| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Mandriva to ship SkypeMandriva to ship SkypePosted Dec 21, 2005 18:40 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602)In reply to: Mandriva to ship Skype by Duncan Parent article: Mandriva to ship Skype
The fact that you will not run it due to your principles does not change whether it is open to everyone or not. I could just as easily say that GNU tar is not open to me because I choose to only run BSD licensed software and GPL restricts my freedom to do distribute modified binaries without source.
Or that some swimming pool is not open to everyone because some people can't swim.
It's your decision, not Skype's.
(Log in to post comments)
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 18:55 UTC (Wed) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] But then GNU Tar doesn't force you to use it. It stays compatible with other Tar implementations. Skype, on the other hand, just takes every possible step to make its protocol incompatible and unusable by alternatives.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 19:11 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] That's a different argument. I entirely agree that that's a bad thing and the software freedom is one solution for that.
It still doesn't change the fact that Skype is open for all to use. It's a choice, Skype make no unreasonable demands. Of course in 1000 years time when free software has been the only choice for longer than anyone can remember, Skype's actions may look different. They may be seen the way we now would see free cigarettes for school children but right now it's nothing surprising.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 19:50 UTC (Wed) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] You don't see the difference between "open" and "gratis". Of course Skype makes unreasonable demands: I'm free to read and modify the code of every program on my linux distro, but I'm forbidden to reverse-engineer that Skype program.To every reasonable person that means Skype is "gratis" but "closed".
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:13 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] I don't need a lecture about free software thank you but since you bring it up, "open" ("open source") and "gratis" are both anathema to a software-libre person, I don't think you'll find anyone who's principals prevent them from running closed-source software but who will run open-source, non-free software. Skype is quite obviously not "open" in a source code sense so it should have been clear that I wasn't using the word in that sense. Also, reading Duncan's post you would see that the original word was "accessible", unfortunately I accidentally replaced it with a synonym but by reading my examples (open shops, open swimming pools) that I was not talking about source code availablility or modification. So, the original poster and the press release used the words "accessible to everyone" and it is. That some people choose not to access it does not make it inaccessible to them.
Not accessible to everyone Posted Dec 21, 2005 22:40 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] 1) It doesn't run on my PPC Linux machine, not to mention all the other funky OS/hardware combinations that are out there in the open source world.
2) It doesn't even install easily on Ubuntu 5.10 because of some funky package dependencies.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:17 UTC (Wed) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link] But it's not open to all to use, it requires you to give a legal undertaking that Skype are free to use your CPU and bandwidth for Skype purposes (relaying other peoples calls). Users of corporate or academic networks usually do not have the right to do that and hence cannot properly agree to the EULA.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 8:24 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And from what I've heard, if you're behind a NAT firewall, it's technically impossible for Skype anyway.
So if you are a true internet host, you get hammered to make up for all the people who aren't. There was a report recently that said that a lot of such people were giving up on Skype because the load on their pipe degraded their call-quality to unacceptable levels.
Cheers,
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 9:30 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > And from what I've heard, if you're behind a NAT firewall, it's technically impossible for Skype anyway.
Nope, it worked nicely this way last time I checked. This way, though, it's guaranteed you won't spend a single byte of your bandwidth on anything except your own conversations (but someone else will).
> So if you are a true internet host, you get hammered to make up for all the people who aren't.
Unless if you have configured iptables properly... But it's unavoidable - either a significant part of the users are relaying, or the whole thing will collapse soon. Not only is this unavoidable, but it's a part of every normal society - people who make more money pay higher taxes to componsate for the quality of life of those who don't and/or can't work. Of course, there is a limit when taxes become a robbery. Usually, this never happens in a true democratic society. In the software world, an analogue of the true democracy is FLOSS. So don't get me wrong - I'm all against the proprierity software (of which Skype is just one) - but let's criticize it for this and not for technical solutions which are obvious. I'd be more than happy to use a FLOSS alternative to Skype, and probably there will be one soon.
> There was a report recently that said that a lot of such people were giving up on Skype because the load on their pipe degraded their call-quality to unacceptable levels.
Probably. I guess this is because of the (recently added) file-transfer option.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 19:03 UTC (Wed) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] What are you going on about? Skype is a non-free program running a proprietary protocol with some extra obfuscation ("encryption"). It's about as bad as it gets, no matter how you look at it.
Their previous program contained spyware, but was a smashing hit anyway. This one apparently uses your bandwidth for some unknown purpose (relaying other peoples calls?) but not many seems to mind that either.
All it does is that you can talk with someone using a computer. Those programs has been around since about forever, many of which are free. The standard protcols hit mainstream enterprise use about five years ago, for which there are tons of hardware such as real phones available.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 19:19 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Here we go... Read the comment again. Did I say Skype was great? Did I say this was a good thing? No. All I said was that Duncan choosing not to use Skype does not imply that Skype is not open to him. If I choose to never leave my house after dark (the streets are dangerous) does that meam that 24-hour shops are not open to me? Of course not.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 19:52 UTC (Wed) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] You said Skype was "open", and then you compared that with GNU Tar openness. You totally fail to understand what is behind that word, sorry. Please use "gratis" instead of "open", thank you.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:19 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] You totally fail to understand what is behind that word, sorry No, it is the other way around. There are many more meanings to the word "open" than source code availablility and since Skype is very much a closed source program I assumed it was clear that source code availablity was not the relevant meaning.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 23:52 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] No, it is the original way around. "Open" in this context obviously means open to inspect and modify; you can construe it as "accessible", but you will not get far, specially if you compare it to GNU tar.Skype is only as "accessible" as the original makers want it to be: running on a specific number of combinations of hardware and operating system, and using its sanctioned interface. GNU tar, in contrast, is open for you to inspect and modify; you can use it from the command line, or from a speech recognition program, a graphical interface or a web application, as you like. You can compile it essentially for any machine for which there is an ANSI C compiler; but also inspect it to verify that it does what you want as you want it; modify it to suit your needs; and redistribute the modifications in case they suit other people too. You can also fork your own version if you don't like the direction of development; so you are not tied to a particular company. Data processed with GNU tar follows a public specification which is available to anyone interested. Even if the FSF goes out of business, your tarred data remains accessible for ever, so we might add accessibility over time. In contrast, if Skype goes out of business tomorrow, all of your voice mail and contacts may easily get lost (depending on who buys the remains); they (or their successors in interest) may change the rates so the service is not available for free any more; and unlike phone companies or other open networks, you are tied to a particular provider. Oh and one more thing, brought about by the mention of KaZaA in another point of the thread: you may lose service easily if it somehow becomes illegal. It may seem like a remote possibility, but notice how the RIAA and friends brought the KaZaA network down because it threatened their business model; and it was the most popular software program ever. With free software, however, you may not agree with a particular law; you can then exercise your protest just by accessing some other provider or even by becoming one yourself. Is it accessible if you have the sanctioned combination of hardware and software, you want to run it in the approved manner, are willing to give up your freedoms and even your resources, and only for as long as the company wants to provide the service? Yes, it is. Is that your point? Ok, point taken.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 0:56 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] No, it is the original way around. "Open" in this context obviously means open to inspect and modify; you can construe it as "accessible", but you will not get far, specially if you compare it to GNU tar. Go to full article and search for the word "open" and you'll see that I was the first person to use it with regard to Skype. That's the context, that is the original way around. I'm not construing anything. I should have said "accessible" (I wish I'd said "accessible") because that was the word used originally and is not so overloaded. You should read my comments with "open" replaced by "accessible". I still think it should be clear that when I said "open" I did not mean "having inspectable and modifiable source code". Why should it be clear? Firstly because evey occurrence of "open" in my reply was followed by "to" and a person - a pretty good indication of it's meaning but secondly, even if English isn't your first language, Skype is absolutely and positively not open in the "open source" sense, so why on earth would I be claiming that it is? If you think someone is basing an argument on something that is totally and obviously untrue then simply point out the incorrectness of their premise. Do not respond to the rest of their argument, there is no need to rebut: if you show their premise to be false, the rest of the argument crumbles automatically; if you have misunderstood their premise then you have also misunderstood the rest of their argument and any comments would probably be irrelevant. So, is Skype accessible to everyone meeting the minimum specs and capable of running Mandriva? I think so. Does that even include those who refuse to run it on principle? I think so. Is modern accessible to Jehovah's Witnesses? Is modern technology accessible to the Amish? Was food accessible to hunger-striking prisoners? Yes, yes and yes. Forget I ever mentioned the word "open", if you want to reply, talk about "accessible".
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 8:15 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Only the first paragraph of my message refers to "open". The rest refers to "accessible". And I don't really care what you meant originally, but about the connotations behind your words.So, is Skype accessible to everyone meeting the minimum specs and capable of running Mandriva?Not even that. Mandriva 2006 can run on three architectures, x86, x86_64 and ppc; skype only runs on i586. As mentioned elsewhere, this limitation appears nowhere in the specs; it only says "400 MHz processor". So the answer is no. Also, as mentioned above (and ignored completely in your message), it is only accessible as long as the company is willing to give you service. Even if I'm willing to run non-free software, I may not be willing to trust a private company with my non-volatile data, not knowing what the program does with it. Or even trust a private company with my volatile data. Are my calls logged? Are they point to point only? Are they diverted to the CIA on demand? Who knows. Of course, these practical concers are only derivations of the theoretical concern expressed by Duncan, but they make the program less accessible to many users and in many situations.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 11:51 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Not even that. Mandriva 2006 can run on three architectures, x86, x86_64 and ppc; skype only runs on i586. As mentioned elsewhere, this limitation appears nowhere in the specs; it only says "400 MHz processor". So the answer is no. The slightest bit of research would have shown you how completely wrong that is. Skype also runs on Mac (PPC) and Pocket PC (is that ARM? not sure. I suppose I could find out but you know, finding things out before writing about them is really going out of fashion). Assuming they have a good code base, it may be trivial to port it to PPC linux, so maybe all Mandriva 2006 editions will include it. That's a large but not unreasonable assumption. It might be competely wrong. Who knows? Not I and certainly not you. And I don't really care what you meant originally, but about the connotations behind your words. What connotations? Most words have multiple meanings but in this case, the connotation you're choosing makes no sense. It is a fact that Skype is not open source, it is a fact that GNU tar is open source. If you think I'm denying either of those two facts then congratulations, you're going to thrash me in that argument. I'm sure you'll go on to win more many more. Have you ever met the Red Queen?
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 12:12 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I have in fact done that bit of research; even more, I have installed Skype on a PowerPC computer running Mac OS X. The fact remains that Skype only makes their product available for i586 on Linux. If you had actually visited the link and tried to download Skype for Mandriva (link called RPM for Mandriva 10.1 and newer), you would have noticed that you can only download an RPM for i586. We can only speculate about what Skype will do; today there is no version for those other architectures. If you want to make your point about "accessibility", please choose a different ground.I worry not about you or about this stupid argument you are carrying forward against the world; but about those users who may be fooled by the language in the press release. Skype has not "worked hard to ensure that our software is easy to use and accessible to everyone"; they have worked hard to create a captive market using proprietary protocols and software, and they worry only about having a mass of ignorant users locked into their software. They should have no place in a distribution of free software.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 13:09 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] If you want to make your point about "accessibility", please choose a different ground. What do you mean choose the ground? The word is in the press release and in the comment I replied to. I chose to reply but I had no choice about where I replied. And there is no argument I'm "carrying forward against the world". The number of replies I've posted may make it seem that way but that's far more to do with misinterpretation of my words than with any passion I feel for bringing my argument to the world. I'm just saying it's a choice, like for example vegetarianism. Just like vegetarianism people do it for different reasons. Some for moral reasons, some for health, some just because they like it. None of these vegetarians are being denied access to meat. When it comes to Free software I'm with the health and the liking it and I have sympathy for the moral reasons but I don't think morality will be a significant factor in the battle and I don't think it really helps to denounce a particular package on moral grounds. I think the battle will be won by the benefits of Free software and then, once people have become used used to this Freedom, non-free software will looked upon with suspicion and everyone will understand the risks involved in using it. I can see a day when goverments and large corporations will insist on Free software for everything except specialised tasks but I doubt anyone reading LWN today will live long enough to see a law banning non-free software (revolutions excluded). Finally, Mandriva is not a "distribution of free software" and has not been for quite some time.
Ethics in software Posted Dec 22, 2005 14:17 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Morality has a reason to exist: theoretical principles bring about practical changes. Dumb people just have things happen to them and cannot understand the reasons; clever people can distill their experiences into general rules of behavior. Really clever people can listen to others and learn from their experiences, without the need of actually suffering damage.I am beginning to understand why Stallman always starts his speeches about free software with the famous printer-driver story. It is so that his audience can see that these principles have an actual applicability to the real world; it is not just an ethical problem. Free software solves real problems that people have all the time, like "why can't I run this software / hardware" or "how can I access my data". Many commentators have mentioned a bunch of actual, practical reasons for preferring free software within the specific field of internet telephony. They have been completely lost on you; you just see "moral reasons". Maybe other readers can extract some benefit from the thread.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 17:15 UTC (Thu) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] Assuming they have a good code base, it may be trivial to port it to PPC linuxThat's precisely the point. They haven't done it, for whatever reason (support costs, uninterested marketing dept ...) and nobody can do it for them. You have some code you *know* is portable to your platform but nobody can do the job. Welcome to CLOSED software.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:48 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Their previous program contained spyware
Do you mind pointing to a reliable reference, not some rumors?
> This one apparently uses your bandwidth for some unknown purpose (relaying other peoples calls?)
Yes it must be doing this. How otherwise can you make a (kinda) p2p connection when both peers are behind the firewalls? It should use something unprotected in between, not? When both peers are within real p2p connectivity, nobody else gets involved, I believe. BTW, if you choose to participate in the Tor network (http://tor.eff.org/) - truly free/open protocol and implementation - someone else might be using your bandwidth as well. Of course, the openness in the later case greatly helps to ensure no bad use is made of your resources, but the very fact that (part of the) participants' bandwidth is shared shouldn't be a no-no factor. Or, if it is, no other software, free or closed, will help make you the VoIP calls today.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 21:50 UTC (Wed) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] > Do you mind pointing to a reliable reference, not some rumors?
Wasn't Kazaa p2p software their doings, and included spyware? Not that I had used one, but it should be quite easy to check.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 22:09 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Wasn't Kazaa p2p software their doings, and included spyware?
Hmm, I didn't realize that "previous program" meant Kazaa. I thought it was refering to a previous version of Skype (we do talk about Skype here... Mandriva is not going to pack Kazaa ;-)).
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 6:52 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > BTW, if you choose to participate in the> Tor network (http://tor.eff.org/) - truly > free/open protocol and implementation - > someone else might be using your bandwidth > as well. Incorrect, if you just run a Tor client. Tor clients get access to the Tor network, but don't carry any additional traffic for it. Of course, in so doing, they lack that additional traffic to help camouflage any activity of their own, so it's not as "safe", but that's their choice. If you run a Tor server, then certainly, but that's sort of the purpose/point. The Tor servers, BTW, implement exit policies, such that the admin can choose what they wish to allow to exit from their server directly onto the web. In fact, many don't allow anything to exit directly onto the web, in which case the server becomes simply a Tor-relay server, relaying only internally to other Tor servers, which do have an exit policy allowing that type of TCP (by port, I believe) onto the net. (I happen to have recently spent several hours researching Tor. They have quite a lot of useful documentation, both on Tor, and on Internet anonymity in general. Thus, the detailed knowledge. Now if you had used freenet or gnunet or something similar as your example, I believe you'd have been correct. It's just not correct for Tor.) Duncan
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 8:46 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Incorrect, if you just run a Tor client.
You're right, I should have been more clear. However, I used the term "participate". Being a client doesn't really mean participate...
Anyway, let's be honest: either majority of Tor users run in the server mode or those who do (minority otherwise) need to carry on a lot of "foreign" traffic. The later case (which is the current situation with Tor, as far as I understand) might be ok for an experimental low-profile activities (again, that's what Tor today is), but once you're talking about millions of users, this becomes impractical and/or extremely expensive. The fact is even Microsoft can't afford it for their netmeeting stuff - anything except chat won't work unless you can establish a direct p2p connectivity.
> Now if you had used freenet or gnunet or something similar as your example, I believe you'd have been correct.
Agreed, freenet would be a more straightforward example.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:10 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I actually don't see Skype version for my CPU. They only have an x86 version, but they don't say that explicitly on the download page. The requirements merely mention a "400 MHz" CPU.Sure, it's my choice to not run Skype in an emulator and not to use an x86 system as my primary workstation.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 20:30 UTC (Wed) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] That was not the original complaint anyway, I think there's an implied requirement that your computer be capable of running Mandriva 2006.
Anyway, read the original story, they didn't say "Skype is now accessible to everyone on the planet".
There are lots of reasons to criticise Skype and lots of people who cannot access it, all I'm saying is that <i>choosing</i> not to access it does not make it less accessible. Just like choosing only to shop at fair-trade shops doesn't make Exploito-mart less accessible, choosing not to eat meat does not make butchers less accessible etc etc
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 24, 2005 0:42 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] My PPC machine will run Mandriva 2006 but not skype. There is a lot more to Linux than Linux/x86, and Skype won't run on any of them. A point I notice was made to you several times, but you seem to not want to acknowledge.
The press release, however you cut it, is a pack of lies.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 7:03 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] You have a point, but the fact that it's morals preventing my access makesit just as literally inaccessible to me as if it had been something else, just as MS products are now forever inaccessible. Like a defector leaving behind the country he was born and grew up in for good -- at least until a change in government, tho he may leave friends and loved ones behind, I just as surely left MS and slaveryware behind -- likewise leaving a bunch of loved ones behind when I did. The old Duncan that could tolerate or agree to such servitude no longer exists. Just as that defector, I'm a new man with a new life, who really couldn't go back, at least legally and therefore without putting myself in danger. Therefore, anything located in the place I left behind is just as surely inaccessible to me as it is to that defector. Sure, he /could/ go back, and so could I, but he'd likely be in danger for his life if he did, and so would the new Duncan. Duncan
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 24, 2005 1:27 UTC (Sat) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] (apologies if this is a bit scattered but it's late and almost xmas, not really feeling like polishing the ideas).
You can only expect so much from Skype in their effort to make it accessible. Some people don't have a computer, can they complain that Skype is not accessible to them? It's far less accessible to them than to you
Also, your situation and a defector's are very different. A fundamental difference is that the defector, once caught cannot escape again whereas you can check your email on windows in an internet cafe while on holiday and then go home and return to Free software exclusivity. Also the seriousness of the consequences are different by orders of magnitude. It's inconvenience versus fundamental rights/torture/death.
I think that a world of Free software would probably be a better world but there are plenty who would disagree. A world where closed software was illegal could also be a better world but it is one where the right to earn money and the right to be stupid in a particular way has been forcibly removed. There are many such rights that we currently have, like the right to smoke and the right to soak up money and resources from society for decades and then go and risk it all inventing some new extreme sport. The world might be a better place if we lost some some of these rights but that does not necessarily mean that they are immoral or that they definitely should be illegal. If it was easy (or even possible) to decide these things, there would be no debate about socialism versus capitalism for example (and for the benefit of the terminally misinterpretive, I didn't just compare Free software to socialism).
I'm not convinced that it really is a moral issue. I'd say it's more of an economic issue because it's largely about convenience and productivity. The issues which come closest to being moral could be addressed by mandatory documentation of interfaces and persistent storage formats (source code being an acceptable form of documentation), a right to have bugs fixed and a guaranteed right to reverse engineer. With these in place no one's documents or hardware need ever become unusable. People can pay to have software developed for their needs (as is frequently suggested with regards to Free software) except they would not be guaranteed access to a previous working version which they could use as a base. Free software achieves almost the same thing but it adds access to a previous version while taking away the right to keep source code secret (which the foundation of the closed software business model).
The argument that this business model is immoral because it impoverishes one group while enriching another can be applied to nearly any business model. In fact that's almost the definition of a business model.
And just to be clear, I'm not promoting Skype and I'm not attacking Free software. None of the jobs I've had would exist without Free software and
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 23, 2005 11:22 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] That's way too easy. You are forgetting or ignoring that this is a proprietary part of what is commonly recognized as an Open Source distribution. Call me cynical, but I don't think the use of the terms "free" and "accessible" in the press release is a coincidence.So it's sad to see Mandriva lending their Open Source platform as a vehicle for proprietary products, and we've got every right to say so, don't you think? No need for a lecture about the difference between "open" and "accessible", I think most of us got it the first time.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 24, 2005 0:14 UTC (Sat) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I can compile GnuTar for my PPC Linux box. Even if I were willing to run unauditable, black box software, skype just won't work. And I can't use other software to communicate with skype users either. So in no sense of the word is it 'open to everyone'. Not even close.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 24, 2005 1:45 UTC (Sat) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Again it's "open" (as in source) which is not what I meant vs "open to me" which is what I said and very different, with a meaning akin to "accessible".
I didn't say that GNU tar is not open (why on earth would I say that? It's nonsensical).
I said that if I had an objection to GPL software and would only use BSD licensed software then I could say that GNU tar was not open to me (not accessible to me) because of my principles.
Is it reasonable to make such a complaint? I don't think so but it's basically what Duncan said, just replace my GPL with his closed and my BSD with his Free.
See my reply to Duncan for more.
|
|
||||||||||||