philosophy.texiDescription: TeXInfo document
|
| From: | Peter Minten |
| Subject: | [DotGNU]Philosophy file, now in texinfo |
| Date: | Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:00:41 +0200 |
Hi folks, thanks to Stephen Compall the Philosophy file now has a texinfo version for inclusion in DotGNU manuals (so please include it if you're writing a dotgnu manual). The texinfo file of Philosophy, a sample texinfo file, a html page of the sample texinfo file (for those without makeinfo) and a new revision of Philosophy are attached. Thanks Stephen :-) Greetings, Peter
DotGNU philosophy file
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-- DRAFT VERSION --
-- REVISION 6 -
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this document, but changing it is not allowed.
--
This software is Free Software, not Open Source software. The Free
Software movement is idealistic and tries to tackle questions related
to freedom, ethics, principle and improving society. The Open Source
movement avoids these questions.
Please note that when this document refers to free it refers to
freedom to use, copy, modify and (re)distribute, not to freedom from
price.
This program is part of the DotGNU project. The goal of the DotGNU
project is to create an `operating system for the Internet'. DotGNU
provides a platform on which Internet-based applications, so-called
`webservices', can run. Microsoft is also working on such a system
called .NET. We believe that the concepts and intentions behind .NET
are bad for the user. To prevent Microsoft from gaining yet another
monopoly, this time on the webservice platform, DotGNU was called into
existence.
One of the bad things in .NET is the possibility of what is called
vendor lock-in. Vendor lock-in is what happens when a user has been
using a resource and wants to move to a different, competing resource,
but the resource provider makes that difficult or impossible, through
'closed formats', much like how word processor document formats force
a user to use a certain word processor. Without the old webservice,
the user cannot access the data in its files and is therefore forced
to use that webservice.
DotGNU solves this problem by giving users ownership of their
data. When an owner of data on a webservice wants to move to another
webservice, then the webservice provider must give the user the
executable code and in some cases (look in the DotGNU FAQ for more
info on this) the source code of the webservice.
Another problem we have with .NET is the single-authentication service
called Microsoft Passport. This system lets users store their data on
a central server controlled by Microsoft. This creates great security
threats because a cracker can then crack that server and get the
personal information of millions of people. Also the government of the
country in which the server is located could pass legislation allowing
it access to that perhaps private data. This would allow that country
to spy on people. And of course the single-authentication service will
be a major monopoly, which is bad for the users.
As an alternative to Passport, DotGNU provides several competing but
interoperable single-authentication systems. Our systems can run on
either a remote server under the same conditions as webservices or it
can run on the user's own computer. This will make it harder for
unauthorized individuals or groups to get at confidential personal
information.
Please note that DotGNU is not in any way anti-commercial. We are
anti-oppression; we can't stand the legal tricks that some commercial
firms use to tie consumers to them and to keep them from using their
software optimally.
An example of that is product activation. If a consumer has bought a
box with a certain software product in it, he/she is free to install
it on a computer and to upgrade that computer. It isn't morally right
to make the consumer prove, after upgrading a certain number of
components, that he/she has bought the software legally. Instead,
common court logic (a suspect is innocent until the opposite has been
proven) dictates that the software company must prove that the user
has bought the product illegally, and may not expect help from the
consumer in making a case against said user. Thus product activation
is completely immoral.
We fight for the rights of users, but we don't fight against
commercial businesses; we see it as everybody's right to benefit
financially from the production or distribution of software, as long
as it is fair to both the producer and the consumer.
Though DotGNU is supported by two organizations (GNU and
FreeDevelopers) not all DotGNU developers agree with the principles of
these organizations. If you would like to find out more about these
organizations, please visit their websites.
Links:
DotGNU homepage
http://www.dotgnu.org
GNU homepage
http://www.gnu.org
FreeDevelopers homepage
http://www.freedevelopers.net
DotGNU FAQ
http://www.dotgnu.org/faq.html
The differences between Free Software and Open Source
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.
Why we use the term GNU/Linux
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
philosophy.texi
Description: TeXInfo document
If you are writing a DotGNU manual, you should include the Philosophy document and mark it as an Invariant section under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license. This is just a sample file that shows how to include the philosophy.texi file.
Unlike GNU, I prefer to let the writer of the manual create the @node and @section-type markings in the outer file, because it lets you easily redefine the position (appendix? chapter?) and the Emacs auto-generating commands work better.
Copyright © 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed.
This software is Free Software, not Open Source software. The Free Software movement is idealistic and tries to tackle questions related to freedom, ethics, principle and improving society. The Open Source movement avoids these questions.
Please note that when this document refers to free it refers to freedom to use, copy, modify and (re)distribute, not to freedom from price.
This program is part of the DotGNU project. The goal of the DotGNU project is to create an operating system for the Internet. DotGNU provides a platform on which Internet-based applications, so-called webservices, can run. Microsoft is also working on such a system called .NET. We believe that the concepts and intentions behind .NET are bad for the user. To prevent Microsoft from gaining yet another monopoly, this time on the webservice platform, DotGNU was called into existence.
One of the bad things in .NET is the possibility of what is called vendor lock-in. Vendor lock-in is what happens when a user has been using a resource and wants to move to a different, competing resource, but the resource provider makes that difficult or impossible, through closed formats, much like how word processor document formats force a user to use a certain word processor. Without the old webservice, the user cannot access the data in its files and is therefore forced to use that webservice.
DotGNU solves this problem by giving users ownership of their data. When an owner of data on a webservice wants to move to another webservice, then the webservice provider must give the user the executable code and in some cases the source code of the webservice.1
Another problem we have with .NET is the single-authentication service called Microsoft Passport. This system lets users store their data on a central server controlled by Microsoft. This creates great security threats because a cracker can then crack that server and get the personal information of millions of people. Also, the government of the country in which the server is located could pass legislation allowing it access to that perhaps private data. This would allow that country to spy on people. And of course the single-authentication service will be a major monopoly, which is bad for the users.
As an alternative to Passport, DotGNU provides several competing but interoperable single-authentication systems. Our systems can run on either a remote server under the same conditions as webservices or it can run on the user's own computer. This will make it harder for unauthorized individuals or groups to get at confidential personal information.
Please note that DotGNU is not in any way anti-commercial. We are anti-oppression; we can't stand the legal tricks that some commercial firms use to tie consumers to them and to keep them from using their software optimally.
An example of that is product activation. If a consumer has bought a box with a certain software product in it, he/she is free to install it on a computer and to upgrade that computer. It isn't morally right to make the consumer prove, after upgrading a certain number of components, that he/she has bought the software legally. Instead, common court logic (a suspect is innocent until the opposite has been proven) dictates that the software company must prove that the user has bought the product illegally, and may not expect help from the consumer in making a case against said user. Thus product activation is completely immoral.
We fight for the rights of users, but we don't fight against commercial businesses; we see it as everybody's right to benefit financially from the production or distribution of software, as long as it is fair to both the producer and the consumer.
Though DotGNU is supported by two organizations (GNU and FreeDevelopers) not all DotGNU developers agree with the principles of these organizations. If you would like to find out more about these organizations, please visit their websites.
This usually depends on the license; for example, if a service's code is released under the GNU General Public License, the provider must release the source code to those that take the executable code. Look in the DotGNU FAQ, section 1.12, for more information.
philosophy-samp.texi
Description: TeXInfo document
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |