in some shady attempt to promote the illusion that i've updated twice in as many days, i'm posting the following extract from a conversation that i had on AIM with a coworker. i'd like to think that it's both an interesting and informative discussion about free software. this conversation is released under the GFDL.

BenCo**us (11:23:13 AM): Blogger is fucked up. you can't just download the source. it's strange.
BenCo**us (11:23:23 AM): i don't trust it!
MrCoffeemonk (11:23:42 AM): oh, its proprietary. it's one guy trying to make money… not open source…
BenCo**us (11:24:02 AM): well, it is "free"… free as in beer. not as in speech
MrCoffeemonk (11:24:57 AM): wow, i'm not sure exactly how to interpret that statement…
BenCo**us (11:26:00 AM): that's the quintessential "free software" statement. Software can be "Free as In Beer" meaning it doesn't cost you anything to get the software, but "Free as In Speech" means you are allowed to get the code, and use it as you wish, as long as you note who originally said it. (or wrote it)
BenCo**us (11:26:26 AM): for instance, Blogger is "Free as In Beer", but since you don't get the source, it isn't "Free as In Speech"
BenCo**us (11:26:38 AM): it's a little confusing at first. it took me a while.
MrCoffeemonk (11:27:19 AM): ah… i think i'm at least partially getting it… the only thing that's tripping me up is the "as in beer" part, seeing as most beer, unfortunately, isn't free.
BenCo**us (11:27:27 AM): yeah.
MrCoffeemonk (11:27:31 AM): oh, what a world we'd live in if beer were free.
BenCo**us (11:27:32 AM): it's strange.
BenCo**us (11:28:23 AM): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
BenCo**us (11:28:29 AM): the first line sums it up.
BenCo**us (11:28:44 AM): Free Software means liberty, not price
MrCoffeemonk (11:30:00 AM): ahha.
BenCo**us (11:30:15 AM): for instance, Microsoft gives away their source to certain vendors. It is "Free Beer", because you can't modify, redistribute, etc, etc. it. It's like "Source Under Glass"
MrCoffeemonk (11:30:44 AM): oh. yeah. now i'm getting it…
MrCoffeemonk (11:31:11 AM): that's actually a really good erm… analogy.
BenCo**us (11:32:21 AM): meanwhile, Microsoft has termed that "Shared Source". And if by "Shared" you mean "Viewable", then yes. It's almost like saying, "Oh, I'll share my pudding cup with you, friend" and then waving in front of your friend's face, so they can smell, see, pray HEAR the pudding, but they can't eat it.
MrCoffeemonk (11:34:31 AM): right. pudding withholding bastards.
BenCo**us (11:34:35 AM): hehe
MrCoffeemonk (11:34:58 AM): not that, really, i'd even WANT to have software based on Microsoft code, mind you.
BenCo**us (11:35:15 AM): well, it'd be nice to see. i guess.
MrCoffeemonk (11:35:51 AM): i would rather have the freedom to destroy all copies and traces of microsoft code in existence, since they'll only end up confusing the coders who have genuine skill and ability.
BenCo**us (11:36:19 AM): i think a big concern of theirs is security holes. Like, for instance, i'm working on a content management system called Kludge-o. I'm a little worried that when i release this thing into the wild, any old body could find a security hole. but then that fear will make me design a more secure application.
MrCoffeemonk (11:37:02 AM): it's a valid concern. there are more "hackers" out there, just looking for something to do, and some way to "prove" themselves.
MrCoffeemonk (11:37:35 AM): but yeah, the awareness of that will help you watch for potential holes.
BenCo**us (11:37:49 AM): true. i think that there were actually more security notices regarding Linux last year than NT, but that's because the Linux code is open.
BenCo**us (11:38:09 AM): and the Linux holes have been fixed. NT's unknown holes haven't
MrCoffeemonk (11:38:59 AM): i imagine it must be difficult tracking those things though. i've often wondered just how crazy it must be to have thousands of people working on the same piece of software.
BenCo**us (11:39:18 AM): well, "thousands" is a little exaggerated.
BenCo**us (11:39:48 AM): while there may be thousands of contributors, there is usually a limited number of people who determine what goes in, what stays out.
MrCoffeemonk (11:40:19 AM): did you ever, in elementary school, do the thing where the teacher gave you a photocopy of a drawing that was overlaid with a grid, and a sheet of paper, and told you to reproduce on your paper the image that was inside one square of that grid?
BenCo**us (11:40:45 AM): Linus Torvalds is the BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life) for the Linux kernel, and he ultimately decides.
MrCoffeemonk (11:40:46 AM): then, when all the individual pieces of paper were taped to the wall, they never quite matched up…?
BenCo**us (11:41:02 AM): uh. yeah
BenCo**us (11:41:08 AM): i think we did do that.
BenCo**us (11:41:26 AM): or a version
MrCoffeemonk (11:41:36 AM): it reminds me of the "open source" method of software development in a way… or at least my perception of it.
BenCo**us (11:41:47 AM): yeah. you could think of it that way
MrCoffeemonk (11:41:53 AM): there are going to be places where the image doesn't quite match up.
BenCo**us (11:42:05 AM): true, but the outcome of that code is what matters.
BenCo**us (11:42:26 AM): the overall effect of the picture, from a distance, is the same.
MrCoffeemonk (11:42:45 AM): true. and if you have a controlling body, then they can go over the drawing in the places where it doesn't quite match up, and make it match better.
MrCoffeemonk (11:42:59 AM): plug the holes, so to speak.
BenCo**us (11:43:46 AM): an interesting piece of reading is Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", it explains it nicely. in the "Bazaar" there are many contributors, and the folks in the cathedral choose what they want from the bazaar, and make product from those selections.
MrCoffeemonk (11:45:02 AM): the cathedral, therefore would be either the Linux distributors, or the individual end users… i'm assuming.
MrCoffeemonk (11:47:11 AM): admittedly i've never really attempted to install or use linux, so my view from the outside sees it as being this potentially very confusing thing. so many different versions of things that do the same thing… how do you pick the pieces you want or need, how do you pick the best apples for your apple pie?
BenCo**us (11:49:34 AM): well, that is what the distributor is for. Red Hat chooses the applications which are bundled with their distro. often, they will bundle more than one application that does the same thing
BenCo**us (11:49:59 AM): like mail transfer agents. there is Qmail, Postfix, Sendmail, etc, etc.
BenCo**us (11:50:31 AM): it can be a little confusing, but i think that it is more natural. Exchange Server shouldn't be your ONLY choice. Survival of the fittest.