On 2022-06-28 11:41, nospam wrote:
> In article <slrntbmiac.3e5.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> No, what he writes is that public bodies should use an open source
>> solution when looking for software, when it exists.
>
> they do exactly that, however, it's usually low quality and often not
> usable. there are exceptions, but they are rare.
>
>> That does not force anybody to release everything as open source!
>
> that is not supported by the facts.

I'm sorry, but Rob is right.

Demanding that governments investigate using open source where possible
is nothing like:

"the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
release *everything* as open source"

Sorry, but it just isn't.

Am 28.06.22 um 18:43 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9f6hp$p8ir$1@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>> the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
>>> release *everything* as open source,
>>
>> Nobody claimed such a thing. That is only the figment of your imagination.
>
>
> you did.

Learn to read and learn to understand what you read, anonymous Troll.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 28.06.22 um 20:32 schrieb Rob:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <t9f6hp$p8ir$1@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
>>>> release *everything* as open source,
>>>
>>> Nobody claimed such a thing. That is only the figment of your imagination.
>>
>>
>> you did.
>
> No, what he writes is that public bodies should use an open source
> solution when looking for software, when it exists.
> That does not force anybody to release everything as open source!
> In markets where single developers have the monopoly on the solution,
> it doesn't change anything.
> In situations where an open source solution exists, developers still
> can opt to keep their code closed source. Only they would not be
> selected for this contract.

SIC!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In article <t9fm3d$162jm$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> Demanding that governments investigate using open source where possible
> is nothing like:
>
> "the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
> release *everything* as open source"
>
> Sorry, but it just isn't.

joerg said that forcing open source would be a good thing:

In article <t98rs6$3q5rr$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
> > forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> > having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>
> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> commercial tech companies and unjustified profit margins will be
> considerably reduced.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9fm3d$162jm$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Demanding that governments investigate using open source where possible
>> is nothing like:
>>
>> "the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
>> release *everything* as open source"
>>
>> Sorry, but it just isn't.
>
> joerg said that forcing open source would be a good thing:

Nobody is being forced. And there are enough other prerequisites
that one has to fulfill to be eligible for that kind of contracts.

And sure it would be a good thing, it improves the quality of
open source software because more money is available to develop
and improve it.

Remember: open source does NOT mean it has to be given away for free.
There is enough money to be made in support, customization, etc.

On 2022-06-28 13:33, nospam wrote:
> In article <t9fm3d$162jm$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Demanding that governments investigate using open source where possible
>> is nothing like:
>>
>> "the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
>> release *everything* as open source"
>>
>> Sorry, but it just isn't.
>
> joerg said that forcing open source would be a good thing:

You're the one who introduces "forced" in the following quoted text and
you have left out what Joerg said that prompted you to use that word.

Please repost with the entire exchange intact.

>
> In article <t98rs6$3q5rr$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
> <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>> commercial tech companies and unjustified profit margins will be
>> considerably reduced.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9blj7$b95r$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>>>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>>>>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
>>>>> eliminated.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
>>>
>>> good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
>>> google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
>>> in any other product.
>>>
>>> oh wait...
>>
>> Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
>> economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
>> companies are immoral.
>
> rubbish.

Your insight is stunning.

>> The point is business can exist in an open-source model. It will neither be
>> "eliminated" or "destroyed". Stop with the hyperbole which is clearly
>> bollocks.
>
> very few companies can exist under such a model because there is no
> longer any motivation to innovate.

Demonstrably false.

> the moment someone creates something
> new, other companies will steal it.

You can't steal what is given to you for free.

> it is not hyperbole to say the industry will be destroyed. it's a fact.

Rubbish. Open source is already profitable. Fact.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ebm8$11f8o$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>>>>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
>>>>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
>>>>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
>>>>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>>>>
>>>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>>>
>>> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
>>> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
>>> it.
>>
>> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
>
> you're missing the point.
>
> when something of value (your work)

Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.

> is obtained without compensation
> (you weren't paid for it), it's generally called stealing.

You need to look up the definition of theft. What you describe is not it.

>
> maybe you are in the fortunate position to be able to work hard
> creating new products without being paid for your efforts, but that is
> not the case for just about everyone else.

Open source developers are paid for their work. I've no idea where you get
the idea they don't. Stop making things up.

I am currently leading an open source project with a big cloud vendor. No
one is working pro bono. Far from it.

In article <t9g22q$178f7$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
> >
> > you're missing the point.
> >
> > when something of value (your work)
>
> Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.

for closed source, yes.

for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.

> > is obtained without compensation
> > (you weren't paid for it), it's generally called stealing.
>
> You need to look up the definition of theft. What you describe is not it.

this isn't a legal brief or testimony in a court of law. as i said,
it's generally called theft.

> > maybe you are in the fortunate position to be able to work hard
> > creating new products without being paid for your efforts, but that is
> > not the case for just about everyone else.
>
> Open source developers are paid for their work.

sometimes, but nowhere near as much as those working on closed source
projects.

> I've no idea where you get
> the idea they don't. Stop making things up.

those who use the open source do not pay for the work that went into
creating it. this isn't complicated.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9g22q$178f7$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
>>>
>>> you're missing the point.
>>>
>>> when something of value (your work)
>>
>> Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.
>
> for closed source, yes.
>
> for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.

The type of licence is irrelevant. Developers are paid to write code.

>>> is obtained without compensation
>>> (you weren't paid for it), it's generally called stealing.
>>
>> You need to look up the definition of theft. What you describe is not it.
>
> this isn't a legal brief or testimony in a court of law. as i said,
> it's generally called theft.

Taking something that is made available to you for free is not theft. Are
supermarket samples also "theft"?

>>> maybe you are in the fortunate position to be able to work hard
>>> creating new products without being paid for your efforts, but that is
>>> not the case for just about everyone else.
>>
>> Open source developers are paid for their work.
>
> sometimes, but nowhere near as much as those working on closed source
> projects.

So you agree that open source developers are paid. Why are you
contradicting yourself?

>> I've no idea where you get
>> the idea they don't. Stop making things up.
>
> those who use the open source do not pay for the work that went into
> creating it.

Depends. Many do. Like I'm doing in my project.

The point is you don't have to pay for using the software, but you may
choose to for additional benefits. Like support, training or pre-built
binaries.

> this isn't complicated.

Apparently it is for you.

On 2022-06-29 08:36, Chris wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <t9g22q$178f7$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
>>>>
>>>> you're missing the point.
>>>>
>>>> when something of value (your work)
>>>
>>> Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.
>>
>> for closed source, yes.
>>
>> for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.
>
> The type of licence is irrelevant. Developers are paid to write code.

Think it through...

Who pays them?

Why do they get paid by whoever pays them?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-29 08:36, Chris wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <t9g22q$178f7$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> you're missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> when something of value (your work)
>>>>
>>>> Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.
>>>
>>> for closed source, yes.
>>>
>>> for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.
>>
>> The type of licence is irrelevant. Developers are paid to write code.
>
> Think it through...

I have. Just like all the other businesses built on open source.

> Who pays them?

Their company.

> Why do they get paid by whoever pays them?

To make or improve a product or service.

Where’s the confusion here? Like I said I’m leading an 8-month project with
one of the big three cloud providers to make an open source solution. We’re
paying them for a product and then that product will be available to
everyone who wants it, including ourselves. We lose nothing and everyone
gains.

Open source is everywhere. SSL, Linux, Firefox, macOS kernel, etc. Most of
the tech giants contribute to open source projects. It isn’t an alien or
niche concept.

In message <280620221936217955%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9g22q$178f7$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> >> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.
>> >
>> > you're missing the point.
>> >
>> > when something of value (your work)
>>
>> Developers are paid for writing code. They are valued.

> for closed source, yes.

> for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.

Some open source is written by people who are paid to write it. Not most
bu any means, but still. Some projects are mostly adopted by companies
that are the primary maintainers of the code.

And, there are different levels of open source, for example some
software is licensed only for free use if the software is not part of a
commercial product.

>> I've no idea where you get
>> the idea they don't. Stop making things up.

> those who use the open source do not pay for the work that went into
> creating it. this isn't complicated.

There are certainly projects that have paid products, usually a support
contract, sometimes and enhanced version. For example, dovecot is free
and open source, but there is a version that is not free and is
licensed.

--
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good
novel, must be intolerably stupid".

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>>>
>>> rubbish.
>>>
>>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
>>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
>>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
>>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>>
>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>
> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> it.

You can't steal open source software. That's the point.

Lewis wrote:

>> for open source, others can use it *without* paying for it.
>
> Some open source is written by people who are paid to write it. Not most
> bu any means, but still. Some projects are mostly adopted by companies
> that are the primary maintainers of the code.

Lewis is correct that companies pay people to write open source software.

An example is Genymotion, the emulator company who donated Screen Copy
source code to mirror a mobile devices on a personal computer over Wi-Fi.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xjz3V8Gs/vysor32.jpg> ScrCpy vs Vysor PC mirror

> And, there are different levels of open source, for example some
> software is licensed only for free use if the software is not part of a
> commercial product.

Yet again, Lewis is correct as far as I know.

For example, offhand, I think that's how Redhat distributes its GPL open
source code, versus say BSD, where those kind of rules are not in effect.

>>> I've no idea where you get
>>> the idea they don't. Stop making things up.
>
>> those who use the open source do not pay for the work that went into
>> creating it. this isn't complicated.
>
> There are certainly projects that have paid products, usually a support
> contract, sometimes and enhanced version. For example, dovecot is free
> and open source, but there is a version that is not free and is
> licensed.

Lewis is correct.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring

An example is the Vysor freeware/payware for emulating iOS & Android on any
personal computer (all common operating systems, including macOS).
<https://i.postimg.cc/TYvqdxCT/vysor35.jpg> iOS & Android PC mirroring
--
I'm always perfectly reasonable because I assess what people actually say.

UPDATE (for the permanent Usenet record for others to find in the future).

1. On May 30th, Google destroyed the login/password connection to
applications that didn't previously _create_ a Google Account
on the computer (e.g., K-9 Mail, Fair Mail, etc.)

2. Some developers, e.g., that of Fair Mail, unhappily quit and then
re-joined a few weeks later thoroughly humiliated but wanting to
keep their software alive, caved in to Google demands and forced
users to have a Google Mothership Tracking Account in order to
use their product. (They reluctantly did so as the only other
alternative was to cave in to Google's demands for 2FA/2SV privacy
holes.)

3. K-9, at first, also caved in to Google's unreasonable demands,
but then they teamed up with the Thunderbird folks, and with the
added resources, the most recent K-9 release, version 6.201,
now performs OAuth2 authorization _without_ creating a Google
Mothership tracking account on the Android phone!

Woo hoo! Here are the related screenshots:
<https://i.postimg.cc/15XPh8nc/k9mail01.jpg> K-9 Mail with OAuth2 6.200
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpWC5zxw/k9mail02.jpg> GPS vs F-Droid K-9 update
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y2XDxnhG/k9mail03.jpg> K-9 Mail version 6.201
<https://i.postimg.cc/5NqnKf9t/k9mail04.jpg> OAuth2 finally uses the web
<https://i.postimg.cc/W4Knq385/k9mail05.jpg> NO Google Account on Android!
--
I'm going to guess that the Thunderbird team paid for the security audit
that the Fair Mail developer said was necessary to authorize OAUth2 over
the web.