Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source http://mschnlnine.vo.llnwd.net/d1/Dev/App_Themes/C9/images/feedimage.png Channel 9 Forums - Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums Channel 9 keeps you up to date with the latest news and behind the scenes info from Microsoft that developers love to keep up with. From LINQ to SilverLight – Watch videos and hear about all the cool technologies coming and the people behind them. http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:26:31 GMT Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:26:31 GMT Rev9 47 -47 -1 Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source Oh dear; gnu is at it again.

This is the perfect example of how not to do it; promoting a free audio format by suggesting to users that they .... download an entirely new media player.

iTunes users won't give up iTunes just for a codec. WMP users won't give up WMP just for a codec. And in fact there are ways to get Ogg into those players; but what do GNU do? Push their agenda further, instead of helping users do what they would want.

(of course I blogged this)

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/254862#254862 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:25:53 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/254862#254862 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source Maybe it's just me, but I can't hit your web server

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/779c87540c8948ce85069dec007ce8eb#779c87540c8948ce85069dec007ce8eb Mon, 21 May 2007 19:35:54 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/779c87540c8948ce85069dec007ce8eb#779c87540c8948ce85069dec007ce8eb ixdatul 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/ixdatul/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
ixdatul wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I can't hit your web server


Hmm weird; I can obviously see it.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/7dd9db59ea5a4ecd9fba9dec007ce915#7dd9db59ea5a4ecd9fba9dec007ce915 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:36:52 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/7dd9db59ea5a4ecd9fba9dec007ce915#7dd9db59ea5a4ecd9fba9dec007ce915 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source Ah, belay that last one, works on my phone, must be the firewall here at work.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/3185a99d4c4440d398ae9dec007ce93d#3185a99d4c4440d398ae9dec007ce93d Mon, 21 May 2007 19:38:59 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/3185a99d4c4440d398ae9dec007ce93d#3185a99d4c4440d398ae9dec007ce93d ixdatul 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/ixdatul/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source I can see it, but it takes a while.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/65dacc106e904124ab0e9dec007ce966#65dacc106e904124ab0e9dec007ce966 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:40:03 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/65dacc106e904124ab0e9dec007ce966#65dacc106e904124ab0e9dec007ce966 Tommy Carlier 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/TommyCarlier/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
ixdatul wrote:
Ah, belay that last one, works on my phone, must be the firewall here at work.


Hah, that's amusing.

I plugged it into the w3c validator to check.

And discovered Windows Live Writer just doesn't obey the rules. At all. Made up image attributes, and invalid id attributes on divs. Well done Live Writer team Perplexed

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9cfa3c01f4c54f06b30d9dec007ce990#9cfa3c01f4c54f06b30d9dec007ce990 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:44:45 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9cfa3c01f4c54f06b30d9dec007ce990#9cfa3c01f4c54f06b30d9dec007ce990 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source The first no-no that strikes me is the fact that the text on that page is far too wide. It only fits three quarters of the text on my 1280x800 screen. Horizontal scrolling per sentence ftl.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/b857ae8f18ec49459b529dec007ce9ba#b857ae8f18ec49459b529dec007ce9ba Mon, 21 May 2007 19:44:48 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/b857ae8f18ec49459b529dec007ce9ba#b857ae8f18ec49459b529dec007ce9ba Bas 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bas/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:


Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

Who would have known?

I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.

"Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects—such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them."

And people should be free to use software they choose. It looks like gnu isn't about choice at all right now.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9c1bfe5335c14afc82669dec007ce9e6#9c1bfe5335c14afc82669dec007ce9e6 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:53:53 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9c1bfe5335c14afc82669dec007ce9e6#9c1bfe5335c14afc82669dec007ce9e6 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:


Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

Who would have known?

I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.



What point are you trying to make? Nobody ever said that they're secretive about their agenda.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/551e1e8bc7324aee9b8d9dec007cea10#551e1e8bc7324aee9b8d9dec007cea10 Mon, 21 May 2007 19:57:16 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/551e1e8bc7324aee9b8d9dec007cea10#551e1e8bc7324aee9b8d9dec007cea10 Bas 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Bas/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source wowo, who designed such a crapy website that requires infinite right scroll. And why do they care about windows xp when it is supposed to be an inferior operation system. Instead of VLC they should better give a link to ubuntu and ask everyone to install it.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/0fb8f4c5073f4248a62f9dec007cea39#0fb8f4c5073f4248a62f9dec007cea39 Mon, 21 May 2007 20:04:21 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/0fb8f4c5073f4248a62f9dec007cea39#0fb8f4c5073f4248a62f9dec007cea39 anand.t 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/anand.t/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:


Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

Who would have known?

I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.

"Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects—such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them."



I'm just going to go out on a limb here...

I'm a VB.NET developer, if I, infact, believed in free software and went in that direction, I would be unemployed, because who wants to pay a guy to write software that won't turn a buck? Well, I guess then I would lose my house, my car, and probably my wife, since she knows me, and realizes, for me to do something that astronomicaly stupid, I would have to be on crack, or in a cult....So then I would become a religous zealot for open source (THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST), because hell, I dedicated my life to it now, I once again live with my parents, and shake my fist at the capitolist pigs that put me here, because if everyone thought like I did, we would all live in a very magical place, where software evolution is driven by desire to improve rather that the almighty dollar.


Oh wait....wouldn't that make me a communist? I want to live in a Utopia that can never exist. I have such high idealism I'm actually blinded to the downsides of what I'm fighting for. And I think that corporations are, in fact, evil. The worst kind of evil...

The reason that you fight a losing battle, is simply this....there is always someone out there like me, who wants to be better than you, have more than you, and continue to improve MY quality of life. I don't donate to the Salvation Army, Red Cross, or the Make Sally Struthers Fatter in the Name of Starving Children Fund. I donate money to the Banco del Me. And ya know what, my family loves me for it, because the harder I work, and play ball with a society I can't, and don't want to change, the better their lives are because of it.

The best part, it's not even a sacrifice, I love what I do, and I love working for a heartless corporation. Why? Because they don't let ridiculous idealism get in the way of progress, progress which gets me a raise, my wife the medical care she needs, and my twelve year old daughter the braces she needs so she won't be chastised later in life for a physical flaw, which is the way it is, period.

So yes, you are absolutely right, there are heartless, greedy, zealot-loathing people out there, and I am proud to be one of them.

</rant>

Regards,
Ix

Side Note: I deeply appologize for jacking you're thread momentarily Blowdart, I mean no disrespect to you in any way.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/f6ea4e3b01434afabe6e9dec007cea6c#f6ea4e3b01434afabe6e9dec007cea6c Mon, 21 May 2007 20:24:44 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/f6ea4e3b01434afabe6e9dec007cea6c#f6ea4e3b01434afabe6e9dec007cea6c ixdatul 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/ixdatul/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source Not to play devils advocate here but I don't see anything wrong with GNU giving instructions for a player that in fact does work with Ogg out of the box.  Sure you can get Ogg support into iTunes and WMP through codecs, but (and I might be wrong) those codecs might have no affiliation with the FSF and/or might not even be cross platform enough for GNU to be advertising them on their website.  Not to mention a single set of instructions is less confusing than having the user get different files for different systems.

Now the whole agenda issue might be true, but I feel I don't see anything wrong with providing the user a choice of media player, and on a partly related note: Will iTunes even play files using third party (DShow) codecs? I know WMP will but even then I don't even know how well it does it as I use foobar2000 for all my music playing and Media Player Classic with ffdshow for my video playback.  What I use is definitely a harder configuration option than telling the user to get ffdshow, install it and get more than what they asked for if all they want is an Ogg playback solution, compared to just installing VLC that is.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/e81f1c01c4b248548a899dec007cea99#e81f1c01c4b248548a899dec007cea99 Mon, 21 May 2007 21:33:07 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/e81f1c01c4b248548a899dec007cea99#e81f1c01c4b248548a899dec007cea99 mig 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/mig/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
mig wrote:
Will iTunes even play files using third party (DShow) codecs?


No; xiph provide a QuickTime plugin on their own site for iTunes.

My point is that offering yet another media player as the only option to play vorbis files is disingenuous at best and shows the complete lack of connection with users that a lot of open source is guilty of.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/c76b1f8eb70b4ccfab509dec007ceac4#c76b1f8eb70b4ccfab509dec007ceac4 Mon, 21 May 2007 21:33:09 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/c76b1f8eb70b4ccfab509dec007ceac4#c76b1f8eb70b4ccfab509dec007ceac4 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:

Hah, and yet Red Cross exists, Salvation Army exists, because there is people that aren't like you in the world. And if you cared about yourself, you wouldn't be so contempt living someone elses dream.


because there are people like bill gates donating money Cool

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/891b67bc6b964325aaba9dec007ceaed#891b67bc6b964325aaba9dec007ceaed Mon, 21 May 2007 22:43:42 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/891b67bc6b964325aaba9dec007ceaed#891b67bc6b964325aaba9dec007ceaed anand.t 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/anand.t/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
blowdart wrote:

mig wrote:
Will iTunes even play files using third party (DShow) codecs?


No; xiph provide a QuickTime plugin on their own site for iTunes.

My point is that offering yet another media player as the only option to play vorbis files is disingenuous at best and shows the complete lack of connection with users that a lot of open source is guilty of.


Hmm, OK.  I guess I understimated the standard user, or maybe it was just hard to believe that a user would take the FSF's endorsement (since that is what it seems to me) too literally.  I would hope that anyone that is interested in playing Ogg files would look for a solution that incorporates their existing solution (be it iTunes or WMP).  However I do see your point, but then again it is FSF's choice to endorse whoever they want, be it a single project or more than one.

I will note however that they didn't say anywhere on their site "the only player that will play ogg files is VLC" but rather "there are many players that will play ogg files, the one we like is VLC".

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/8a9ca912829745eeb71a9dec007ceb1b#8a9ca912829745eeb71a9dec007ceb1b Tue, 22 May 2007 04:38:12 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/8a9ca912829745eeb71a9dec007ceb1b#8a9ca912829745eeb71a9dec007ceb1b mig 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/mig/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:
What is exactly so bad about Vlc? I know people who wouldn't touch Linux with a 10 foot poll use Vlc. It's a damn good movie/media player, and it's prob second to Firefox in popularity for an open source product. 


Actually nothing; when I've used it it's been good. But it's unrealistic (and typical of gnu) to expect iTunes users to abandon iTunes just for a codec; and it's agenda pushing to hide the fact that Ogg have iTunes plugins, and someone else has Media Player plugins.

If gnu were truely wanting to push ogg then they'd help people use the format in their existing players; but they'd rather push an agenda than help. And that's pathetic.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/ee96643c4d7d4e0999149dec007ceb46#ee96643c4d7d4e0999149dec007ceb46 Tue, 22 May 2007 04:44:32 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/ee96643c4d7d4e0999149dec007ceb46#ee96643c4d7d4e0999149dec007ceb46 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
mig wrote:

I will note however that they didn't say anywhere on their site "the only player that will play ogg files is VLC" but rather "there are many players that will play ogg files, the one we like is VLC".


Ah no; they say

To access streaming Ogg files you need a media player that understands the Ogg Vorbis format. Many different free software players work with Ogg.

Note the clause "many different free software players". Now consider how gnu redefined "free" to mean what that wanted it to me; gpl code.

Again it's simply unrealistic to push VLC onto iTunes users. If they wanted to truely push Vorbis they'd have offered more instructions for other players, or at least pointed out that it will work in iTunes and WMP and here's the links.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/794b4266dab5456993b99dec007ceb74#794b4266dab5456993b99dec007ceb74 Tue, 22 May 2007 04:49:10 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/794b4266dab5456993b99dec007ceb74#794b4266dab5456993b99dec007ceb74 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:

RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software.


Be honest; you don't see that attitude as a problem?

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/47aa50613c6f4dd5986e9dec007ceb9e#47aa50613c6f4dd5986e9dec007ceb9e Tue, 22 May 2007 04:57:05 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/47aa50613c6f4dd5986e9dec007ceb9e#47aa50613c6f4dd5986e9dec007ceb9e blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
blowdart wrote:

emet wrote:

RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software.


Be honest; you don't see that attitude as a problem?


Yes.  Especially since iTunes and WMP are both free and better.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/56245e6b4bb04bec9f919dec007cebc9#56245e6b4bb04bec9f919dec007cebc9 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:02:35 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/56245e6b4bb04bec9f919dec007cebc9#56245e6b4bb04bec9f919dec007cebc9 William Stacey 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/staceyw/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:
">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid%3D7707585592627775409%26q%3DRevolution%2BOS&usg=AL29H21cGBEalVC6o68zxsDiyu_M7q60WA">

I mostly agree with him. I think that society would be a better place if people shared and communicated ideas instead of hiding.


OK; if you believe that then surely it would be better for that agenda to push Vorbis as Vorbis, not Vorbis and VLC. Start people off gently; enable them to use their existing software, but with the free codec, instead of pushing them to abandon their emotional and monetary investment in iTunes and WMP.

(I also find it somewhat funny that gnu is pushing what is effectively a BSD licensed format)

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/952e6bfcd8864f05b1a89dec007cec21#952e6bfcd8864f05b1a89dec007cec21 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:17:25 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/952e6bfcd8864f05b1a89dec007cec21#952e6bfcd8864f05b1a89dec007cec21 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:

FSF's philosophy is free software is always the better choice. RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software. The FSF's goals is not really to promote use of free software, but to promote the philosophy behind it. So yes, they use free software to push an agenda, not an agenda to push free software. They've always been that way.


The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free. I am sure the philosophy needs to be changed to say "Free Non-MSFT software is always the better choice"

Seriouslyy what has RMS achieved using this agenda. He has created a bunch of die hard fans. While gates has gone and made billions, donated billions towards curing malaria, TB, cancer, aids and dont forget they donated millions worth software and hardware. Donating software was definitely selfish as they wanted everyone to use MSFT products, but who really cares as long as kids get a decent OS and computer. Cool    

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/1f1f1d74e86945ac8fb09dec007cebf5#1f1f1d74e86945ac8fb09dec007cebf5 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:19:32 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/1f1f1d74e86945ac8fb09dec007cebf5#1f1f1d74e86945ac8fb09dec007cebf5 anand.t 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/anand.t/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:


iTunes or WMP is not free software under these rules.



Of course it's easy to exclude when you redefine words.

I think I'll redefine "healthy" to mean "full of sugar".

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/2dbc20a9add040e7ad119dec007cec4b#2dbc20a9add040e7ad119dec007cec4b Tue, 22 May 2007 05:23:12 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/2dbc20a9add040e7ad119dec007cec4b#2dbc20a9add040e7ad119dec007cec4b blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:

You are not getting. The FSF is not trying to push Vorbis. They are using Vorbis to push their philosophy.


Which is rather cheap is it not? Pushing your philosophy with someone else's work.

]]> http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9ba97454a5ea4060af359dec007cec74#9ba97454a5ea4060af359dec007cec74 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:28:43 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9ba97454a5ea4060af359dec007cec74#9ba97454a5ea4060af359dec007cec74 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
emet wrote:

free:
  • grant freedom to; free from confinement

    Free software is defined by the concept of freedom, and the freedom which it provides is enumerated by the FSF.



    • Free from confinement? well that rules up the gpl then; especially gpl v3 which confines software licensed under it to only certain uses.

    [6]

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/7a80019770f14c17ac439dec007cec9f#7a80019770f14c17ac439dec007cec9f Tue, 22 May 2007 05:30:09 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/7a80019770f14c17ac439dec007cec9f#7a80019770f14c17ac439dec007cec9f blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    staceyw wrote:
    Yes.  Especially since iTunes and WMP are both free and better.

    anand.t wrote:
    The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free.


    I downloaded WMP v11 from the Microsoft website and attempted to install to my computer via WINE.  I ran the installation executable twice, noting in the shell error messaging that pointed toward missing libraries that I subsequently downloaded and added to WINE to provide support for WMP:

    pdh.dll
    gdiplus.dll
    odbcbcp.dll

    After adding these to the available libraries in the winecfg GUI, I was able to properly execute the installer, which subsequently failed since it was unable to validate my copy of Windows.

    I don't know about iTunes but WMP requires the purchase of Microsoft Windows and is not free by any definition.  Its cost is simply absorbed in the price of Windows.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/84f6e29fe227448787ef9dec007ceccc#84f6e29fe227448787ef9dec007ceccc Tue, 22 May 2007 05:35:05 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/84f6e29fe227448787ef9dec007ceccc#84f6e29fe227448787ef9dec007ceccc k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    emet wrote:
    

    I can tell you did not read RMS's essays. The FSF does not ever use the word "ownership" to describe the author's relation to a work.


    That's missing the point; and also illustrating it. It's not about what the FSF feels about someone else's work; it's how the work's author feels about it. The "highjacking" of someone else's work to push a personal philosophy is rather cheap.

    gnu and bsd licensed software is still copyrighted and that copyright asigned to a person or entity; for all effects and purposes in the eyes of the law that entity "owns" the software.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/66068e9a614e48389ec69dec007cecf7#66068e9a614e48389ec69dec007cecf7 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:43:54 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/66068e9a614e48389ec69dec007cecf7#66068e9a614e48389ec69dec007cecf7 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    emet wrote:
    

    Copyright does not imply ownership. And that is the exact type of thinking the FSF fights against. You may find it cheap, but I find it quite noble. And I don't think you should be putting words into the Vorbis developer's mouth if you are respectful of "ownership" of software.


    But gnu is putting words in the mouth of the Vorbis developers. That's ok is it because they're gnu?

    (And you must have ownership in order to enforce licenses. Legally gnu owns the licenses for their software; without an owner they could not enforce the gpl on their software in court; why do you think people hand over "ownership" of software to the FSF?)

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/43dacbf771b545d6a4d19dec007ced23#43dacbf771b545d6a4d19dec007ced23 Tue, 22 May 2007 05:51:31 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/43dacbf771b545d6a4d19dec007ced23#43dacbf771b545d6a4d19dec007ced23 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    gnu and bsd licensed software is still copyrighted and that copyright asigned to a person or entity; for all effects and purposes in the eyes of the law that entity "owns" the software.


    emet wrote:
    Copyright does not imply ownership.


    The former is totally wrong.  A copyright is not a legal mechanism for people or entities, and are not assigned to people or entities.  It is a legal mechanism an author assigns to their work to authorize who may legally reproduce that work on their behalf.  The purpose of copyright law was originally created to defend the legal agreement between an author and a printer and prevent another printer from hijacking that author's work for their own advantage.

    The latter is totally correct, since the copyright is determined by the author and unless I am mistaken may be changed by the author at their discretion.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/e4d558314770487690e99dec007ced50#e4d558314770487690e99dec007ced50 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:02:20 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/e4d558314770487690e99dec007ced50#e4d558314770487690e99dec007ced50 k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote:
    gnu and bsd licensed software is still copyrighted and that copyright asigned to a person or entity; for all effects and purposes in the eyes of the law that entity "owns" the software.


    emet wrote:
    Copyright does not imply ownership.


    The former is totally wrong.  A copyright is not a legal mechanism for people or entities, and are not assigned to people or entities it is a legal mechanism an author assigns to their work to authorize who may legally reproduce that work on their behalf.  The purpose of copyright law was originally created to defend the legal agreement between an author and a printer and prevent another printer from hijacking that author's work for their own advantage.


     If you look at open source projects which have multiple contributers you will see that copyright is assigned to the sponsor or project lead (generally), or to the FSF. The linux kernel is the one big exception.

    I don't think I'm arguing that copyright implies ownership; but it indicates ownership of the copyright, and that (for free software) is what enables the enforcement of the license.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/338e54c13aed40b181de9dec007ced7f#338e54c13aed40b181de9dec007ced7f Tue, 22 May 2007 06:10:07 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/338e54c13aed40b181de9dec007ced7f#338e54c13aed40b181de9dec007ced7f blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    A copyright is not a legal mechanism for people or entities, and are not assigned to people or entities.  It is a legal mechanism an author assigns to their work to authorize who may legally reproduce that work on their behalf.


    Oh and to be more specific; not true; as an author can reassign copyright to another entity. Copyright can and is assigned to people or entities. Open source projects can assign the copyright to the FSF, at which point the author is no longer the holder of the copyright. Music recordings tend to have the copyright assigned to the music company that paid for that recording to be made.

    Yes copyright indicates who may copy or reproduce; but in order to assign it it must be assigned to someone/something for that work. However to say it's not a legal mechanism for people or entities is wrong; and you say that in your second sentence; for what is an author if not a person/entity?

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9f436a7e9dcb4acabcd79dec007cedab#9f436a7e9dcb4acabcd79dec007cedab Tue, 22 May 2007 06:14:31 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/9f436a7e9dcb4acabcd79dec007cedab#9f436a7e9dcb4acabcd79dec007cedab blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    If you look at open source projects which have multiple contributers you will see that copyright is assigned to the sponsor or project lead (generally), or to the FSF. The linux kernel is the one big exception.


    The copyright isn't stating that the author owns the work, it is stating the legal mechanism by which the author condones reproduction of the work and that's all.  How you are putting the chicken before the egg isn't making any sense to me.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4bd9f56737ea421dade59dec007cedd6#4bd9f56737ea421dade59dec007cedd6 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:16:54 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4bd9f56737ea421dade59dec007cedd6#4bd9f56737ea421dade59dec007cedd6 k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    Oh and to be more specific; not true; as an author can reassign copyright to another entity. Copyright can and is assigned to people or entities. Open source projects can assign the copyright to the FSF, at which point the author is no longer the holder of the copyright. Music recordings tend to have the copyright assigned to the music company that paid for that recording to be made.


    There is absolutely nothing in a copyright that defines the exchange of ownership.  The fact that the author gives their work to someone else is completely independent of copyright law.  All you are saying is that someone gives their stuff to someone else who then defines the legal mechanism for which their work may be reproduced.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a11bc2e5929c4d0a96b49dec007cee01#a11bc2e5929c4d0a96b49dec007cee01 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:21:18 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a11bc2e5929c4d0a96b49dec007cee01#a11bc2e5929c4d0a96b49dec007cee01 k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    

    The copyright isn't stating that the author owns the work, it is stating the legal mechanism by which the author condones reproduction of the work and that's all.  How you are putting the chicken before the egg isn't making any sense to me.


    Except the creator of a work; the owner gets copyright by default. You cannot intially assign it without having an owner/creator. The owner is the egg here.

    I am NOT saying copyright indicates ownership; although often it does, what I am saying is you cannot have copyright without an original creator/owner.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a718791c6187487abe489dec007cee2c#a718791c6187487abe489dec007cee2c Tue, 22 May 2007 06:21:46 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a718791c6187487abe489dec007cee2c#a718791c6187487abe489dec007cee2c blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    I am NOT saying copyright indicates ownership; although often it does, what I am saying is you cannot have copyright without an original creator/owner.


    Yes and all I am saying is that the flow of logic only goes one way.  The owner defines the copyright, the copyright never ever defines the owner.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/af21e2c8832d46e2bf169dec007cee57#af21e2c8832d46e2bf169dec007cee57 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:24:47 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/af21e2c8832d46e2bf169dec007cee57#af21e2c8832d46e2bf169dec007cee57 k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote:
    Oh and to be more specific; not true; as an author can reassign copyright to another entity. Copyright can and is assigned to people or entities. Open source projects can assign the copyright to the FSF, at which point the author is no longer the holder of the copyright. Music recordings tend to have the copyright assigned to the music company that paid for that recording to be made.


    There is absolutely nothing in a copyright that defines the exchange of ownership.  The fact that the author gives their work to someone else is completely independent of copyright law.  All you are saying is that someone gives their stuff to someone else who then defines the legal mechanism for which their work may be reproduced.


    That's not what I'm saying. Note the word assigned above. And holder. What I am saying is that the original copyright holder; the creator of that work, the owner of the original copyright may assign someone else to be the holder of the copyright. It is NOT a change of ownership of the original work, but it IS a change of ownership of the copyright. You can completely assign copyright to someone else, and that point you no longer "own" the copyright, it is "owned" by someone else. This is a seperate mechanism to licensing copyright to an entity.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/30e70570f666492e9af29dec007cee85#30e70570f666492e9af29dec007cee85 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:25:13 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/30e70570f666492e9af29dec007cee85#30e70570f666492e9af29dec007cee85 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote:
    I am NOT saying copyright indicates ownership; although often it does, what I am saying is you cannot have copyright without an original creator/owner.


    Yes and all I am saying is that the flow of logic only goes one way.  The owner defines the copyright, the copyright never ever defines the owner.


    Except for initially; as you can assign copyright without an owner/creator/author; and at that stage the two are intrinsically linked, not in law, but in circumstance.

    Anyway; time to go to work Smiley

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/28166e4a822d419ca21d9dec007ceeb1#28166e4a822d419ca21d9dec007ceeb1 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:26:28 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/28166e4a822d419ca21d9dec007ceeb1#28166e4a822d419ca21d9dec007ceeb1 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source (Oh and this got way off topic, I still find it amusing that gnu is pushing their philosophy by using a codec where the implementations are BSD licensed *grin*)

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/58aab50a6af04bbeb9429dec007ceedb#58aab50a6af04bbeb9429dec007ceedb Tue, 22 May 2007 06:27:31 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/58aab50a6af04bbeb9429dec007ceedb#58aab50a6af04bbeb9429dec007ceedb blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    That's not what I'm saying. Note the word assigned above. And holder. What I am saying is that the original copyright holder; the creator of that work, the owner of the original copyright may assign someone else to be the holder of the copyright. It is NOT a change of ownership of the original work, but it IS a change of ownership of the copyright. You can completely assign copyright to someone else, and that point you no longer "own" the copyright, it is "owned" by someone else. This is a seperate mechanism to licensing copyright to an entity.


    Yes I do understand what you are saying and I am telling you that it is completely not true.  You absolutely cannot give your copyright to someone else.  You can give them your work, and then they may declare their own copyright on that work.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/185b3cd857964bf4b7399dec007cef06#185b3cd857964bf4b7399dec007cef06 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:29:10 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/185b3cd857964bf4b7399dec007cef06#185b3cd857964bf4b7399dec007cef06 k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    Yes I do understand what you are saying and I am telling you that it is completely not true.  You absolutely cannot give your copyright to someone else.  You can give them your work, and then they may declare their own copyright on that work.


    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.

    And again the music business; when you record a single ownership of that recording and the copyright of that recording belongs to the label who paid for it, not you as the creator. Certainly you'd still own the copyright to the music and lyrics if you created them, but that recording is not yours, it is the labels.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/272f422f403e4fe1acdb9dec007cef32#272f422f403e4fe1acdb9dec007cef32 Tue, 22 May 2007 06:37:24 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/272f422f403e4fe1acdb9dec007cef32#272f422f403e4fe1acdb9dec007cef32 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.


    No you are giving them ownership of the work and they are defining their copyright of the work.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/df5f53b21d924824a3089dec007cef5d#df5f53b21d924824a3089dec007cef5d Tue, 22 May 2007 06:47:18 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/df5f53b21d924824a3089dec007cef5d#df5f53b21d924824a3089dec007cef5d k2t0f12d 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/k2t0f12d/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source I personally dont see any difference between OGG and MP3. On *nix, free legal MP3 codecs already exist. WMA is a different story but even those will be covered when I purchase the Fluendo codecs.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a09509a40de54421ab4b9dec007cf022#a09509a40de54421ab4b9dec007cf022 Tue, 22 May 2007 07:02:07 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/a09509a40de54421ab4b9dec007cf022#a09509a40de54421ab4b9dec007cf022 Xaero_Vincent 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Xaero_Vincent/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source A GPL license arguement is the last thing you expect to see on a Microsoft forum.

    Heh, I'm sure folks!

    Move this conversation to #gnu @ irc.freenode.net.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4f92b37fd4d64d368df59dec007cf050#4f92b37fd4d64d368df59dec007cf050 Tue, 22 May 2007 07:06:42 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4f92b37fd4d64d368df59dec007cf050#4f92b37fd4d64d368df59dec007cf050 Xaero_Vincent 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/Xaero_Vincent/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    ixdatul wrote:
    
    emet wrote:
    

    Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

    Who would have known?

    I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.

    "Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects—such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them."


    I'm just going to go out on a limb here...

    I'm a VB.NET developer, if I, infact, believed in free software and went in that direction, I would be unemployed, because who wants to pay a guy to write software that won't turn a buck? Well, I guess then I would lose my house, my car, and probably my wife, since she knows me, and realizes, for me to do something that astronomicaly stupid, I would have to be on crack, or in a cult....So then I would become a religous zealot for open source (THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST), because hell, I dedicated my life to it now, I once again live with my parents, and shake my fist at the capitolist pigs that put me here, because if everyone thought like I did, we would all live in a very magical place, where software evolution is driven by desire to improve rather that the almighty dollar.


    Oh wait....wouldn't that make me a communist? I want to live in a Utopia that can never exist. I have such high idealism I'm actually blinded to the downsides of what I'm fighting for. And I think that corporations are, in fact, evil. The worst kind of evil...

    The reason that you fight a losing battle, is simply this....there is always someone out there like me, who wants to be better than you, have more than you, and continue to improve MY quality of life. I don't donate to the Salvation Army, Red Cross, or the Make Sally Struthers Fatter in the Name of Starving Children Fund. I donate money to the Banco del Me. And ya know what, my family loves me for it, because the harder I work, and play ball with a society I can't, and don't want to change, the better their lives are because of it.

    The best part, it's not even a sacrifice, I love what I do, and I love working for a heartless corporation. Why? Because they don't let ridiculous idealism get in the way of progress, progress which gets me a raise, my wife the medical care she needs, and my twelve year old daughter the braces she needs so she won't be chastised later in life for a physical flaw, which is the way it is, period.

    So yes, you are absolutely right, there are heartless, greedy, zealot-loathing people out there, and I am proud to be one of them.

    </rant>

    Regards,
    Ix

    Side Note: I deeply appologize for jacking you're thread momentarily Blowdart, I mean no disrespect to you in any way.


    not necessarily, i will give you an example ..lets say i want to be a VB.net developer, i can go to a public librabry, borrow a book and study at home and/or hire someone to tutor me at home(and take some sort of an exam to get certification) ..or i can go to a local community college and pay a bit of money for that education, or i can go to those expensive colleges and study the same material, can professors and teachers lobby for public libraries and books out of classrooms  to be banned becase they will loose their jobs? because people can get educated without going to their classrooms?

    there is altleast more than one person who looses out when changes happen ..if free and open source software becames so popular that it cuts microsoft strength by 50%(unlikely), most people who will loose the most are microsoft employees and those that depend on them exclusively ..but as a developer, i am sure you can get a job someplace else ..you might even be writing vb code on solaris one day and get paid 3x more,  who knows ..

    people are always afraid of change and your concerns are understandable ..free and open source software will not mean the end to paid developers, linux is getting paid, isnt he?

    i believe the two software delevopment model can exist peacefully with one another

    dont think too much about it, dont try to fight it, its comming, get prepared just in case

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/8a32c97c69874c409e879dec007cf0a4#8a32c97c69874c409e879dec007cf0a4 Tue, 22 May 2007 07:27:56 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/8a32c97c69874c409e879dec007cf0a4#8a32c97c69874c409e879dec007cf0a4 mtz 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/mtz/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    anand.t wrote:
    
    emet wrote:
    
    FSF's philosophy is free software is always the better choice. RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software. The FSF's goals is not really to promote use of free software, but to promote the philosophy behind it. So yes, they use free software to push an agenda, not an agenda to push free software. They've always been that way.


    The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free. I am sure the philosophy needs to be changed to say "Free Non-MSFT software is always the better choice"

    Seriouslyy what has RMS achieved using this agenda. He has created a bunch of die hard fans. While gates has gone and made billions, donated billions towards curing malaria, TB, cancer, aids and dont forget they donated millions worth software and hardware. Donating software was definitely selfish as they wanted everyone to use MSFT products, but who really cares as long as kids get a decent OS and computer.     


    i think you dont get the meaning of "free". There is "free" as in "free beer" and "free" as in "freedom of speed"

    "free" as in "free beer" has to do with how much you have to pay(in monetary term) and "free" as in "freedom speed" has to do with what can do you with the code after you get it(it doesnt matter if you paid for it or not)

    WMP and Itunes are "free" as in "free beer" because you dont have to pay to get them but they are not "free as in freedom of speech" because, you cant for example, take WMP, change the code to something you want, publish your modifications for the world to see and apply and redistribute your modified version without asking/begging or paying microsoft to that ability. linux is "free" as in "freedom of speed" because you can do that.

    so when you see FSF(free software foundation) ..think .."FREE AS IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH" ..thats what they care about ..ofcource, this philosofy tend to drive the price of software to 0$ but thats the side effect, not the intendend target

    Free software doesnt exist to destroy microsoft, thats the side effect since what microsoft stands for is at a direct confict with what free software hope to achieve, microsoft isnt alone.

    Do you agree with DRM technology? do you like to share your stuff? with your friends and family? would you like to buy the same song 5 times? for yourself, your wife and your 3 kinds and the last copy for your best friend?

    free software stands for what you want to do with the code you have, propietary company like to restrics some of these rights to for their own benefits ..

    RMS likes to see or he presents the world in black and white and i have issues with that but, fundamentally, what he is fighting for is something is good for the end user at the expense of big/greedy corporations

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/3aebaf7f706b4f558ec39dec007cf0d8#3aebaf7f706b4f558ec39dec007cf0d8 Tue, 22 May 2007 07:48:21 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/3aebaf7f706b4f558ec39dec007cf0d8#3aebaf7f706b4f558ec39dec007cf0d8 mtz 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/mtz/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote:
    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.


    No you are giving them ownership of the work and they are defining their copyright of the work.


    Arguably, in this work for hire environment, you don't have ownership to give; your defacto agreement is not transferal of ownership, but an agreement that you are never the owner; the company is.

    (I just find copyright interesting having spent years dealing with the music industry)

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4851160270cc4dfebcb99dec007cf104#4851160270cc4dfebcb99dec007cf104 Tue, 22 May 2007 08:12:31 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/4851160270cc4dfebcb99dec007cf104#4851160270cc4dfebcb99dec007cf104 blowdart 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/blowdart/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source
    blowdart wrote:
    
    mig wrote:
    
    I will note however that they didn't say anywhere on their site "the only player that will play ogg files is VLC" but rather "there are many players that will play ogg files, the one we like is VLC".


    Ah no; they say

    To access streaming Ogg files you need a media player that understands the Ogg Vorbis format. Many different free software players work with Ogg.

    Note the clause "many different free software players". Now consider how gnu redefined "free" to mean what that wanted it to me; gpl code.

    Again it's simply unrealistic to push VLC onto iTunes users. If they wanted to truely push Vorbis they'd have offered more instructions for other players, or at least pointed out that it will work in iTunes and WMP and here's the links.


    Yes I noted how he said "many different free software players", note that WMP and iTunes are free (at least on Windows).  Also note that there are links to xiph's website, which provides (as you said iTunes) AND DirectShow codecs for use with WMP.

    I repeat, the can give their endorsement to whoever they want, I don't think they have an agenda because they failed to mention this (granted they COULD have mentioned it), but VLC is a good free player and they chose to endorse it instead.  I'm sorry I fail to see their agenda on this issue, while I am sure they do have an agenda.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/d9266eaf7e174339b80b9dec007cf133#d9266eaf7e174339b80b9dec007cf133 Tue, 22 May 2007 20:14:18 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/d9266eaf7e174339b80b9dec007cf133#d9266eaf7e174339b80b9dec007cf133 mig 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/mig/Discussions/RSS     Coffeehouse - playogg.com - how not to promote open source I could care less who they support. GNU is as in touch with reality as most of academia. They still teach two semester of C++ to IT majors. When you can't hope to learn anything close to what is expected of you as a C++ programmer in 2 semesters.

    Really the whole mentality they infuse into the word free is a junkyard mentality. When was the last time you thought I need a good car. Well lets see what I can get from the junk yard.

    Software projects require a certain level of investment. Thus making a stand on it should be free damnit is well disillusioned with reality.

    No such thing as a free lunch.

    Sure there are a few die hards out there. But you will never convince the rest of the world no matter how hard you try.

    ]]>     http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/96e746196bed4272b40b9dec007cf15f#96e746196bed4272b40b9dec007cf15f Tue, 22 May 2007 21:28:46 GMT http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/254862-playoggcom-how-not-to-promote-open-source/96e746196bed4272b40b9dec007cf15f#96e746196bed4272b40b9dec007cf15f odujosh 47 http://channel9.msdn.com/Niners/odujosh/Discussions/RSS