Misrepresenting the software with functionality, stability, or usability that does not exist.
Making hype about the software is beyond a normal excitement for it.
Breaking communication rules for a medium of communication in order to fulfill the obligation.
And anything included under Murphy's Law.
By special treatment, I wasn't referring to the above. I was basically referring to promoting the software where promotion is usually not welcomed. (Like a forum, for instance.)
Breaking communication rules for a medium of communication in order to fulfill the obligation.
I think the (above) should come close enough to what you mean. I actually did not feel as though it was unwelcome in this forum except one member. The case still applies if it is unwanted then you should not do it.
They already get special treatment from the IRS.
I think you screwed your argument when you told Tyler that they need special treatment instead of sticking to just plain word of mouth promotion. (You might have been ok here since I would not be able to make a fact that your definition is the same as my definition; But in your own mind you let it known though how you speak that it is your definition although you do not say so directly.)
You also stuck your definition of special treatment in this case with exactly what I was arguing about would be wrong (see above). (So now you have made a connection between going out of your way or doing something that is not right I suppose in order to help them when this entire time you have already been paying them back if you have been completed your obligation to them which is how you pay for their product which is not free.)
Well, I think it should be fine to promote FOSS as long as it's good software. Regardless of what's welcomed in this forum. If it's good it's good, and no one should have a problem with it. (As long as it isn't blatant bill board advertising...)
You also stuck your definition of special treatment in this case with exactly what I was arguing about would be wrong (see above).
Who says you're always right?
(So now you have made a connection between going out of your way or doing something that is not right I suppose in order to help them when this entire time you have already been paying them back if you have been completed your obligation to them which is how you pay for their product which is not free.)
'Paying back' in that sense is the same as any charity. Often those receiving the help volunteer at the charity itself after the fact. Moreover, they often promote it as well. If this demotes charities, then I guess there are no true charities.
Last edited by Alboin on Mon May 28, 2007 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alboin wrote:Well, I think it should be fine to promote FOSS as long as it's good software. Regardless of what's welcomed in this forum. If it's good it's good, and no one should have a problem with it. (As long as it isn't blatant bill board advertising...)
You also stuck your definition of special treatment in this case with exactly what I was arguing about would be wrong (see above).
Who says you're always right?
It would been different if you gave this same <specialized> treatment to any software company, but you choose to give it only to FOSS.
If the above was true then you would have not used the phrase "special treatment" and instead would have said just treatment, used a different phrase, or word to describe the situation which would be relative to your thinking concerning a non-profit or profit software organization instead of exclusive usage of "special treatment" for non-profit software organizations.
If it's good it's good, and no one should have a problem with it. (As long as it isn't blatant bill board advertising...)
I assume you are now generalizing your argument to include any software which would be non-profit or profit organization owned or maintained. Which seems like a contradiction since you took so much time placing the word specialized in front of treatment when talking about non-profit software organizations (FOSS).
Kevin McGuire wrote:
I assume you are now generalizing your argument to include any software which would be non-profit or profit organization owned or maintained. Which seems like a contradiction since you took so much time placing the word specialized in front of treatment when talking about non-profit software organizations (FOSS).
No no. Just FOSS. I think I said that in the first sentence or two.
It would been different if you gave this same <specialized> treatment to any software company, but you choose to give it only to FOSS.
If the above was true then you would have not used the phrase "special treatment" and instead would have said just treatment, used a different phrase, or word to describe the situation which would be relative to your thinking concerning a non-profit or profit software organization instead of exclusive usage of "special treatment" for non-profit software organizations.
Yeah....I'm not really getting what you mean here...
"special treatment" && "treatment" == "promotion"
Last edited by Alboin on Mon May 28, 2007 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
(So now you have made a connection between going out of your way or doing something that is not right I suppose in order to help them when this entire time you have already been paying them back if you have been completed your obligation to them which is how you pay for their product which is not free.)
'Paying back' in that sense is the same as any charity. Often those receiving the help volunteer at the charity itself after the fact. Moreover, they often promote it as well. If this demotes charities, then I guess there are no true charities.
You do not have to pay them back, but it is only the right thing to do if you can pay them back for helping you. A lot of time someone helps someone (or is supposed to and should make the distinction to help) when this person can not help them selves. You render a service because you can do this and they can not. What happens is a wood workers builds things with wood that a steel worker needs and the steel workers builds things with steel to help the wood worker. The steel worker just does not take and never give back when he is able to give back.
There is no true "free" either. The harsh reality of life exists at all times. Anything costs something maybe even the slightest movement that adds a little more stress to a bone in your foot in the year 2011 that causes you to have foot problems four seconds before the year 2034 instead of exactly on the year 2034.
Alboin wrote:
No no. Just FOSS. I think I said that in the first sentence or two.
(So now you have made a connection between going out of your way or doing something that is not right I suppose in order to help them when this entire time you have already been paying them back if you have been completed your obligation to them which is how you pay for their product which is not free.)
'Paying back' in that sense is the same as any charity. Often those receiving the help volunteer at the charity itself after the fact. Moreover, they often promote it as well. If this demotes charities, then I guess there are no true charities.
You do not have to pay them back, but it is only the right thing to do if you can pay them back for helping you. A lot of time someone helps someone (or is supposed to and should make the distinction to help) when this person can not help them selves. You render a service because you can do this and they can not. What happens is a wood workers builds things with wood that a steel worker needs and the steel workers builds things with steel to help the wood worker. The steel worker just does not take and never give back when he is able to give back.
There is no true "free" either. The harsh reality of life exists at all times. Anything costs something maybe even the slightest movement that adds a little more stress to a bone in your foot in the year 2011 that causes you to have foot problems four seconds before the year 2034 instead of exactly on the year 2034.
This just proves that FOSS is a public service\charity. That's pretty much my point.
Is it agreed that FOSS is a public service?
Kevin McGuire wrote:
Alboin wrote:
No no. Just FOSS. I think I said that in the first sentence or two.
This just proves that FOSS is a public service\charity. That's pretty much my point.
Is it agreed that FOSS is a public service?
No. You not paying a FOSS organization back if you are able to is a sign that you are a loser. Just like if you copy some software that expected payment in currency it makes you a loser.
In the case of FOSS IMHO AFAIK you are expected to help them through the obligations of reporting bugs, giving feedback, promoting it, and more and more.
FOSS does not stand for charity... it might appear to be a charity to people who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to valid reasons but for those that can and do not -- they become a abstract representation of "Alboin" in this thread.
I hold a neutral position on the definition of FOSS having a connection to the definition of public service, and I will not answer that until I have sufficient research. I hold a neutral position on the definition of FOSS having a connection to the definition of charity although I hold a position of saying that there is not a whole connection and equal one, and I will not answer that in entirety until I have sufficient research.
Last edited by Kevin McGuire on Mon May 28, 2007 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This just proves that FOSS is a public service\charity. That's pretty much my point.
Is it agreed that FOSS is a public service?
No. You not paying a FOSS organization back if you are able to is a sign that you are a loser. Just like if you copy some software that expected payment in currency it makes you a loser.
In the case of FOSS IMHO AFAIK you are expected to help them through the obligations of reporting bugs, giving feedback, promoting it, and more and more.
Charity requests things back from its users as well. A church, for example. Its members are expected to give an offering and do outreach. A church is a charity\public service. Therefore, FOSS is a public service\charity as it has all the same aspects. 1 = 1.
Edit: Bottom is noted, and the above can pretty much be ignored.
Kevin McGuire wrote:
FOSS does not stand for charity... it might appear to be a charity to people who are unable to fulfill their obligations due to valid reasons but for those that can and do not -- they become a abstract representation of "Alboin" in this thread.
You know, Alboin was a Lombard King who, after conquering the Gepids, married their leader's daughter, and then made a cup out of her father's skull. (Which he then wore on his belt, and often made her drink from.)
Last edited by Alboin on Mon May 28, 2007 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alboin wrote: You know, Alboin was a Lombard King who, after conquering the Gepids, married their leader's daughter, and then made a cup out of her father's skull. (Which he then wore on his belt, and often made her drink from.)
I just happen to have last night's dinner not agreeing with me atm. You've just made it worse. That is so disgusting!
What sort of sick-minded freak are you? I sure hope that's not (real) history...
Kevin McGuire wrote:
I would imagine that a non-profit and profit organization should both remain on the same level at the playing field and only one factor should be different which is the type of obligations.
You almost got what i am saying with one little flaw... producing free software does not make a company non-profit. This is the whole point i am arguin against Alboin who seem to think they do it for some other reason than to make money. There of course exists projects that do not make money, these are mostly worked on by people who make money from other projects (every other developer on sourceforge has a payed job; probably even more than half infact). Still though, a major number of FOSS is produced by companies, companies aiming to make money, not by Charities who just felt like starving to death in order to produce you with a slightly more stable Web Browser.
Alboin wrote:
No, because they're not giving anything to the community. FOSS spends massive amounts of time and effort writing huge pieces of software, which it then gives to the community. Their goal is not to make money. The television station's is. (Through commercials and such.).
I wish to give you a hug right here... *hugs*... It is almost beautfiul that you feel they don't wish to make money, and simply choose to starve so you can have yoru software free. This is unfortuantely a fantasy. Firefox makes money advertising from what i understand... identical to televiision commercials, hence the reason i made the comparison. There may be no initial fee but these are businesses out to make money, grow up.
Also Kevin... Promoting free software is special treatment, once again the obvious points, most free software providing organisations are out to make money, if you promote them here, it is no different from spam. I have no problem with you promoting software if you believe it really needs you to (despite the fact they have marketing departemtns at all major FOSS corporations), go for it... just not here.
It is NOT a service to the people, they are NOT honourable and there is no way all software could be free... as the none profit software is produced by people who have real jobs also.
Alboin wrote: You know, Alboin was a Lombard King who, after conquering the Gepids, married their leader's daughter, and then made a cup out of her father's skull. (Which he then wore on his belt, and often made her drink from.)
I just happen to have last night's dinner not agreeing with me atm. You've just made it worse. That is so disgusting!
What sort of sick-minded freak are you? I sure hope that's not (real) history...
Wikipedia on Alboin:
Alboin defeated the Lombards' hereditary enemies, the Gepids, a powerful nation on his eastern frontier, slew their new king Cunimund, whose skull he fashioned into a drinking-cup, and whose daughter Rosamund he carried off and made his wife.
In relation to the actual post I say one thing: Firefox is free, so why complain about the fact that they make so much money? If you released an open source program that becomes popular worldwide you'd want to get some money out of it! (You'd also be sitting there asking why you chose to make it open source).
Alboin wrote: You know, Alboin was a Lombard King who, after conquering the Gepids, married their leader's daughter, and then made a cup out of her father's skull. (Which he then wore on his belt, and often made her drink from.)
I just happen to have last night's dinner not agreeing with me atm. You've just made it worse. That is so disgusting!
What sort of sick-minded freak are you? I sure hope that's not (real) history...
Wikipedia on Alboin:
Alboin defeated the Lombards' hereditary enemies, the Gepids, a powerful nation on his eastern frontier, slew their new king Cunimund, whose skull he fashioned into a drinking-cup, and whose daughter Rosamund he carried off and made his wife.
Sorry.