FOSS Thread (Free Open Source Software)

aero · Postby **aero** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:37 pm

FOSS (sometimes called libre software) is any program that respects the four essential freedoms listed below and typically has the GNU GPL license:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).

This isn't to be confused with freeware, software that is just free in price, and this thread is for general discussion of FOSS. List FOSS you use, ask for FOSS alternatives to non-free programs, discuss development of your own free software, or just discuss the concept of free software itself and general thoughts. Also, for those who are interested in becoming involved with the development of FOSS as a hobbyist programmer or generally studying code, the final spoiler has some resources you may find useful to learn and understand programming concepts.

Here's some links for further reading/viewing for those interested:

Spoiler: show

hacheipe399 · Postby **hacheipe399** » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:26 pm

I think that there should be a balance between propietary software and free software. Stallman has his points, but his mind lies in an utopic world. Just imagine Microsoft turning Windows into free software, or imagine AutoCAD with a GNU GPL v3 License. That's never gonna happen. Developers and companies have all the rights to choose how to contribute to the software market. If you believe in the free software, just make free software; but if you need to live purely from your programming skills/knowledge, don't open the sources until you find another way. Not everyone has the posibilities to make free software and live from it (like SUSE or RedHat). Without propietary software, market might not be like it is today; and without free software, there wouldn't be freedom in technology. Am I clear?

aero · Postby **aero** » Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:15 pm

He's idealistic, not utopian I'd say. I could imagine Microsoft making Windows free software, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it and it would be an improvement compared to its spyware like state currently. It's not likely but it's not illogical or utopian. The market wouldn't look like it does today, and I would say that would be an improvement as well. You would still be able to sell software, documentation, support and other things and the market would be more effective, reliable, and safe. All software can be made into FOSS, and vice versa so I don't see anything that would get in the way of the development of software that isn't malicious or can be used maliciously. I use proprietary software, I don't believe in not using software based on its license nor holding back development of software, and I don't think that would work either. It's a matter of changing direction by encouraging the embracing of FOSS hence why I didn't explicitly mention proprietary software in the OP and focused on FOSS. Direction needs a change, not a full stop and then turning around backwards.

hacheipe399 · Postby **hacheipe399** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:29 pm

When I talk about the market, I'm talking about things that are like the Coca-Cola recipe. Nobody knows it, and there are many competitors that try to make products like the Coke, but they aren't the same. Software companies and hardware manufacturers have their way to do things and make technology which will never reveal to public, unless it become obsolete or deprecated. Yeah, it sounds a little bit like conspiracy but it's a truth. In other words, I'll talk about AutoCAD again, for example. Look at AutoCAD then at its libre -free- clones (I think the word "libre" should be added to the english dictionary). Nowadays no free alternative to AutoCAD can really be a good competitor because of the lack of features and the few resources of their developers. If AutoCAD is free and everybody can look at the source code, then there will be better alternatives to Autodesk's software which can make them put more effort into competitive matters. While AutoCAD is still propietary, it is the monopoly, it has no competition. I'll always support FOSS, but I understand that a world with only FOSS is really far from us, and it's because of the dominion of the market and not for other thing. I'm doing this example because I'm an automotive technician and I worked with CAD software, so I know why the free alternatives aren't going to triumph, yet. I hope they can.

The0x539 · Postby **The0x539** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:14 pm

hacheipe399 wrote:If AutoCAD is free and everybody can look at the source code, then there will be better alternatives to Autodesk's software which can make them put more effort into competitive matters.

And that's a bad thing? Oh no, more effort is going into a product I am paying for!

hacheipe399 · Postby **hacheipe399** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:47 pm

The0x539 wrote:
hacheipe399 wrote:If AutoCAD is free and everybody can look at the source code, then there will be better alternatives to Autodesk's software which can make them put more effort into competitive matters.
And that's a bad thing? Oh no, more effort is going into a product I am paying for!

I didn't say it's bad. Obviously competition makes more products with better quality. Read the things I wrote below. They want to be the monopoly to dominate the market and every competitor. Just tell me a company which is actually using a free CAD software. No, there isn't, so they reached their goal.

aero · Postby **aero** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:30 pm

hacheipe399 wrote:When I talk about the market, I'm talking about things that are like the Coca-Cola recipe. Nobody knows it, and there are many competitors that try to make products like the Coke, but they aren't the same. Software companies and hardware manufacturers have their way to do things and make technology which will never reveal to public, unless it become obsolete or deprecated. Yeah, it sounds a little bit like conspiracy but it's a truth. In other words, I'll talk about AutoCAD again, for example. Look at AutoCAD then at its libre -free- clones (I think the word "libre" should be added to the english dictionary). Nowadays no free alternative to AutoCAD can really be a good competitor because of the lack of features and the few resources of their developers. If AutoCAD is free and everybody can look at the source code, then there will be better alternatives to Autodesk's software which can make them put more effort into competitive matters. While AutoCAD is still propietary, it is the monopoly, it has no competition. I'll always support FOSS, but I understand that a world with only FOSS is really far from us, and it's because of the dominion of the market and not for other thing. I'm doing this example because I'm an automotive technician and I worked with CAD software, so I know why the free alternatives aren't going to triumph, yet. I hope they can.

FOSS isn't compatible with some business models, but it's not FOSS that's going to be held back by this. IoT devices are probably the most relevant example of how old models aren't compatible with current demand while FOSS is compatible. DRM and closed proprietary software as it exists now can't be sustained in newer markets because if a business isn't able to survive for the duration of its products' life time it causes a bunch of problems for consumers that FOSS wouldn't. If you had a smart fridge for example you would need to update the software regularly to patch exploits, and protect the software. If there's a bunch of DRM and code maintained only by the manufacturer your device would be vulnerable if that manufacturer went out of business and/or stopped pushing updates. With a fridge in this example you should expect 20 years of use, so a company would have to survive at least that long in a rapidly changing industry just to keep the device working and secure. If you take into account the dangerous potential of IoT devices to be infected and become part of botnets that can be used to perform all kinds of malicious acts then it just makes FOSS an imperative to prevent this. FOSS is necessary in order to maintain a secure device with more people looking after the software and without the risks of business longevity. This isn't even getting into the DDOS potential and cryptojacking which are other major issues related to this and are serious problems for currently central points of failure in software development. I believe FOSS will take the lead, and seeing how Linux's market share doubled among desktops alone in 2017 shows that the trend is toward free/open source software.

hacheipe399 · Postby **hacheipe399** » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:26 pm

GhostHawk wrote:FOSS isn't compatible with some business models, but it's not FOSS that's going to be held back by this. IoT devices are probably the most relevant example of how old models aren't compatible with current demand while FOSS is compatible. DRM and closed proprietary software as it exists now can't be sustained in newer markets because if a business isn't able to survive for the duration of its products' life time it causes a bunch of problems for consumers that FOSS wouldn't. If you had a smart fridge for example you would need to update the software regularly to patch exploits, and protect the software. If there's a bunch of DRM and code maintained only by the manufacturer your device would be vulnerable if that manufacturer went out of business and/or stopped pushing updates. With a fridge in this example you should expect 20 years of use, so a company would have to survive at least that long in a rapidly changing industry just to keep the device working and secure. If you take into account the dangerous potential of IoT devices to be infected and become part of botnets that can be used to perform all kinds of malicious acts then it just makes FOSS an imperative to prevent this. FOSS is necessary in order to maintain a secure device with more people looking after the software and without the risks of business longevity. This isn't even getting into the DDOS potential and cryptojacking which are other major issues related to this and are serious problems for currently central points of failure in software development.

This affects the self-driving cars aswell, which is double of dangerous. The idea of free software in IoT is amazing, but still far. Because companies prefer sacrifice flexibility and security in order to keep the monopoly. As you said at the start, FOSS isn't compatible with some business models, but the entrepreneurs don't seem to find new ways of business. At least not now.
There is no reason to make closed software for the IoT, but the companies still do it. Maybe it is an habit? If this doesn't change, I'm not going to buy any smart fridge or car.