Of products, distributions and distros

The term product It has different uses, for example to indicate that something is the result of a job we say: «It is the product of ...»

In economics and marketing (which is the field that interests us in this text) there are many definitions by various authors.

Some as basic as:

Product is all that can be sold.

Other more complex:

Product is that good or service, tangible or intangible, that generates profit in cash or other products to the producer at the time of exchange (known as SALE)

But all with the common denominator of producer-payment.

At the end of the last century it was born at the hands of GNU project a new political - social - computing concept, the FOSS.

This one, although it can be sold, by definition not a product.

-I invite all those who left their backs in horror, to take their place and let's continue reading.

People who claim they are, fall into a fallacy of hasty generalization.

But if it is not a product, then how to call this software that is distributed "from hand to hand" without it being a sale?

Distribution! Whether distributes, it is a distribution.

Although of course, that term is very general and applies to any free software.

The GNU project was then focused on its system GNU operating to which a Linux kernel, generating the GNU / Linux system and the boom that we all know.

But to call it distribution, it was confusing and unspecific, so the term affectionate was coined Distro.

I say affectionate, because it is not a technicality as many claim, so it is not, that contrary to distribution, it is not found in dictionaries.

(I looked in the RAE, the dictionary of Encyclopedia Britannica, and that of the Cambridge Encyclopedia)

Conclusion.

Free software is not a product.

diagram see distributions

Una distribution Free software is all that free software that is distributed, LibreOffice distribution, for example.

Una linux distribution, is that software that includes a Linux kernel, (Here you can enter Android or any embedded system with the mentioned kernel).

Una Distro refers to GNU / systems (Linux, HURD or whatever).

Language is not something static, it is not governed or dictated.

Unfortunately, the proprietary software companies (and governments behind them) know this very well, they know that if they use an existing word for something totally opposite and repeat it until it becomes fashionable, the weak-minded people will be subjected to the media bombardment and that wrong meaning may be imposed.

And they also use the old strategy of generating disinformative propaganda terms.

Those terms are words taken out of context with a pejorative approach to passively attack, damage the image of the adversaries and generate a market advantage.

Surely you have already read, heard, perhaps even repeated many of them: hippie, messiah, prophet, pirate, anarchist, communist and a long etcetera.

Finally I leave you a famous quote and I invite you to call things by their name.

“But after all, it is the country's leaders who determine the policy and it is always a very simple thing to drag the people, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist regime, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or not, the people can always be drawn to the wishes of the leaders. It is easy. All you have to tell them is that they are under attack, denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and put the country in danger. It works the same for all countries. "

(And on many levels.)

-Hermann Göring, Nazi General.


133 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Tina Toledo said

    What an unfortunate opinion!
    Honestly Staff I don't know if you study marketing, but if you study it… Ains! ask for your money back male.

    You have to be more responsible with opinion pieces, please.

    1.    x11tete11x said

      I do not know a damn about marketing or economics, mine is the computer, but I would like to emphasize, why the article is wrong ?, I say, because it is easy to say that something is wrong, without giving arguments. And I clarify, I am not against you or for or against the article, because they are simply issues that I do not handle, but it would be good to present the arguments ..

      1.    giskard said

        I agree with you. I would like to know why the Staff friend would be wrong. Hopefully Tina Toledo clarifies it for us. It is always good to learn something new.

      2.    Tina Toledo said

        It is that in reality there is not even much to argue or have the great knowledge to realize that the article is, from my point of view, clearly biased.

        First, the Product definitions that support their arguments are presented out of context and without references. Whose concepts are they? Staff says they are by varied authors, it chooses only two but does not say who the authors are, nor does it offer a link or give references to the book, treatise or conference from which it took them.

        Neither in marketing nor in economics is it a condition that a product goes through a stage of monetary transaction to be considered a product. A product is the result of productivity. That's it.
        (Product: http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/producto )
        (Produce: http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/producir )
        (Production: http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/producci%C3%B3n )
        (Productive: http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/productivo )
        (Productivity: http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/productividad )

        Now, the product itself is not the one that generates the money, the economy depends directly on the level of satisfaction or need that the product covers. Within that logic there are products that we would not use or give away.
        In this place there are some definitions of Product that seem very accurate: http://www.promonegocios.net/mercadotecnia/producto-definicion-concepto.html

        Someone will say "well Tina ... there are two or three authors who mention the word" Sale "... does that not mean a monetary transaction in exchange for something" YES, of course. A sale is MOST of the time that: paying cash to get a product, but it is not ALWAYS like this.
        Selling is offering a product, good or service but it does not necessarily have to be in cash. Money is in itself one more product that serves us to satisfy other needs - even emotional ones like those of those who accumulate wealth by proxy - then money has no value if it does not satisfy any need.
        A sale is the exchange of one satisfactory for another.

        It seems to me that a clear example is this blog: it is the result -product- of the effort of a team of people who make an investment -money, time, knowledge, etc.- to satisfy the needs of others. Here the topics are offered and compete against those of other blogs and consumers decide their preference to the extent that those needs are really covered. Does this involve money exchange? NO. But certainly those who participate in the production process of the blog get other satisfactions in return.
        Somehow someone always wins something.

        Is free software a product? YES. Are they called "distros" because they are distributed for free? I DO NOT KNOW. What I am clear about is that we can call all the free software that is distributed a "distro", I don't question that, but it must be made clear that the vast majority of products are distributed in one way or another, therefore the term is neither inclusive nor exclusive of GNU / Linux.

        Honestly, I find the theme of Staff disjointed, incoherent, accuses others of using fallacies but the article itself is full of them, its conclusion is based on unsupported quotes and ends with a speech that is irrelevant. I really don't know if Staff frames his speech within the framework of marketing and economics or within that of politics.

        1.    Staff said

          Do not cite authors for the definition of the product, because what I wanted was, as a context, only to remember (what I thought we would already know) that the term is varied and has different meanings depending on the subject and the case.

          But if you want a font, OK.

          http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producto_(marketing)

          There you see it reads clearly
          "In marketing, a product is an eligible, viable and repeatable option that the offer makes available to the demand, to satisfy a need or meet a desire through its use or CONSUMPTION."

          “Neither in marketing nor in economics is it a condition for a product to go through a monetary transaction stage to be considered a product. "

          However, the wikipedia definition does indicate that a product is made available to demand.
          Besides, I never said that there was necessarily a money exchange.

          I quote:
          "That generates profit in cash or other PRODUCTS to the producer at the time of exchange"

          It is very similar to what you say.

          "A sale is the exchange of one satisfactory for another."

          And what is the satisfier but the product?

          Is free software a product? YES.

          Please explain why.

          As far as the product concept on wikipedia lets me see, there must be supply and perhaps consumption, therefore, producer / supplier, consumer and an exchange between them.

          But in Free Software you can be a creator (not a producer) and a user at the same time, therefore there is no exchange, profit, or satisfaction of needs through a PRODUCT.
          Another particular case of free software is when someone else's code is modified and this person does not find out, nor is there any type of exchange.
          These cases are the general one, the exceptions come from the sale of services (products) related to free software.

          Are they called "distros" because they are distributed for free? I DO NOT KNOW.

          No, they are called DISTRIBUTIONS because it is distributed.

          And they are called DISTRIES, to differentiate between DISTRIBUTIONS of any free software and the GNU / x thing systems.

          "Accuses others of using fallacies but the article itself is full of them"
          Please, highlight them, if you check it I will retract it and correct it, with an apology included.

          "I really don't know if Staff frames his speech within the framework of marketing and economics or within that of politics."

          I explain to you, The term free software is social, political and computer science, but many confuse it with a product (as in marketing or economics) and that is why my text tries to be a disambiguation. It would be impossible not to touch both.

          1.    pandev92 said

            I believe that it is very simple, anything intangible or tangible that comes from an effort, be it monetary, physical, knowledge, etc., is a product. It is the product of your effort which serves to cover a certain need, the problem is that we believe that to be a product, it has to carry a private license or things like that or be paid.
            If we go to the dictionary of the rae, about product it tells us:
            product.
            (From the lat. Productus).
            1. m. Produced thing.
            2. m. Flow that is obtained from something that is sold, or the one that it pays off.
            3. m. Mat. Quantity resulting from multiplication.

          2.    pandev92 said

            For more information, I attach the following link:

            http://www.marketing-free.com/producto/definicion-producto.html

            And I would stay with two basic definitions:

            Set of attributes (characteristics, functions, benefits and uses) that give it the ability to be exchanged or used. Usually, it is a combination of tangible and intangible aspects. Thus, a product can be an idea, a physical entity (a good), a service, or any combination of the three. The product exists for exchange purposes and for the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives

          3.    Staff said

            @ Pandev92
            I think you are clear about the concept of a product in marketing.
            But not free software.
            «Set of attributes (characteristics, functions, benefits and uses) that give it the capacity to be exchanged or used. Usually, it is a combination of tangible and intangible aspects. Thus, a product can be an idea, a physical entity (a good), a service, or any combination of the three. The product exists for exchange purposes and for the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives »
            Based on that, I ask you:
            Is self-esteem a product (of economics or marketing)?

          4.    pandev92 said

            @Staff

            Can you sell, distribute for free, etc. self esteem? What not?

            So it's not a product

          5.    Staff said

            @ Pandev92
            So is it necessary to sell and / or distribute for something to be a product?

          6.    Tina Toledo said

            Look Staff, I usually argue with arguments, but in your case it is impossible to do so because you have not the faintest idea of ​​the meaning, in terms of marketing and economics, of the concept "product".

            I have read the answers you have given to argumentative positions similar to mine and I see that debating the case with you in these circumstances would be foolish. The truth is that I do not regret this situation for you because everyone can freely navigate the sea of ​​their own opinions as they please, even if they are wrong.
            What does not seem to me, and I want to say it with all its letters, is that a person who does not know the subject of marketing and the economy wants to come to sit the chair and, incidentally, call those who give a thousand turns on these issues fallacious .
            It seems totally IRRESPONSIBLE to me to try a topic without even knowing it, I no longer ask to MASTER IT which is how it should be.

            Because besides, it doesn't even try to be an opinion piece; Nowhere do I see phrases like "It seems to me that ...", "From my point of view ..." or "According to me ...". No, the statements are blunt and the arguments are confusing and biased. The vague premises and subject to double and even triple interpretations to reach forced and twisted conclusions. Should I also add pride in stating that those arguments are not yours but Cambrige's. Is that prestigious university already so devalued?

            Staff, it is more for men to humbly admit that you were wrong - most of the comments are to refute your "arguments" - but hey ... within this misunderstood freedom of expression everyone is free to write nonsense and shout at Four winds that is a great truth ... but the truth Staff, after reading each and every one of the comments, do you really think that what you have argued in your writing is correct? This question is not for you to answer, it is just for you to ponder.

          7.    elav said

            I think there is no point in continuing this discussion. Please, let's try to respect and understand each other's point of view and that's it. Peace and Love 😀

          8.    Staff said

            @Tina Toledo
            "Look Staff, I usually debate with arguments, but in your case it is impossible to do so because you don't have the faintest idea of ​​the meaning, in terms of marketing and economics, of the concept" product ".
            Ad hominem argument.

            "I have read the answers you have given to argumentative positions similar to mine and I see that discussing the case with you in these circumstances would be foolish. The truth is that I do not regret this situation for you because everyone can freely navigate the sea of ​​their own opinions as they please, even if they are wrong. "

            Curious that no one has given arguments to support that they are injured.

            What does not seem to me, and I want to say it with all its letters, is that a person who does not know the subject of marketing and the economy wants to come to sit the chair and, incidentally, call those who give a thousand turns on these issues fallacious .

            Argument ad hominem + argument ad verecundiam
            Demonstration:
            You attack my arguments with no other support than the emphasis on which you say it.
            You deny my arguments based on the fact that there are others of greater authority on the subject, as if their words were unbeatable.

            "I find it totally IRRESPONSIBLE to try a topic without even knowing it, I no longer ask to MASTER IT, which is how it should be."

            I can say the same about you, or about the colleague who studies economics. They may have finished their career with honors, but they didn't take a single semester of:
            Software Engineer
            Operating Systems
            Professional ethics and computer law
            Informatic security
            Theory of computation
            Software project management

            As if to come to talk about free software (the economist colleague, the best example, since he confuses it with opensorce all the time), I for my part, if I had to smoke a semester of economics and another of marketing, so I will not be an eminence, but I have the bases.
            If I'm wrong, prove it and I take it back.
            “Because besides, it doesn't even try to be an opinion piece; I don't see phrases like "It seems to me ...", "From my point of view ..." or "According to me ...". "

            I just said that, it is not an opinion article, curious that in your first comment if you thought about it.
            "You have to be more responsible with opinion pieces, please."
            And now not anymore.

            “No, the statements are blunt and the arguments are confusing and biased. The vague premises and subject to double and even triple interpretations to reach forced and twisted conclusions. "

            Free argument type fallacy.
            Demotivation: you do not provide any evidence to prove it.

            Should I also add pride in stating that those arguments are not yours but Cambrige's. Is that prestigious university already so devalued?

            It would be superb to say that they are my arguments, or that mine are better than those of Cambridge.
            I humbly accept that if they do not have the concept of "Distro" it is because it is a term taken from their sleeve.

            Staff, it is more for men to humbly admit that you were wrong - most of the comments are to refute your "arguments" -,
            Pathetic sophism or appeal to emotions - Argumentum ad populum

            Demonstration:
            You intend to make me believe that I am less manly or humble, if I disagree with you and evade reasoning.
            You say that my arguments are invalid because there are many who do not support them, and most are right. "Millions of flies can't be wrong, let's eat shit!"

            Again, if I tell lies or fallacious arguments, please include a demonstration with arguments and I retract and apologize.

          9.    Tina Toledo said

            Staff said:
            "Funny that no one has given arguments to support that they are injured."
            You're right, you're not wrong ... you are HERRED.

          10.    Staff said

            @Tina Toledo.
            So when we no longer have to attack the reason or the logic of the argument, what we are left with is the spelling and grammar.
            Wow things.

            Since we are so childish, can I play the same game too?

            «... but IT IS YOUR case, it is impossible to do it because you have no idea of ​​the meaning ...»

            I should say:
            "IN YOUR (no accent) case"
            Two in one!
            Your turn!
            : )

          11.    Tina Toledo said

            Yes ... but I'm not hurt and you are.

          12.    Staff said

            @Tina Toledo
            !Wow congratulations.
            Have a good weekend.

    2.    eliotime3000 said

      What remained to be clarified is that anything that is abstract that generates profits is a service. The software itself is a logical component, so it is neither palpable nor less perceptible by the 5 senses.

      What free software does is that software is treated as such, as a logical component of any electronic device and not as if it were a hand of bananas (that is, a good) as Microsoft has done from its foundations.

      1.    Staff said

        I think if I clarify it.

        "Product is that good or service, tangible or intangible, that generates profit in cash or other products to the producer at the time of exchange (known as SALE)"

        But free software does not always generate profits, when it does, it is the exception, and it cannot be generalized based on exceptions.

        1.    Ludwing argenis said

          Free software does not generate economic profit for most people, because they have not realized that more than technology available and available to all, it is a real gold mine that you have to know how to sell, commercialize and exploit in order to generate wealth. Due to the above, I see very well the initiative of Canonical and recently of the eOS developers to profit from it. Right now I am developing a very lucrative business project in my community based on free software services (nothing transcendental, only OS migrations and Cloud Computing installations using Own Cloud for small local businesses, because at the moment I do not have infrastructure) , which already gives me small profits.

    3.    Staff said

      I am open to correcting any errors that my text contains, please highlight them, preferably with arguments.

  2.   firefox-user-88 said

    Nice off-topic read. You grabbed me from the back but by the hair xd.

  3.   Diego said

    Nowhere is it established that a distro has to be a GNU system (Linux, Hurd, etc). Distro is just an incorrect, but popular, way of abbreviating the word distribution. Therefore, if you call a libreoffice distribution, nothing prevents you from calling it a libreoffice distro.
    And I don't know if it's me or your way of writing, but I really can't understand what the objective of the article was, it's as if a piece was missing in the middle. But hey, like I said, maybe it's me. The same is appreciated.

    1.    Staff said

      Let me quote.
      "Language is not something static, it is not governed or dictated."
      Nowhere official will you find the unequivocal or immovable meaning of a word established.
      You can call things whatever you want, if it becomes fashionable it will prevail and the language will be modified.
      But I have only given you a bit of history (with sources to corroborate it) of how the term distro was coined to refer to GNU / X systems thing.

      On my way of writing I accept the criticism, I will try to be clearer.

      1.    Diego said

        I do not share your position or your arguments. But all good, we think differently and that's it. Regards.

        1.    Staff said

          Ok, just to clarify that it is not MY position, nor MY arguments.
          They are from wikipedia, the RAE, Cambridge ...
          If you don't agree with them, that's fine.
          Greetings.

          1.    Diego said

            Sorry, but you can't say that the arguments are from the RAE or Cambridge, just by citing them when saying that the word distro is not in their dictionaries. Obviously it is not, if that word does not exist. With this answer you gave me, I already understood why the article has neither head nor tail. Good luck for the next one.

          2.    Staff said

            That was my point, the word Distro does not exist, it is a "sweet" term to differentiate a GNU distribution from other free software distributions.
            And applying it to any other distribution that is not a GNU, is an error, that the error can become generalized and modify the language, is a separate issue.

  4.   Victor said

    I really liked the entry but the final pillorita finished it off. Great. Unfortunately few have their eyes prepared to see and extrapolate situations, thus seeing reality as it is and not as it is shown to us.

    All the best

  5.   isar said

    I do not understand the article. You start by talking about how things are called (as I understand you do not consider SL a product. In that case, here is the definition of a product according to the rae http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val= product. I understand, according to the first meaning that it is) and you end up talking about manipulation of language by companies but you do it like that in the abstract.
    Come on, I no longer understand not only the argumentation but what the article intended

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      The difference between treating good and service is that good is something physical, and service is something logical. Both are profitable, but mixing the concepts of good and service is simply crazy.

      1.    Staff said

        In the technical market it is not unreasonable.

        “Products can present a wide variety of valuable combinations to generate demand, which can be targeted towards:

        Physical goods or products: they are all tangible elements.

        Services: they are intangible, they are inseparable (they are produced and consumed at the same time), they are variable ……
        »
        wikipedia

    2.    Staff said

      Partner, you are repeating what I already said.

      «The term product has different uses, for example to indicate that something is the result of a job we say:“ it is a product of… ”

      It is just what the meaning you mention refers to.

      But also clarify that here we are talking about a product in the economic sphere.

      1.    eliotime3000 said

        @Staff:

        Do not rely too much on Wikipedia in Spanish, since within the most popular wikipedias, it is the most trolled.

        1.    Staff said

          Also on wikipedia in English does it seem like an unreliable source?

          «In economics, a good is a material that satisfies human wants [1] and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. A common distinction is made between 'GOODS' that are tangible property (also called goods) and SERVICES, which are non-physical. »

          Or tell me then, a font that seems better to you.

          1.    eliotime3000 said

            Well, at least the concept of the English Wikipedia is better written than in the Spanish version. And thanks for the info.

  6.   eliotime3000 said

    The quote you have put in the article is quite true. It is not enough that we all meet to confront the "powerful", but know how to discern between what is good and what is bad, and often there is ignorance that greatly favors the manipulation of public opinion and intentional misinformation.

  7.   f3niX said

    Nor do I take the end of the post for granted, but from my way of seeing things, GNU / Linux for business is more focused on being a "Service" than a "Product".

    They offer their service, and support it with their companies, generating income with the service, so the concept of "product" does not exist as such.

    1.    Staff said

      In marketing, the term "product" encompasses goods (which is what we confuse with products) and services.

      1.    rhoconlinux said

        mistake.

        Product is the derivative of a production process. The open-source production process results in a product. Software is a product, the services associated with it too. They have a price, a cost and a material manifestation. Nothing to discuss here gentlemen.

        The term of goods, however, is much more complex. There is a first division that is based on differentiating tangible and intangible goods. Intangible assets do not include material support per se: for example a program. But beware, an "idea", a "story" also fall within this definition. It is common, however, that intangible assets are linked to a material support to allow their transfer. A computer medium, a piece of paper, a vinyl record ...

        Nothing man ... what if I ask you earnestly for the future (includes following interventions that you do) please please please ... stop using wikipedia and the dictionary of the RAE as sources. It makes me a little blush every time I read it. Seriously.

        There are entire scientific fields that study this, literature of more than 40 years old based on disciplines such as economics (economics of technological change, knowledge economics, economics of innovation and complex systems applied to economics are some of the fields that concern to this discussion…), sociology and computer science… so you would have to be more delicate with what you put…. especially if they are just intuitions that were not "sifted" by even one article that is part of the amount of prior knowledge that there is accumulated on this subject.

        Don't take it the wrong way ... but you reminded me of this. 😉 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suWC2JNmy0I

        and wow ... did you really say "marketing"? hahaha ^ _ ^

        1.    rhoconlinux said

          oh yes ... I am the same one below who is doing a PhD in economics 😉

          1.    Staff said

            "Oh yes ... I am the same one below who is doing a PhD in economics;)"

            And this is to turn your text into an argumentum ad verecundiam?

        2.    Staff said

          You keep talking about opensource, here we are dealing with Free Software.

          «Nothing man ... what if I ask you earnestly for the future (includes following interventions that you do) please please please ... stop using wikipedia and the dictionary of the RAE as sources. It makes me a little blush every time I read it. Seriously. »

          Seriously? Wikipedia or the RAE does not seem reliable enough to you?

          Maybe if you want others, delighted, maybe you could put some, right here some colleagues have already published other sources.

          "According to Jerome McCarthy and William Perrault, the product" is the offer with which a company satisfies a need "[2].

          Stanton, Etzel and Walker provide us with the following definition of a product: “A product is a set of tangible and intangible attributes that include packaging, color, price, quality and brand, in addition to the service and reputation of the seller; the product can be a good, a service, a place, a person or an idea »[3].

          For Kerin, Hartley and Rudelius, a product is "an article, service or idea that consists of a set of tangible or intangible attributes that satisfies consumers and is received in exchange for money or another unit of value" [4].

          According to Philip Kotler and Kevin Lane Keller, a product "is anything that is offered in the market to satisfy a desire or a need" [5].

          According to the Marketing Dictionary of Cultural SA, the product “is any object, service or idea that is perceived as capable of satisfying a need and that represents the company's offer. It is the result of a creative effort and is offered to the client with certain characteristics. The product is also defined as the potential for satisfactors generated before, during and after the sale, and which are susceptible to exchange. This includes all the components of the product, tangible or not, such as packaging, labeling and service policies "[6]."

          In all there is the common factor of a producer, a consumer, demand and exchange.
          Not all of these elements are found in free software in all cases.

        3.    eliotime3000 said

          Applause!!!

  8.   Mario said

    Why the forceps attempt to create a separate term "distro" for systems running gnu? gnu goes much further, it does not need a slash /, and we would have to build another larger list, with hurd and the tens of * bsd. Distro (shorthand) and distribution are the same thing, I don't know what references you have to separate them. To name the composite linux and gnu operating system, use distribution / distro gnu / linux. I have been reading that term and its clarification since my first computer magazines, back in 2004 (thanks Santiago Roza for starting me) and also in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution it is well clarified that it is a linux kernel, gnu tools (or similar) and must follow consensual standards (lsb and others) to be in the group. At the end it is clarified that android is supported by linux foundation to include it, and it has detractors.

    GNU and its tools are something separate on top of any kernel, it should not be downgraded to "distro". I would go inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution along with other software projects.

    Rather than a product it would be an intangible thing. A few centuries ago the Roman conception of things was abandoned and intangibles were incorporated to separate them from services.

    1.    Staff said

      "Why the forceps attempt to create a separate term" distro "for systems that carry gnu?"
      To differentiate it from the other free software distributions.
      In the same way that the word "dalmatian" was created to differentiate a race from all the canine species, in the same way that someone calls their dalmatian "rocky" to differentiate it from the rest of the dalmatians.

      "Distro (shorthand) and distribution are the same thing, I don't know what references you have to separate them."

      There are many free software distributions, only some are GNU operating systems (distros).

      I did try a venn diagram to see it graphically.

      https://blog.desdelinux.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diagrama-veen-distribuciones-600×600.jpg

      I'm going to see if I can add it to the article.

      1.    husband said

        "Only some are GNU operating systems (distros)"
        where are the references sir? I will retrucar the question since you have not answered it. GNU is ONE software distribution (as I said in my previous message), the same KDE and LibreOffice. To make operating systems, gnu will be used and a kernel (n) will be taken along with other programs such as libreoffice. The Venn diagram is poorly planned, libre office could also be ∩ (set symbol) with the gnu and linux sets and it would not stop being a free distro, the same kde. They can all be easily intertwined. The exception here would be Android, since if we draw its set it could not be linked to GNU and it could only be linked to Linux, as it is today

        1.    Staff said

          "Where are the references sir?"
          Please, are you asking for references for a term from the sleeve?
          I already explained to you it is a term "affectionate" or whatever you want to call it, to differentiate the OS from the other distributions.
          Your argument is like that of the religious who claim that God exists, based on the fact that it cannot be proven that he does not.
          Or you present official sources that support that Distro and Distribution are the same entirely.

          Regarding the diagram, I accept it, the other sets should go together, but I put them apart to make the difference between distribution and distro more noticeable.

          1.    husband said

            I said and retorted: "Distro (shorthand) and distribution are the same thing, I don't know what references you have to separate them."

            I ask for proof that if there is such a difference, otherwise such a difference does not exist. An opinion (distro = / = distribution) taken from the gallery does not exist in principle or is false, and as one supports it, it comes to life. As has to be any logic and the opposite of a religious dogma. If I said "mermaids exist" I must prove it, otherwise, they do not exist.

            Some examples for «newbies»
            http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/newbie/38757-what-distro.html
            And a more serious example:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distro

          2.    Staff said

            @Marito.
            Although I remind you that I am not advocating generating this separation of terms, you can take my text as a retelling of the history of the terms, keeping in mind that language is constantly changing, and you give me the source yourself.

            Look at the history of the Wikipedia definition and you will see how in 2006, which was when the first drafts began, it only referred to "linux distributions" and in their history, it is seen that they only focused on those that contained GNU components.

            I do not say that now, or that unequivocally a distro will always be GNU / Linux and nothing else, no, I say that this is how the term appeared.

            Around the year 2000, which was when I started in this world, I started with solaris, and nobody, not even in what little of the Internet there was, called solaris a distro, nor distribution, what's more, nor BSD called a distro, which carries the distribution your name.
            It was until the appearance of pages such as dystro-mania or distrowatch, that the term began to become popular for any operating system, and then it spread to any software distribution.

            All of this is reflected in the history of definitions.

            The mermaids and gods I leave it, by far the subject deviates, just look for argumentum ad ingorantiam, so that you see that the fact that you cannot prove something does not mean that it does not exist or does not exist, because it is not the same evidence of absence as absence of evidence .

  9.   yermac said

    Curious, the first message that I "deleted" on this website.

    It seems that here only a few can give their opinion.

    Staff, you are not worth to write, assume it and something else champion

    1.    elav said

      Your message was deleted, yes, for the simple fact that there is no need for you to offend any of the users or collaborators of this blog. If you can not respect, sorry, your comments can not be accepted.

    2.    Staff said

      hehehe, I have to accept it, writing is not my thing, because of my profession the texts I write are almost entirely reports, so they are concise, direct and not necessarily eloquent.
      I guess I reflect it in all the other writing I do.
      This I only wrote as a recommendation / clarification so that we avoid ambiguities, not as an opinion article in search of some journalistic award.
      : )

  10.   rhoconlinux said

    Hello friends.
    Unfortunately this note does not make sense ... nor logic!
    1) It doesn't matter if we like it or not, software is sold and bought. Hence, it is a product. POINT.
    2) If one wants to make a division regarding the FORM OF PRODUCTION of the software, then we make differences. However, even forms of production based on open source generate software (product) or services (assistance, maintenance, etc.). Both consequences of open source production are salable, capable of being priced. Therefore, they are product.
    3) As much as we do not like it, there are many things that are sold (and will be sold) that, beyond the philosophy with which they are created or the social benefit they produce, can be sold. For example, water. 🙂 Not to mention the software haha ​​^ _ ^.
    4) The form of production greatly determines the price of a product, since it affects costs. In the form of open-source production the costs exist. Our time has a price. The fact that we choose to invest it in a process in which the result (software) is open-source intellectual property does not imply that the cost is zero. However, it implies, at least culturally, that the collaboration with "zero cost" (but price to spare = salary that we receive in relation to our work activity or skills in the labor market) reaches a "price equal to zero". Which is not necessarily the case, even culturally. But either way, the open source community has one goal: to make open source software. And software is used, consumed, and therefore bought and sold. Therefore it is a product.

    … I mean… I don't know how much of a roll with this idea when half the planet uses google chrome. It is very clear that the concept of product and that of open-source are linked. Even a huge corporation can sell us, appropriating community input, a private, closed source product that is based on open knowledge… all by legal ruse. Likewise, chromium and chrome are one product.
    Nothing, I don't pretend to be pedantic ... but I spent five minutes trying to get a bit of points on the i's in this matter, because I don't think the opinion of the article is correct. It leaves me a little worried. The only consolation I can find is that «Staff», the author, is 16 or 17 years old…. there we are on the right track. If not, honestly, man… inform yourself before writing.
    Hello!

    Rodrigo, PhD Candidate in Economics. Turin University.

    1.    rhoconlinux said

      surplus price = shadow price. ^ _ ^

    2.    Staff said

      “1) It doesn't matter if we like it or not, software is bought and sold. Hence, it is a product. POINT."

      FREE SOFTWARE (which is what I am talking about) is not necessarily sold, your argument is false, by the way it is also a fallacy of the free affirmation type.

      «2) If one wants to make a division regarding the FORM OF PRODUCTION of the software, then we make differences. However, even forms of production based on open source generate software (product) or services (assistance, maintenance, etc.). Both consequences of open source production are salable, capable of being priced. Therefore, they are product. "

      I repeat that I speak of FREE SOFTWARE, not open source, they are not the same.
      -There are those who put a price on children, ergo children are products. What a logic.

      «3) As much as we do not like it, there are many things that are sold (and will be sold) that, beyond the philosophy with which they are created or the social benefit they produce, can be sold. For example, water. 🙂 Not to mention the software haha ​​^ _ ^. »

      False, the water is not sold, the transportation service, bottling, labeling it, the brand, etc. is sold.
      Water is a human right, here you find information: http://www.un.org/
      Free software can be sold, but it is not the general one, and things are not named based on exceptions.

      "4)…."
      You keep talking about opensource, I don't.

      1.    rhoconlinux said

        "The FREE SOFTWARE (which is what I speak of) is not necessarily sold, your argument is false, by the way it is also a fallacy of the free claim type." = product with zero price. Man ... you really don't know what you're talking about ... stop for a bit.
        Here I stop. 🙂

        Ok… I can't with myself.
        And yes ... there are those who put a price on children. That we do not like it does not mean that it does not happen. Free Software is a software product, in the form of free production and free intellectual property ... with zero price if you want (but not necessarily). Now yes, enough. Because you really don't know what you're talking about and your sources are "the English wiki." Go to study and then we see.

        1.    rhoconlinux said

          what a jerk this discussion hahaha XD

        2.    Staff said

          "Product with zero price"
          But you need to explain why (according to you it is a product).

          “1) It doesn't matter if we like it or not, software is bought and sold. Therefore, it is a product. " We have already seen that this does not apply to most free software.

          I ask you the same question as another colleague.
          Is self-esteem a product?

          In the same way that you recommend changing sources, I recommend that when you debate a point you attack the logic of the argument and not its sources.
          I'm still waiting for your sources, by the way.

          1.    diazepam said

            There are sites that mention self-esteem as a product, but in the sense of consequence (a product of experiences lived in childhood and adolescence).

          2.    pandev92 said

            Can you sell self-esteem? Modify? have someone else borrow it? Well the answer is NO to all questions, so it is not a product.

          3.    Staff said

            @diazepam
            You have to read the full text, please.
            I've already had to quote several times 🙂
            "In ECONOMY and MARKETING (which is the area that interests us IN THIS TEXT)"

            @ Pandev92
            So it is necessary to sell, modify * and loan for something to be a product?
            * If modified.

          4.    diazepam said

            That's why I said in the sense of consequence, not in the marketing sense.

          5.    Staff said

            @diazepam
            That does not make sense to your comment, you could have said something about the good weather in your country at this time of year and it would have the same result, since it is already known that EVERYTHING is a product, in the sense of the result, even the NADA is a product with that focus.

          6.    pandev92 said

            Sure, but you can also redistribute it for free. A product doesn't have to be sold, to be.
            Returning to the issue of self-esteem, self-esteem is neither a service nor a tangible or intangible good, it is impossible to sell, impossible to measure… .etc etc.
            On the other hand, a piece of software is nothing more than the product of the efforts of some developers, who typed code.

          7.    Staff said

            Sure, but you can also redistribute it for free. A product doesn't have to be sold, to be.

            Ok, so just to leave no room for doubt, for something to be a product (in marketing), it must be sold, loaned, redistributed for free ... Come on, it must be put on demand, offered in the market, as all the concepts that here they were cited (words plus words less). True?

            "Returning to the issue of self-esteem, self-esteem is neither a service nor a tangible or intangible good *, it is impossible to sell, impossible to measure… .etc etc."

            It is because it is a thought, an idea, like software, you cannot touch or measure it, and although you can sell it, it is not the general case.

            "On the other hand, a piece of software is nothing more than the product of the efforts of some developers, who typed code."

            Again you are using the product concept as a reaction to something, not from a marketing approach.
            Not all the code has to be typed, I can have in my mind the idea of ​​a pseudocode that runs through a string of characters, or directly the C ++ code that performs a for loop to display "hello world" 10 times.

          8.    pandev92 said

            Today ... an idea could also be something patentable ... (since it is nothing more than the plan of what a future product would be).

            Self-esteem is not an idea, it is a feeling, a very different thing.

          9.    Staff said

            @ Pandev92
            Don't skip the central question

            «Ok, then just to leave no room for doubt, for something to be a product (in marketing), it must be sold, loaned, redistributed for free ... Come on, it must be put on demand, offered in the market, as all the concepts say that were cited here (words plus words less). True?"

            Regarding self-esteem, I accept it, it is not an idea, I retract and correct, I should have said, that it is a thought, or set of thoughts, emotions, and others.

  11.   Staff said

    Hey! thanks to which I modify the article to insert the venn diagram.
    I did not find the option, I suppose that once published only some can edit it.

    1.    elav said

      You're welcome 😉

  12.   George M said

    "Distro" is not an endearing term but a shorthand (see wikipedia). neither the rae nor cambridge or any reputable dictionary mentions the word "distro" because it is a shortening of another word (as in RAE the word car is mentioned as shortening and redirects to car). You seem like you want to create a new term (with what authority?), For something we've been using for a long time. I would call it "GNU software distribution" instead of "distro", which, more than affection, is contempt and shame (Because if they have Linux, call them distributions, and if they only have GNU, right? To Caesar what is Caesar's.

    1.    Staff said

      Distro is no shorthand, if you like wikipedia:

      «Metaplasm where the loss or disappearance of one or more phonemes or syllables occurs AT THE END of some words»

      If it was an apocope, it would be, distribute, distribute, or something like that.

      Another mistake is that dictionaries do include apocopes, in fact because they have a defined form.

      "WRONG.
      *** —–> (Apoc.). <—- ***
      1. adj. bad. U. before sm Bad day. "

      Neither Ma or M are shorthand for bad, just bad.

      There being so many good examples, you chose the most absurd possible.

      AUTO is NOT accepted as a shorthand by the RAE.
      "car-.
      (From the gr. Αὐτο-).

      1. elem. compos. It means 'own' or 'by oneself'. "

      Not for the dictionaries in English.

      "From Ancient Greek αὐτός (autos,“ self ”), metanalyzed from auto- in words such as automatic, autopilot, and automobile."

      It is an element of composition, since automobile is a compound word.

      I don't want to create anything new, "distro" has been said for a long time, and in the beginning it was used to refer only to GNU distributions, that's my point.

      It seems perfect to me how you want to call them, I would still recommend it, even if it takes longer to write.

      1.    George said

        I knew I was going to go to the RAE and go find the first term, advance the scroll bar a little and:

        auto 2. (Short).
        1. m. automobile (‖ car).
        And there is the redirect link. Just like I said a few hours ago. Auto-mobile is like television and thousands of cut out compound words that we use.
        Not always these apocopes can be exact (like any language), and other things can be used, see the case a lot / very.

        Do not try to create an essay for a new term (you want to separate distro from distribution, you also think that distro has no root in distribution), it seems that it got used to you. For years some users have been so that the definition is expanded to GNU / Linux and its name is not cut to "Linux", now they want to cut distribution to distro.

        Anyway, looking at the venn diagram, it mentions the "linux distributions" just plain. The gnu guys are going to get mad, it is almost impossible to have a linux without some gnu tool and to be called a distribution.

        1.    Staff said

          Comrade, of course I went to the RAE, when you want to know if a word exists and what it means, you go to the dictionary.
          Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there you can find even the term MEME of the internet (tell me that this also exists officially), for such popular drawings.
          But despite Wikipedia being a reliable source, the RAE is the official that keeps records and watches over changes in the language.

          Now you are mixing shortening with apocope, and again with a wrong example (Herróneo for Tina Toledo).
          Very is not an apocope of much.
          Muy is an adverb.

          Sorry to deny you, but I do believe that Distro was born of Distribution, but not as a synonym, but to refer to a type of distribution in particular, and now it is becoming fashionable to use them as if all distributions were the same.

          In the diagram I advise you to read the small print.
          Get mad at GNU? Too bad, it is what it is. Any free software that is distributed is a distribution, it doesn't matter if it is an OS or not.

          1.    George said

            Everything I say already has references and I have checked it before .. Look for "Apocope in Adverbs". Very is a surviving apocope of old Spanish muito -> a lot.

            I looked further and found that the distro is an original clipping of English, which was exported to multiple languages.
            http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distro

            Anyway. Do what you want or can, I just want to say make it more equitable, and call linux and gnu whatever you want alike. Otherwise the scale is not balanced, and the day will come that GNU needs to have the same renown, because Linux as it is will continue to be plagued with closed parts and they will have to take their separate paths. Cheers

          2.    Staff said

            @George
            I cannot grant you that "muy" is short for "a lot", literally it is from "muito", you put it yourself, "muito" branched out and today, both are adverbs with different meaning and uses.
            One as a superlative of significance and the other to denote abundance.

            Eg I have a lot of money is not the same as I have a lot of money.

            To be an apocope it would have to mean and be used for the same thing.

            Regarding the Distro, although it is not an apocope, I take off my hat, believe me I would like to grant it and at least add a note to the article (unfortunately I do not have permission to edit it), but there are sources of greater weight than today day they don't take it like that.
            In addition to the first drafts of the one you found date from 2005 (and only in English), several years after the term Distro was already used, in Spanish it does not appear, perhaps it is only a matter of time for the change to be adopted in the official dictionaries of each language.

  13.   Garbage_Killer said

    Magnificent is what I was looking for for what I have in mind.

  14.   pandev92 said

    I think that enough evidence and definitions of what a product is was provided, to take for granted that a piece of free software is also a product. Whether you want to admit it or not is something else.

    1.    Staff said

      @ Pandev92.
      Could you name at least one?
      What I saw was a shower of product concepts, but no argument that relates the concept of free software to those definitions.
      What else would I like someone to raise their hand to speak with arguments, or at least with examples, of:
      Like the ideas of freedom, they are a product.
      Of how ethics is a product.
      How the social solidarity of a community is a product.
      ...

      1.    pandev92 said

        You keep mixing pears with apples, the concept of free software is one thing, and the piece of software with the free license is another, that piece of software is a product, created by one person and that is redistributed to hundreds of other users. people, free of charge or with a payment.

        1.    Staff said

          Even if I took that for granted, anyway who mixes pears with serious apples you, well, I've always said "free software" not a piece of software with a free license.
          But for starters, free software cannot be separated into parts and remain the same.
          Code + ideology, without a free license, it is not free software.
          Ideology + free license, no code, it is not free software.
          Code + free license, without ideology, this is not even possible, because the ideology is included in the open nature of the code and legally represented in the license.

          What would be the overwhelming evidence that they showed to affirm that free software is a product?
          Would the definition of product be?

  15.   DanielC said

    So a child cannot be the product of a relationship, since there was no payment involved?
    The product of the operations cannot be called product because there is no payment in the use of the factors?

    A product is everything that is offered to cover a need, either through payment or free of charge. You don't have to think about it so much.

    1.    Staff said

      Partner, read the first paragraphs completely and calmly:

      «The term product has different uses, for example to indicate that something is the result of a job we say:“ it is a product of… ”

      In ECONOMY and MARKETING (WHICH IS THE FIELD THAT INTERESTS US IN THIS TEXT) there are many definitions by various authors. »

      Let's not mix pears with apples. Thank you.

  16.   Rodolfo said

    Hi Tina, it seems to me that you lack free software in something, it offers services, in addition to being a product, it is the most important thing that free software offers itself more than its products from my point of view. It is where most of your profits come in.
    Greetings!.

    1.    Tina Toledo said

      Hello Rodolfo:
      Completely agree with you. I did not overlook the concept of "Service" as a product, in fact I referred to a page that contains several product concepts:
      Ricardo Romero says: "everything, good or service, that is likely to be sold"
      The American Marketing Association adds: "Thus, a product can be an idea, a physical entity (a good), a service, or any combination of the three."

      I leave once again the link to that page: http://www.promonegocios.net/mercadotecnia/producto-definicion-concepto.html

      Now, it seems to me that many of us here conclude that, regardless of whether the GNU / Linux operating systems are called "distros" or "distributions," they are, without a doubt, products.
      What is interesting here is not the approach of the main speaker and his arguments, what is important is the conclusion that we draw based on the premises presented by the participants.
      What I mean by this? The heart of the debate is not to convince Staff that he is wrong, what is succulent are the arguments that have been presented and that make the point very clear. Pandev92 has said it: enough evidence has been provided to take for granted that a piece of free software is a product.

    2.    Staff said

      The services are not the software itself.
      When you hire a gardener, the product / service is not the person, it is the fact that they prune your garden.
      Another colleague said that even water is a product.
      He was shown that water is not a product, that what is sold is the transport service, bottling, labeling, brand and prestige ... All that is the product (or service, whatever you want), but water is a right.
      The same goes for free software.
      Everyone says it is a product, and they put the definition.
      But nobody takes the definition of a product in one hand and the definition of free software in the other and see if they can be amalgamated.
      I leave you what he replied to pandev92:
      «What else would I like someone to raise their hand to speak with arguments, or at least with examples, of:
      Like the ideas of freedom, they are a product.
      Of how ethics is a product.
      How the social solidarity of a community is a product.
      ... »

      1.    Tina Toledo said

        Staff, I don't know if you are addressing Rodolfo or me, but since I also use the word "service" and that is what you are discussing, I will take it for granted: I already told you very clearly, I repeat it again and I write it in capital letters: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN CONVINCING YOU. And I dare say that Rodolfo shares that position with me and if I am wrong I apologize to him in advance.
        And it is not that this is an ad hominem argument or something personal, it is simply the case that enough arguments have been presented to conclude that free software is, in effect, a product, the only one that has been in charge of disqualifying them it's you, nobody else.

        I already gave that situation a reading and again I tell you: debating with a person who does not accept any argument, no matter how solid it may be, is foolish. It is not an attack on your person, it is a fact. This topic has more than eighty comments and I have not seen another user, besides you, say "Pandev, Tina, Isar, Rhoconlinux, Mario, Diazepan ... you are wrong in your positions for that reason"

        And I'm going to tell you, Staff, what is that reading:
        1.-That in fact, all of us who have debated you are ignorant of the subject and that the arguments that we have presented are not up to your exposition and knowledge, since, in all cases, you do not give us any reason. .
        2.-That everyone here has dislike for you and we have agreed to tell you that your article is wrong only to contradict you, because until now I have not seen anyone who claims that you are right more than you.
        3.-That you are not willing to agree to anyone, even when the arguments presented are valid.

        Points 1 and 2 seem very unlikely to me ... I don't think that all of us who have debated you, and that we are a great majority, are ignorant of the case ... I might think that some of us are ... but all of us? I can grant you that I am ignorant of the matter ... but are all those who have told you «Staff, your approach is not correct for this ...» ?. I do not think so. And I don't think so because, I repeat, you give no one any reason. It is also unlikely to me that we have agreed to make you angry. At least nobody suggested it to me.
        By disqualification I am left with point 3: You are not willing to accept any argument, no matter how sustained it may be, that bury the arguments of your topic. And so I don't argue.

        With me you make a mistake, I do not debate with you, or with anyone, to try to convince you. In this sense, I want it to be clear to you that the arguments that I presented in my second intervention are directed towards all the participants and not towards you, in particular. What do I want to tell you with this? That my arguments despite being a response to your topic are public and are subject to ratification and / or disqualification by whoever wishes to do so. Within that logic I have also evaluated the responses of other participants and your own and, honestly, for me your article has gone to second term because, at least I, I REMAIN WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF OTHERS. Each one will evaluate the content of each intervention and will draw THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

        1.    Staff said

          When I don't reply directly to someone I start with @Username

          "It is simply and simply the case that enough arguments have been presented to conclude that free software is, indeed, a product, the only one who has been in charge of disqualifying them is you, no one else."

          He cites a single conclusive argument (One is enough) that has been discussed here, I have only read product definitions, but not a comparison of product definitions - free software, in which it is seen that they are entirely compatible.

          «It is not an attack on your person, it is a fact. This topic has more than eighty comments and I have not seen another user, besides you, say "Pandev, Tina, Isar, Rhoconlinux, Mario, Diazepan ... you are wrong in your positions for that reason"

          Again we return to the argumentum ad populum.
          Most supporters do not turn a false argument into a true one.
          And as you say:
          "You are wrong in your positions FOR SUCH REASON"
          I always offer open arguments for debate. I've even retracted some of them, which is not seen with many of the others (speaking of nonsense).

          «1.-That indeed, ...»

          The one who has labeled another as ignorant on the subject (Literally) has been you, I for my part grant them every reason when they explain what a product is, but not when they equate them without offering the definition of free software.

          «2.-Let everyone here ...»

          Look for the message from partner Victor.

          «3.-That you are not willing to grant him ...»
          I have tired of repeating that before logical arguments I withdraw, and I have already done so.

          «… 3: You are not willing to accept any argument, no matter how sustained it may be, that bury the arguments of your topic. And so I don't argue. "

          Cite one of those supported arguments, only one.
          Meanwhile, I cite you some examples that border on the absurd, exposed by some of the same ones that you mentioned.

          "Diazepan -There are sites that mention self-esteem as a product"
          Out of context.

          »Rhoconlinux - it doesn't matter if we like it or not, software is bought and sold. Hence, it is a product. POINT."
          Out of context (I generalize software) and false, not all free software is sold.

          «Isar -http: //lema.rae.es/drae/? Val = product. I understand, according to the first meaning that it is) »
          Out of context, I clarified it in my first paragraph.

          "With me you make a mistake, I do not debate with you, or with anyone, to try to convince you."
          I have never said or implied that you try to convince me, just as I do not.
          I simply present my evidence, if others want to call free software a product, a dog, a tree, I don't care, I already made it clear that the language is flexible.
          What is not acceptable is that, no matter how personal opinion it may be, it is said that:

          "Accuses others of using fallacies but the article itself is full of them"

          And is that when it comes to you, it turns out that my arguments have fallacies, and if I tell you that yours do, the constant is a simple "I don't see them."
          Both by themselves are already fallacies, 1- Why don't you show that they exist in my arguments and 2. Because just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist, and that's why I showed them.

  17.   xeip said

    Regards,

    I see in the comments a controversy about the various interpretations of the word "product" and the technicality that has led to such discussion.

    Some considerations that may be useful to the debate:

    1. According to its etymology, the word "product" comes from the Latin "productus" and means "produced, achieved, carried out." Its lexical components are: the prefix pro- (ahead) and ductus (guided, driven). The Latin verb is producere (to engender: make to be born, create). Ductus is the passive participle of ducere, which, in turn, comes from the Indo-European "deuk", which means to guide, to drag.

    2. According to its etymology, the word "distribution" comes from the Latin "distributio" and means "action and effect of distributing." Its lexical components are: the prefix dis- (multiple separation), tributum (tax, contribution), plus the suffix -tion (action and effect).

    The source of all these data is, of course, an etymological dictionary. Consulting it can give us clues about the changes and modifications of meaning - and why they occur - of certain words throughout history.

    Reading the comments on this post, it may seem that there is a single and exclusive meaning of the word "product". Be careful because this is not the case. More than two thousand years ago, when our Latino ancestors began to create a consensus around this word, they did not do so in the same context that we do now. They were not talking about "consumers", "supply", "goods" and "services". This does not mean, of course, that the product is not that too, but it may also not be.

    In keeping with the topic that concerns us today, we can affirm that free software is a "program" (or set of them), a utility created for computer use, which grants four freedoms to its users and is "distributed" freely (often priceless). This program may or may not be a commodity product (the unconscious meaning of the word "product" in capitalist society). However, it seems clear that it is a "product" if we speak of something "carried out." Therefore here the controversy arrives, I understand, by its commercial meaning.

    It is usual for the precursors of free software to defend its non-restrictive nature and prioritize it with respect to the commercial one, since commercial products are in themselves restrictive (price, patents, licenses…). They hope that the free flow of knowledge will always (and this means always) take place. The four freedoms of Free Software are precisely the way to protect this from happening. That is why, I understand, the subversive tone (of wanting to change "assimilated" concepts; the unconscious meaning of the word "product" in capitalist society) of Staff's post and his willingness to find another word that better defines Free Software. I understand that it is not so much a technicality as a will to be more precise.

    I sense, on the other hand, that the word "creation" generates more consensus than "product." But I can be wrong, of course.

    1.    Staff said

      Exact!
      At last, habemus debate.

      You have touched on the important points, the two definitions (both in the correct context) and differentiated others such as creation and product (or production to boot).

      With those elements in the balance you can already compare.

      Let's see, to enter the product category:

      -Every product must be the result of the production process, TRUE
      -All free software is the result of the production process, FALSE

      -All product must be put on demand (sell, give away, rent, etc.), TRUE
      -All free software is put on demand, FALSE

      -Any product must satisfy a need for the user, giving a profit (not necessarily economic) to the producer. TRUE
      -All free software satisfies a need and gives the developer some kind of profit, FALSE

      I don't think I have to touch the political, ethical, social or legal edges of free software to prove more.

      With the previous points, it is clear to me that not all free software meets the characteristics to be a product, therefore, free software is not a product per se.

      If anyone is interested, I can explain why free software does not meet the point you want, of which you mention.

  18.   Windousian said

    I have a question for the author. If free software is not a product, why do the FSF and GNU use the term "product" to refer to free software?
    An example (and there are many on your pages):
    «To avoid confusion, when a software company says that YOUR PRODUCT IS FREE SOFTWARE (« free software »), it is advisable to always check the distribution terms to verify that users are really being granted all the freedoms that free software implies … »
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.es.html

    1.    Staff said

      It is a mere misinterpretation of the reading.

      Perhaps with another highlight it is better understood, Ah! and let me add what you omitted from the quote.

      “TO AVOID CONFUSION, when a SOFTWARE COMPANY SAYS THAT its product is free software (« free software »), it is advisable to always check the distribution terms to verify that users are really being granted all the freedoms that free software implies ... "
      "... Sometimes the software really is free, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT."

      It starts out very clear, it has the purpose of avoiding confusion, since there are companies that say that their products are free software (because they say so, when in reality it is that they CONTAIN free software, but the product actually includes other elements, which may not be free, and even not be software).

      It's like I'm patching up Perrier to verify that his product is really pure water, I don't think anyone can say why I'm assigning the product category to water for that.

      Or would you take it like that?

      1.    Staff said

        recommend to*

      2.    Windousian said

        The word "product" is constantly used alongside the concept "free software." Use the gnu.org search engine and you will see it. As I understand in the cited text, the software is or is not free, verifying whether users are really being granted all the freedoms that free software implies. Nothing to do with commercialism.

        I suppose you know "freeware". Is this software a product or a distribution? It is not sold and is freely distributed. According to your explanation I understand that it is a "distribution" of proprietary software, correct?

        On the other hand, a GNU / Linux "distro" that is given in exchange for money becomes a product and is no longer free software. Is that it? Stallman sold his apps and this worries me.

        The word "product" is not on the FSF's list of cursed words:
        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
        Can you quote any official text that supports this idea that free software is not a product? The concept / definition of "free software" is not clear ... But your post suggests that software with free software licenses is not a product and that seems wrong to me, or am I reading you wrong?

        1.    Staff said

          «The word 'product' is constantly used alongside the concept 'free software'. Use the gnu.org search engine and you will see it. »

          AND? Here it is not debated whether it is used or not, or by how many people it is used, or anything like that, it has already been explained that the term product has different meanings and can be used in many contexts.
          To the subject please.

          "As I understand the quoted text, the software is or is not free, verifying whether users are really being granted all the freedoms that free software implies. Nothing to do with commercialism. "

          Correct, what I do not explain is why, if you understand that, you bring it up, if here we are talking about commercialism, and NOT about what makes software free software.

          «I suppose you know“ freeware ”. Is that software a product or distribution? »

          These kinds of misrepresentations, intentional or not, are what generate the terrible misinformation that must be read today as a blog.

          «It is not sold and is distributed freely. According to your explanation, I understand that it is a “distribution” of proprietary software, correct? »

          Correct (although it should be clarified in which context you are using the term distribution), and if you understand that, what are you trying to do, by asking nonsense questions? like that of wanting to differentiate product / distribution.

          On the other hand, a GNU / Linux "distro" that is given in exchange for money becomes a product and is no longer free software. Is that it?

          No, again you fall the same, here it is not discussed whether or not to convert a software into free software.

          "Can you quote any official text that supports this idea that free software is not a product?"

          No, I don't think there is an obtuse person who decides to write to affirm a negative as you intend.
          Therefore, your request is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

          And even if the case could be, it would never be official, because there is NO institution in the world that governs and dictates the language, the closest thing we have to Spanish is the RAE, and it is content to keep a record of changes in language.

          "The concept / definition of" free software "is not clear ... But your entry suggests that software with free software licenses is not a product and that seems wrong to me, or am I reading you wrong?"

          You are reading me well, the problem is that you are not clear about what free software is, and so you cannot go deeper.

          ex.
          If I don't know what a cup is, I can't compare it or differentiate it from a glass.
          Or if I can, but I must not, since I risk looking like a fool.

          1.    Tina Toledo said

            You keep rolling in your roll and you don't understand anything. Please someone who is not Staff and who explained it better than him can answer me if he is so kind. Thanks in advance

        2.    Tina Toledo said

          Windousian:

          There is something I do not understand: I personally DO believe that free software is a product, during this debate more than enough arguments have been presented to consider, without a doubt, that SL is a product.

          You have presented strong evidence - official GNU texts - showing that even GNU has no qualms about using the adjective "PRODUCT" alongside "FREE SOFTWARE." So far there is more tangible evidence that the SL is indeed a product and no official text to show that it is not.

          I ask you, and only you, Windóusico or anyone else who is kind enough to answer my question, except Staff because I already know your answer in advance: so far I have not read any argument that shows me that free software IS NOT A PRODUCT, certainly Staff has made a very passionate defense of their position - and I respect that, believe it or not - but so far all their arguments are based on their own interpretations without giving more reason. As an example I put this:
          Let's see, to enter the product category:

          -Every product must be the result of the production process, TRUE
          -All free software is the result of the production process, FALSE

          -All product must be put on demand (sell, give away, rent, etc.), TRUE
          -All free software is put on demand, FALSE

          -Any product must satisfy a need for the user, giving a profit (not necessarily economic) to the producer. TRUE
          -All free software satisfies a need and makes some kind of profit to the developer, FALSE »

          Here some options are crossed out with "TRUE" and others with "FALSE" without explaining the methodology and the criteria used to determine what is true and what is false. In other words, we should believe it just because.
          I don't want to give any more examples because that's where the history of the debate is.

          Now my question is: is this business of believing that free software is not a product a leap of faith?

          1.    Staff said

            «You have presented strong evidence - official GNU texts - showing that even GNU has no qualms about using the adjective" PRODUCT "alongside" FREE SOFTWARE. "

            That proves that the GNU is not shy about using one next to the other, but NOT that they are the same.

            ex.
            -Verify that your open source is free software
            This does not mean that open source and free software are the same.
            -Check if your product is pure water.
            This is not to say that water is a product.

            Tina Toledo:
            «Here some options are crossed out with" TRUE "and others with" FALSE "without explaining the methodology and the criteria used to determine what is true and what is false. In other words, we should believe it just because.
            I don't want to give any more examples because that's where the history of the debate is.

            Now my question is: is this business of believing that free software is not a product a leap of faith? "

            I:
            "If anyone is interested, I can explain why free software does not meet the point you want, of which you mention."

            If you are interested, just ask, but there is no need to lie.

            1. All products must be the result of the production process.

            Demonstration:
            rhoconlinux "Product is the derivative of a production process."

            Tina Toledo «In this place there are some definitions of Product that I think are very accurate: http://www.promonegocios.net/mercadotecnia/producto-definicion-concepto.html»

            There we find that:

            "The first dimension of a product is that which refers to its organoleptic characteristics, which are determined in the production process,"

            ergo 1. TRUE

            2. -All free software is the result of the production process.

            «In the creative process, the human being -one of the infinite universal creators- performs and is carried out with a level and with degrees of freedom and independence much higher than those used in the production process. Grades and levels that, in your case, lead to its result or performance being unique and almost exclusive and excluding a similar repetition with another of the same type, condition and / or quality.

            The human being activated in a creative process is molding with that broad freedom and independence, in concrete and / or abstract terms, new elements to incorporate into his universe, and to the realization of all, contributing his personal and social part of individual fulfillment through of the product of its creation.

            In the production process, the human being recreates an iteration or repetition of the same pattern of the elements and variables used in the production of a certain thing, thus achieving the same or similar result or product at the end of each activation.

            In the production process, the human being, per se, or due to the imposition of the environment or the conditions of the activity, restricts and conditions their freedom and independence, prioritizing in relation to the product, its environment or the desired result by successive repetition of effort . It subordinates and conditions the variables or pre-established elements outside of him or her. "

            http://www.web1x1.org/TeoriaNece/TeoNece9_ProcesoCreativoProductivo.htm

            Both in software, regardless of whether it is proprietary or free, we can find creative elements, to the degree that it is considered art.
            Like the Dharma desktop theme.
            "This artistic set this time is Dharma, which I already very gladly introduced a few weeks ago." Malcer, creator of the theme.
            The games include soundtracks and graphic elements (hand-painted backgrounds for example) that are part of the software and come from a creative process.

            2. FALSE

            3. -All product must be put on demand

            Tina toledo «In this place there are some definitions of Product that I think are very accurate: http://www.promonegocios.net/mercadotecnia/producto-definicion-concepto.html»

            Here we find that:

            «According to Jerome McCarthy and William Perrault, authors of the book« Marketing Strategic Planning from Theory to Practice », the product« is the OFFER with which a company satisfies a need »

            «For Ricardo Romero, author of the book« Marketing », the product is« everything, good or service, that is SUSCEPTIBLE TO BE SOLD. »

            «The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines the term product, as« a set of attributes (characteristics, functions, benefits and uses) that give it the capacity to be exchanged or used. Usually, it is a combination of tangible and intangible aspects. Thus, a product can be an idea, a physical entity (a good), a service, or any combination of the three. The product EXISTS FOR EXCHANGE PURPOSES and for the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives »»

            "According to the Marketing Dictionary of Cultural SA, the product" is any object, service or idea that is perceived as capable of satisfying a need and that represents the company's OFFER. "

            3. TRUE (thanks Tina Toledo for the sources.)

            4. All free software is put on demand.

            «The freedom to redistribute copies to help your neighbor (freedom 2). »GNU.org
            FREEDOM not OBLIGATION.

            «I want to clarify that these freedoms are not obligations, they are freedoms to do something if you want.
            For example, freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program however you want, but it is not mandatory to run it however you want, if you are a masochist you can run it however you want and you can not run it at all.
            «You have the freedom 2 to redistribute copies BUT NOT THE IMPOSED OBLIGATION»
            Richard Stallman. (March 2011, conference in Spain)

            4. FALSE

            IF ANY OTHER POINT VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED, I AM AT YOUR ORDER, except for Tina Toledo, of course, why…. well ... it's Tina Toledo 🙂

          2.    Tina Toledo said

            You keep rolling in your roll and you don't understand anything. Please someone who is not Staff and who explained it better than him can answer me if he is so kind. Thanks in advance

          3.    Tina Toledo said

            ps It's not true, Windóusico I feel very sorry for having gotten involved in this, if you want to answer me I would really appreciate it, I would like to know your opinion, however the truth is that I already have my conclusions from all this.
            If you realize that some people have not even participated, today two of them told me that this topic is already a joke and it is not worth writing anymore ... but hey ... at least this makes me happy for the afternoon.

          4.    xeip said

            Tina

            It seems that it is quite clear what Staff wants to express, a very different thing, if you allow me, is that you agree with him.

            I get the impression that this post has been flawed from the first comment, a bit unfortunate, and then it has turned into something personal. And this has not helped the discussion of ideas and concepts, which is the place where we all get rich.

            Here it is debated using criteria that are not at all untouchable and Staff polemicizes with the desire to be more precise in the definition of free software. You can disagree with him, of course, but from there to disavow him for incompetence or dismiss him as having no idea what he is talking about, it seems to me, at least, exaggerated. From my point of view, software rather than a commercial product (which may or may not be) is "software" and although what I am saying may seem like a truism, it makes the controversy raised by Staff relevant.

            For my part, I understand the spirit of the author when he expresses his ideas and I identify with this essence. The economic dimension has subjected the rest of the dimensions and has impoverished human existence (you can agree with what I say or not, but for me, observing the reality in which the people of this planet live, it is evidence) . A unique thought that runs triumphantly at ease without listening to anyone. A blind force (a god, finally), before whom no sacrifices are spared. Wanting to subvert their language and safeguard a proposal that was born with a clear desire to propose an alternative of community life in the world of software, but also of disobedience and resistance, I see it frankly healthy and not a "leap of faith" at all.

            Greetings all.

          5.    Windousian said

            As soon as I read that Staff considers freeware a "distribution" I was no longer interested in the discussion. One is already a certain age, I cannot pay attention to someone who says that Firefox or Thunderbird are not products (in the commercial sense.

          6.    Tina Toledo said

            xeip:
            Staff proposed the contextual framework of the issue: marketing / economics. Within this framework, any type of software is a product, we honestly shouldn't even discuss it. Now, according to you, what Staff proposes is to consider free software and catalog it from a technical / social / economic point of view and that is something else.

            Also, what would be the purpose of looking for another meaning to substitute "product" in relation to free software? Staff does not explain well what is intended with it, or is it the case, that as you say, they only want to remove the word "product" because they associate it with ruthless capitalism and the extremists of the SL it causes hives to where it never gives them the sunlight on the body?

            If so, then it was posed in those terms, but without demagoguery and in a more practical sense. Personally, why have I disavowed Staff? In the first place because his approach and his arguments during the debate are confusing and disorderly and, secondly and most importantly, is that what he wants is not to raise his point of view but to impose it:
            Staff said:
            "I just said that, it is not an opinion article, curious that in your first comment if you thought about it."
            https://blog.desdelinux.net/de-productos-distrobuciones-y-distros/#comment-93331

            If, as you say, Staff polemicizes with the desire to be more precise in the definition of free software, I agree and support the idea, but then seek consensus, not try to impose their idea on us as if it were dogma. And to believe in any dogma is to take a leap of faith.

          7.    Staff said

            @ Windóusico
            You should read in full, every time I have exchanged texts with you, I have to quote because you misinterpret my comments (almost always omitting parts of them).
            I said:
            «Correct (ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE CLARIFIED IN WHAT CONTEXT YOU ARE USING THE TERM DISTRIBUTION)»
            Note the capital letters.

            And it is that in the commercial sphere, anything that is distributed from the producer to the consumer is a distribution, from a box of apples to a cd with firefox, and I am not saying it.

            «Distribution is that set of activities, which are carried out from the moment the product has been produced by the manufacturer until it has been purchased by the final consumer, and which aims precisely to deliver the product (good or service) to the consumer . » -http: //es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribuci%C3%B3n_%28negocios%29

            In terms of computing, there are records of how the word in less than 15 years has adopted new meanings and today it is correct to say that freeware can be a distribution, and I am not saying it.

            “It can also take the form of a binary distribution, an installer (.exe) that can be downloaded from the Internet. Software distribution can also refer to types of Otherware (such as Careware and Donateware). »

            http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribuci%C3%B3n_de_software

            As long as all free software cannot be considered a product, it is wrong to say that free software is a product.
            You could say that some can be used as if it were a product, but it is not the same.

          8.    Staff said

            @Tina Toledo

            "Within this framework, any type of software is a product ..."
            A statement like that requires verification.

            "… That honestly we shouldn't even discuss."
            This just turns the comment into a free claim.

            My intention is none other than to avoid misinformation, to the best of my ability of course, since obviously I cannot, nor do I have an interest in forcing anyone not to misinform, but if clarification (or attempt to) is useful for someone, it is enough for me .

            Without any demagoguery or appealing to what the majority believe, I have presented practical evidence, and in return I have only seen fallacious arguments, disqualifications, and again and again and again, the product concept, which alone does not prove anything.

            Well, you will not let me lie, when saying that the best way (LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC, PHILOSOPHICAL, ...) to know if 2 things are equal, is the COMPARISON, and for that it is necessary to expose the two concepts to scrutiny.

            Proposing a dogma is saying "All software is a product" and expecting people to believe it because they do.
            It is the equivalent of saying:
            "Every stone is a weapon"
            "Every clamp is a hammer"

            And it becomes a fallacy when supporting the saying, based on the fact that on some (or many) occasion (s) they have been used as such.

            To affirm these things is a lie, and to do so in a public medium is disinformation.

          9.    Windousian said

            "You should read in full, every time I have exchanged texts with you, I have to quote because you misinterpret my comments (almost always omitting parts of them)."
            @Staff, you do the same and I am not complaining. Distribution and product mean many things but you insist on using them within contexts that only you use. When Stallman sold his Emacs by mail for $ 150, no one doubted it was a product. An application with a free software license that was delivered as a binary distribution (accompanied by its source code if necessary).

            Binary distribution and GNU / Linux distribution give different meanings to the word "distribution" and with "product" the same thing happens. Catholic cardinal is not the same as subcutaneous cardinal. We all know free software products in the computer market and the current language is handled in these terms. Nobody says "Mozilla distributions are big on the computer market," accept it. Your personal vision is curious but it is not an established norm. I recommend that you continue to spread it, it may be imposed in the future.

          10.    Staff said

            Windousian

            @Staff, you do the same and I am not complaining.
            Let's see, to begin with, I do not do the same, your appointments do not end in a comma or a period, YOU SHORT THE PARAGRAPH and thereby MODIFY THE CONTENT and CHANGE THE MEANING of it.

            Distribution and product mean many things but you insist on using them within contexts that only you use.

            Come on tell me something that I have not CLEARED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article.
            «The term product has different uses, for example to indicate that something is the result of a job we say:“ it is a product of… ”

            In economics and marketing (which is the area that interests us in this text) ... »

            So it's you who wants us to use other contexts arbitrarily.

            “When Stallman sold his Emacs by mail for $ 150, nobody doubted it was a product. An application with a free software license that was delivered as a binary distribution (accompanied by its source code if necessary). »

            AND? You go on superbly naming all free software a product, just because one (or several) have been used as such, when LOGIC by itself or extrapolated to many other fields of knowledge, including linguistics. It tells us that GENERALITIES ARE NOT NAMED BASED ON EXCEPTIONS, (In law: there is no legislation based on exceptions) and pretending to do so is a CASUISTIC FALLACY.

            ex.
            «- An ice ax was the murder weapon with which Leon Trotsky was murdered.
            -Every ice ax is a murder weapon »
            The first line is a true argument, but the conclusion reached is false.

            "Distribution ... blah blah blah ... a future."

            You still don't say anything that I haven't said from the article, and pretend to use it as YOUR argument borders on sadness.

            Staff:
            «Language is not something static, it is not governed or dictated.

            Unfortunately, the proprietary software companies (and governments behind them) know this very well, they know that if they use an existing word for something totally opposite and repeat it until it becomes fashionable, the weak-minded people will be subjected to the media bombardment and that wrong meaning can be imposed. "

            That same kind of weak-minded people are the ones who believe that open source and free software are the same, just because they have repeated it tirelessly, and now they also repeat it even on their blogs, but they don't even know, or "They are not clear" the concept of free software.

            1.    elav said

              But are they still on this fucking topic? Please guys, enough is enough, in the end you will not reach any consensus or change the definition of "Product".


          11.    Windousian said

            Language is not something static, it is not governed or dictated ... and it is not invented in a boredom afternoon. Keep philosophizing only Staff.

          12.    Staff said

            @ Windóusico

            And so you run out of arguments, congratulations champion.
            By the way, I am not inventing anything, you can verify in any dictionary or in the pages that others cited, the definitions that I mention in my article.

          13.    Windousian said

            @Staff
            «Some as basic as:

            Product is all that can be sold.

            Other more complex:

            Product is that good or service, tangible or intangible, that generates profit in cash or other products to the producer at the time of exchange (known as SALE) »

            Software with free software licenses can be sold (the FSF and GNU make this very clear). The definitions you cite take your reason away. The rest is a soliloquy of little substance. You should look for a product definition that is compatible with your vision of free distribution. You can say, for example, that product is everything that can be sold except free software (or something similar).

            We read in other entries. Salu2.

          14.    Staff said

            That it can be sold is not the same as it is mandatory to sell it (exchange it), there the big difference, that obligation if it exists in anything that you want to generalize as a product.

            Remember that free software enters what is in the public domain, and it is impossible to sell or exchange to someone, something that is already by law.

            Greetings.

          15.    Windousian said

            According to your first definition, everything that can be sold is a product. It doesn't matter if anyone in their right mind buys something that is available for free. There is evidence that free software applications have been sold in CD form (appealing to the ignorance of potential buyers). In fact it can make sense in very isolated places without Internet access (as Stallman did in the beginning).

            I hadn't mentioned it before but this:
            "People who say they are fall into a fallacy of hasty generalization" is not right. An edible is anything that can be eaten. It's not good for me that your grandmother doesn't feed you "groceries", that hers is "delicacies." Nor does it help me that they are not edible if nobody eats them. You can eat them if you want, that you don't like it doesn't prevent it from being edible. And with this if I end this issue. Salu2

          16.    Windousian said

            Another detail, the FSF encourages the sale of free software at a fair price:
            http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.es.html

            Nowhere does it say that the free software license cedes ownership to all humans and that by law it is yours in advance. What it does indicate is that selling free software is not the same as selling proprietary software. In the first case, a free distribution copy is sold (with the source code available) and in the other case, a user license is usually sold. Now I am done;).

          17.    Staff said

            Your ability to modify the content and meaning of sentences at your convenience never ceases to amaze me.

            I always have to make an appointment when I talk to you.

            Anyway, here we go.

            «THERE ARE MANY DEFINITIONS OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

            Some as BASIC as:

            Product is all that can be sold.

            Other more COMPLEX: ...

            (AND I CONCLUDE WITH :) But all with the common denominator of producer-payment. »

            Later, through the comments of the detractors themselves, more definitions were brought from which, some qualities of MANDATORY CHARACTER for a being a product can be extracted.

            -Be the result of a production process
            -That its own existence aims to be put on demand.
            (Those two are enough for me, but I invite you to expose more)

            And a free software DOES NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION to comply with these two qualities, therefore, although there are SPECIFIC cases in which it is fulfilled, IT MUST NOT BE GENERALIZED.

            There is also "evidence" that bottled water is sold, cans with air from the French Alps, that there are private schools that charge very well, CDs with Beethoven's work.
            But affirming that water, air, education or public domain works are sold and that is why they are products, only shows the lack of ability to see that the product is the physical medium, the transport, storage or execution.
            Come on, that even in some proprietary software happens (but now with cloud computing), when WHAT IS SOLD IS A USE LICENSE.

            Regarding your example of the edible, your problem is definitely linguistics, you cannot distinguish between a noun and an adjective.
            Edible is an adjective, since it is a quality of something. Not a product, it is a noun.
            If your grandmother serves you a plate with red-hot screws, you are not going to tell me that they are edible or delicious.
            I see why it is so hard for you to understand why NOT ALL free software is a product.

            AH! and I didn't say that ALL free software is in the public domain.
            Read carefully, so you don't have to quote me again myself.
            And if it is not clear to you, in the page of the fsf and GNU they explain it, I see that you like to visit them too.
            Greetings.

          18.    Windousian said

            Your problem is that you confuse free software with public domain software, but I think that all is said. Salu2.

          19.    Windousian said

            I forgot your mention of my example ... Change edible for chair and delicacy for "stool with back", it is the same and it is a noun. All chairs are seats with backs that only fit one person. If for you free software is a "single sofa" then there you ^ _ ^.

          20.    Windousian said

            And edible can also be a noun, by the way, as a synonym for food:
            http://diccionarios.elmundo.es/diccionarios/cgi/diccionario/lee_diccionario.html?busca=comestible&diccionario=1&submit=Buscar+

            So you could save the screws because they are not edible (food).

          21.    Staff said

            @ Windóusico

            All public domain software is free software, not all free software is open source software.

            Well, it is non-copyrighted software that meets the mandatory qualities of free software.

            Until I leave you consultation sources, read before you comment.

            Well, if you change noun to noun, then I have nothing to allege, his argument becomes true, but he does not refute mine. Well, in a case in which the MANDATORY QUALITIES OF ONE ARE FOUND IN ANOTHER, then I agree to call them the same.

            Stool and chair comply with:
            -The purpose of serving as seats.
            -Be for single person use
            ... (If there is any MANDATORY QUALITY that has passed me by, in which they are not compatible, we would be talking about different things)

            I invite you to make a similar comparison with a product and free software. So you show me that they are the same or it is clear to you that they are different.

            But assuming what I would say of a chair or a stool, no, because that is only to avoid the question.

            If you affirm that EVERYTHING, I repeat, ALL free software is a product (IN THE FIELD OF MARKETING), prove it.
            The easiest way is the comparison.
            Take the mandatory qualities to be a product that you can extract from its definitions and check if ALL free software meets them, or vice versa.

            But leave aside the exceptions, because I repeat that logically, it is not legislated / named based on exceptions.

          22.    Windousian said

            I see that you are changing the discourse but you are still wrong. Before you said that free software is not a product. Now you say that not all free software is a product. I can accept that public domain software is not a product, but here comes the problem:

            "Nor should free software be confused with" public domain software. " The latter is that software that does not require a license, since its exploitation rights are for all humanity, because it belongs to everyone equally. Anyone can make use of it, always for legal purposes and stating its original authorship. This software would be the one whose author donates it to humanity or whose copyright has expired, after a period from the death of the latter, usually 70 years. If an author conditions its use under a license, however weak it may be, it is no longer in the public domain. "
            http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_libre

            Do you see it clear now? Something with current license, copyright or copyleft is not in the public domain. I can develop an application and donate it to humanity (leaving it free of licenses) without it being free software (distributing only the binary).

            My examples are for you to notice your basic error:
            Product is everything that can be sold and free software can be sold. For you, a box of apples is not a product until it is put on sale. The fruits of an apple tree do not have to be in the public domain. This is only so if the apple tree has no owner. Let's stop thinking about it, I know you try to exhaust me with cumbersome arguments to get the last word, but no matter how much you mess it up, you will still be wrong. So I abandon this sterile discussion.

          23.    Staff said

            To begin with, the only one who changes speeches (even those that are not yours) and evades questions
            it's you.
            I said, since I wrote the article, that THE FREE SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE CALLED A PRODUCT, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE MEETS THE MANDATORY CHARACTERISTICS TO BE SO.

            And that in some cases it is USED AS A PRODUCT WHEN IT IS SOLD IN CONJUNCTION WITH MAINTENANCE OR SERVICES PARALLEL TO THE SAME.
            See RHEL, LibreOffice Novell Edition.
            They are free software, which is acquired in a physical medium or not, but what they really sell you is the maintenance, and parallel services, but not the code (at least not the portion that is free).

            "I can accept that public domain software is not a product"

            Well, you just agreed with me, but let's follow the rest of your text.

            «, But here comes the problem:… Something with current license, copyright or copyleft is not in the public domain. I can develop an application and donate it to humanity (leaving it free of licenses) without it being free software (distributing only the binary). »

            I had already told you and I quote: "All public domain software is free software, not all free software is open source software."
            (I just saw that I had an error, in the end I should have written from the public domain, but anyway, I think the error was not so unfortunate, I'll explain why right away).
            With that clear, even though you should not call all free software "public domain" if you can call all public domain software free software (that's how I should have written it the first time 🙂)

            "Material in the public domain is compatible with the GNU GPL." -gnu.org

            Your mistake is when you claim that something licensed cannot be in the public domain.

            «CC0 (# CC0)

            The CC0 license is a contribution to the public domain by Creative Commons. A work published under CC0 is released into the public domain to the maximum extent permitted by law. "

            GNU.org in its section on free licenses, you can also look for the so-called the unlicense.

            And about the code, I think I've already explained to you sometime that not all software is binary, and even when it is, it is not impossible to decompile it. And that sharing the code is a freedom, not an obligation.

            And about, apples, chairs, food. stop putting words in my mouth and guess what I would say.

            If you want to stop thinking about it, cheer up! Make a comparison, as I have already asked you to others on repeated occasions. But all of them preferred to leave the "sterile discussion" because they know that they cannot fight it.

            If you don't have the ability to make the comparison yourself, I'll help you.

            Do you agree with Jerome McCarthy and William Perraul? when they affirm that "the product" is the offer with which a company satisfies a need ""

            Do you agree with The American Marketing Association? When he states that "The product exists for exchange purposes and for the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives"

          24.    Windousian said

            Let's see what the FSF writes about public domain software:

            “Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If the source code is in the public domain, it is a special case of non-copyleft free software, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all.

            In some cases, an executable program may be in the public domain but the source code may not be freely available. In that case it is not free software, because free software requires accessibility to the source code. On the other hand, MOST OF THE FREE SOFTWARE IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN but under copyright, and the holders of those rights have given legal permission for everyone to use it freely, using a free software license.

            Some people use the term "public domain" loosely to mean "free" or "free." However, "public domain" is a legal term whose precise meaning is "without copyright". To be as clear as possible, we recommend using the term 'public domain' to express this meaning only, and the use of the other expressions to convey their corresponding meanings. "

            There is free software in the public domain but they are exceptional cases within free software. Cite a free software project with that zero license. Nobody uses it and it is the equivalent of donating your work to humanity (waiving your copyright in writing), which I already mentioned. THE BSD / APACHE OR GPL LICENSED SOFTWARE IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND IS MAJORITY FREE SOFTWARE.

            Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, everything that is written automatically falls under the domain of copyright, including computer programs. Therefore, if you want a program you've written to be available in the public domain, you must take some legal steps to waive those rights; otherwise the program will be subject to copyright. Those legal measures are the CC0 license or writing a document where copyright is waived.

            So the important takeaways are these:

            -The public domain software is not a product (within what we are evaluating).
            -Free software and public domain software are not the same (that is clear).
            -There may be software in the public domain that is not free software (as mentioned by the FSF).
            -Free software is mostly a product, with the exception of that which falls into the category of public domain software (I do not know of relevant cases that justify its consideration).

            It seems incredible that a guy who always tries to differentiate free software from open source software for various reasons, now intends to convert free software into public domain software because they can refer to the same software. You live in your world, it is clear to me.

          25.    Windousian said

            @Staff
            «Do you agree with The American Marketing Association? When he states that "The product exists for exchange purposes and for the satisfaction of individual and organizational objectives"

            That definition is great. Free software satisfies the individual goals of the authors and the organization promoting it (FSF). It seems very successful to me.

          26.    Windousian said

            Do you agree with Jerome McCarthy and William Perraul? when they affirm that "the product" is the offer with which a company satisfies a need ""

            I do not know if it is incomplete but it is not very precise. Free software is the offer with which the FSF tries to satisfy the need for freedom in computing. Still I am not entirely convinced.

          27.    Staff said

            "Cite a free software project with that zero license."

            BETTER I CITE YOU 2 !, wikieducator and opengameart, and even if there were none, the mere possibility of using it invalidates your argument and reinforces mine.

            "THE SOFTWARE LICENSED OF THE BSD / APACHE OR GPL TYPE IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND IS MAJORITY FREE SOFTWARE."

            FALSE, this is a vile lie, I quote you literally what the GNU says about it. Again, in case you didn't see it in my previous text:

            "Material in the public domain is compatible with the GNU GPL." -gnu.org

            "Within the framework of the Berne Convention ..."
            With the Berne Convention, everything remains under copyright, FOR X YEARS, then AUTOMATICALLY these rights EXPIRE, without the author being able to do anything, and there is always THE POSSIBILITY OF RENUNCIATING THEM before the deadline to make immediate change.

            And the most important:
            “The copyright holder can always apply the type of license he decides on to his work without losing the recognition of authorship or paternity. There are restrictive and permissive licenses (such as the GNU GPL). " -wikipedia.

            "-The public domain software is not a product (within what we are evaluating)."

            And you agree with me again, since there is free software that is at the same time public domain software, ergo that percentage (no matter how small) of free software / public domain software, which cannot be considered a product, makes it impossible for us to generalize and call free software a product.

            "-There may be software in the public domain that is not free software (as mentioned by the FSF)."

            Only the one that has been modified, THE ORIGINAL IS STILL FREE SOFTWARE, the same happens when you modify any free software without copyleft and change the license. ("Some COPIES or MODIFIED VERSIONS may not be free at all." -Gnu.org), and in that case, they will very possibly cease to be public domain software as well.

            "-Free software is mostly a product, with the exception of that which falls into the category of public domain software (I do not know of relevant cases that justify its consideration)."

            FALSE. This conclusion borders on the absurd, in which part of the text you quoted even mention the word product, exchange, satisfaction, or something that could lead to that?

            "It seems incredible that a guy who always tries to differentiate free software from open source software for various reasons, now tries to convert free software into public domain software because they can refer to the same software."

            FALSE, stop lying, quote only one time when I said that free and public domain software are the same, and if you can't, don't put words in my mouth.
            I have been the first to differentiate those erroneous uses of different terms as if they were synonymous.

            If open source, free software, or the public domain, were synonymous, there would be no need for the existence of the others, neither the OSI, nor the FSF. The 3 are qualities of the software, they touch different subjects and in most cases they are not mutually exclusive.

            A software with CC0 license is both free software and public domain, both qualities can coexist in the same thing because they touch different subjects and do not hinder the mandatory characteristics of one and the other.

            Just as a person can be tall (SL) and thin (public domain).

            But something very different is that a person is tall (SL), thin (public domain) and obese (product), the latter is not possible, nor is it possible to generalize and say that all tall people are obese.

          28.    Staff said

            That definition is great. Free software satisfies the individual goals of the authors and the organization promoting it (FSF). It seems very successful. »

            XD, Incredible how you omit the first part in which it is said that IT EXISTS FOR EXCHANGE PURPOSES and then you release a distractor with the FSF (As if it generated a single line of free software, I want to believe that this is because you DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS THE FSF AND ITS FUNCTION, not out of mere bad temper and a desire to misinform.)

            But anyway, you still accept that it is correct and even rate it as great.

            So now you can compare.

            Does a product always have to exist for exchange purposes?
            WADA says YES

            Does free software always have to exist for exchange purposes?
            FSF says NO

            Therefore, they are not compatible in every sense, and therefore all free software should not be generalized and called a product.
            Unless you think differently than the WADA and the FSF.

            With that in mind, there is no need to look for more differences, with one would be enough, but if you like we will look for another.

            "Free software is the offer with which the FSF tries to satisfy the need for freedom in computing."

            XD With this if you make it clear to me that you have no idea what the FSF is (I'm still wrong, you will correct me).
            What comes next?
            That the Spanish language is the offer with which the RAE tries to satisfy our need to communicate?
            What is communism the offer with which the international communist party tries to satisfy our need for independence from the current economic model?
            What love is the offer with which mothers try to satisfy the affective need of infants?
            And why, all the above are products?

            When you clarify what the FSF is (and possibly other terms like SL, public domain….), You can compare:

            Is a product ALWAYS the offering of a company (or individual)?
            According to Jerome McCarthy and William Perraul, YES.

            Is free software ALWAYS the offer of a company (or individual)?
            According to the FSF, NO.

            Therefore, they are not compatible in every sense, and therefore all free software should not be generalized and called a product.

            With that in mind, there is no need to look for more differences, with two would suffice, but if you like, we will look for another ... and another ...

          29.    Windousian said

            How weird. My last messages have disappeared:
            http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/Exegames_bucket/discusionstaff-windousicoproductosydistros_zpsfab6f4f5.png

            I hope it was a technical failure and nothing else.

            1.    elav said

              I don't know what happened to your comment, because it's not in the Trash. Now, if you were in SPAM, mea culpa, we have a plugin to optimize the database that deletes them. 🙁


          30.    Windousian said

            Let's see now…
            @Staff
            "Material in the public domain is compatible with the GNU GPL." -gnu.org »

            You don't understand the sentence. That it is compatible does not mean that it is in the public domain. It means that you can mix public domain code with GPL licensed code.

            "BETTER I CITE YOU 2 !, wikieducator and opengameart, and even if there were none, the mere possibility of using it invalidates your argument and reinforces mine"

            Wikieducator and opengameart But is that software? Aren't they online communities? What does not invalidate your argument? If you say it.

            «XD, Incredible how you omit the first part in which it is said that IT EXISTS FOR EXCHANGE PURPOSES and then you release a distractor with the FSF (As if it generated a single line of free software, I want to believe that this is because it does NOT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FSF IS AND ITS FUNCTION, not because of mere bad temper and a desire to misinform.) »

            But don't you realize that the first part also fits perfectly? The FSF (or the GNU project if you prefer) promotes that exchange. Free software exists for exchange purposes. I don't understand you mate. The FSF is the promoter of free software. If it didn't exist, everyone would call GPL licensed software open source software. It is the organization behind GNU and its licenses. Without that foundation, free software would not be what it is. And if you don't believe me, you have the definition that they give themselves:

            “The Free Software Foundation is an organization created in October 1985 by Richard Stallman and other free software enthusiasts for the purpose of spreading this movement.
            The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is dedicated to removing restrictions on the copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification of computer programs. To this end, it promotes the development and use of free software in all areas of computing, but very particularly, helping to develop the GNU operating system. "

            Now he twists the text and writes that this has nothing to do with what I defend. You have me used to it;).

            As I have written before, I accept that public domain software can be considered outside the product category because it is like the air we breathe. It could become a product but it is not a "priori". But we are not discussing that, we are talking about free software. Review the blog post and you will see that you put a resounding "free software is not a product." So rectify and stop refuting trifles.

          31.    Windousian said

            And if you are going to get away with the idea that a company puts money to release its products and the FSF is dedicated to cheering the free software volunteers… I'll leave you this other (http://www.fsf.org/about):
            "We also fund and promote important free software development"

            So the FSF finances and promotes the development of free software. And I repeat, the free software movement is not a product but software with free software licenses IS (with possible exceptions not known in the public domain).

          32.    Staff said

            "It means that you can mix public domain code with code under the GPL."

            And what do you get from that mix? Software that is both in the public domain and Free, and as you said, if it is in the public domain it is not a product.

            Aren't they online communities?

            They are, but if you took the time to read before giving your opinion, you would know that they offer content online that can be software and all under CC0 license.

            What doesn't invalidate your argument? If you say it."

            No, it's not that I say so, but that anyone, you or I can take their school projects and release them under a CC0 license, because that possibility exists. That is what invalidates your argument.

            It is as if you told me that man cannot reach the moon, based on the fact that at this moment there is no one, and if someone has gone there are too few to consider it true.

            "Free software exists for exchange purposes."

            NOT EVERYTHING, since it is not mandatory to exchange it to make it free software. So it should not be generalized.

            «The FSF is the promoter of free software. If it didn't exist, everyone would call GPL licensed software open source software. "

            First put the crystal ball aside, and then remember that the term free software is prior to the creation of the FSF, and open source later. Let's not guess anything.
            And let's get to the point, the FSF has no place in the role

            Producer (Company, organization or individual) - Exchange - Client.

            The FSF does not develop and therefore does not exchange free software, of course now you can change your sayings, and use the GNU, but still, you are using exceptions, remember that the GNU is not the only one authorized to create free software.

            «Now he distorts the text and writes that this has nothing to do with what I defend. You have me used to it;). »

            Prove it with quotes. If you can, I'll take it back, if not, don't lie.

            And don't skip the question of comparisons.

            "Review the blog post and you will see that you put a resounding" free software is not a product. "
            And I support it, because I have offered evidence of free software that is not put on demand, evidence of cases in which at the same time it is public domain software, and evidence that what is sold are parallel services such as maintenance and consultancies.
            All these cases make it impossible to generalize.

            You, for your part, only free affirmations that the SL is a product, although you accept possible exceptions, since you always evade the comparison that proves it.

            I should not say that Africans are black, even though the vast majority of them are black and I could give a thousand SPECIFIC examples.

            It would be enough if someone mentioned Mark Shuttleworth and my statement collapses.
            Simple and pure logic.

  19.   moony said

    a lot of distro and few nuts, hehe.