help people in China avoiding 10 years in prison, by aiding in having free software crypto software (Which means guarantee of no government backdoors) freely available.

On the other hand there are commercial linux and free software distributors that offer the source code with purchasing the product not a free download which although does meet the four freedoms is kinda odd.

Why is that odd? Free software is all about respecting the user's freedom, and since they do that, what's the problem?

If you gave Microsoft £1000,0000,0000,00,99 , you would also get the four freedoms , so i believe any gpl source code must be available for free with no catch at all.

Well, as long as the users' get the four freedoms both theoretically AND practically (Shame on you TiVo), I have no problem with only giving the sources to the people you distribute the software to.

[allix]

Allix, you are focusing waaay too much on the fact that I can get OpenBSD free of charge. Because that, to me, really is very irrelevant. The reason I buy OpenBSD as opposed to Mac OS X, is first of all because it gives me the four freedoms, and in addition to that, I really like the system in general. As I say, with the exception of OpenBSD's MBR partitioner, this system really fits me exceptionally well. Extremely secure out of the box, very minimal system with nearly no services running, really good, and up to date, KDE packages etc. etc.

If you gave Apple a cheque for 1 billion dollars you would get the four freedoms from mac osx

Well, it's some of that that (Supporting them, that is), but mostly because I really like the system and I don't have a problem paying the people who write the software that I benefit from, as long as that software is free software of course.

Also since OpenBSD does a lot of crypto stuff (Both development, like OpenSSH, and just integration of crypto). I hope that I, to some degree, help people in China avoiding 10 years in prison, by aiding in having free software crypto software (Which means guarantee of no government backdoors) freely available.

Why don't you just give them donations then if its to support them, why hide your geekyness?

Why is that odd? Free software is all about respecting the user's freedom, and since they do that, what's the problem?

Well if you give a company money sure there going to give you freedom, i don't see why it should be paid for.....
If you look at Red Hat enterprise, even though its not free as in money its free to download the sources , while some companies do not do that.
To me its like your free to walk the streets until you give me £666 a week, which to anyone sounds ludicrous.

Well, as long as the users' get the four freedoms both theoretically AND practically (Shame on you TiVo), I have no problem with only giving the sources to the people you distribute the software to.

Folks you have witnessed it on this forum that Troels considers buying out microsft and then releasing the code as gpl a good thing I on the other hand think that's rubbish.
Free software means free as in beer and not just free as in freedom. The two must go together.

[Tsuroerusu]

Well, it's some of that that (Supporting them, that is), but mostly because I really like the system and I don't have a problem paying the people who write the software that I benefit from, as long as that software is free software of course.

Also since OpenBSD does a lot of crypto stuff (Both development, like OpenSSH, and just integration of crypto). I hope that I, to some degree, help people in China avoiding 10 years in prison, by aiding in having free software crypto software (Which means guarantee of no government backdoors) freely available.

Why don't you just give them donations then if its to support them, why hide your geekyness?

Why don't you start reading what I am writing?
I said that supporting them was PART of the reason I buy OpenBSD, NOT the only one.

Why is that odd? Free software is all about respecting the user's freedom, and since they do that, what's the problem?

Well if you give a company money sure there going to give you freedom, i don't see why it should be paid for.....
If you look at Red Hat enterprise, even though its not free as in money its free to download the sources , while some companies do not do that.
To me its like your free to walk the streets until you give me £666 a week, which to anyone sounds ludicrous.

You ought to read this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
To make a quick quote: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."

If you don't already have a binary program X, I am not obligated to give you either binaries or sources of program X. It may not be nice of me, but that's all there is to it.

So if I say "Give me 5 dollars and I'll send you a copy of program X", I'm not really denying you anything, I'm simply asking you to do something for me before I do something for you. If you weren't getting paid for doing whatever job you may do, would you do it? Of course not!

Also, in case you havn't read the GPL, know that it prevents a distributor of binaries to charge a zillion dollars for the sources. This is done for the same reason GPLv3 will prevent the stuff TiVo do with the Linux kernel, to ensure that the users' have freedom both in theory, and in practice!

Well, as long as the users' get the four freedoms both theoretically AND practically (Shame on you TiVo), I have no problem with only giving the sources to the people you distribute the software to.

Folks you have witnessed it on this forum that Troels considers buying out microsft and then releasing the code as gpl a good thing I on the other hand think that's rubbish.

If Microsoft releases Windows under the GPL, I will say great, and welcome them to our community.

Free software means free as in beer and not just free as in freedom. The two must go together.

That would be your implementation of it.
I personally stick to the FSF's definition.