Open Source vs Closed Source
Open source. I publish most of my code in the public domain via unlicense because I don't believe in copyright.
@xkcd reference: Ctrl+F "Tracking options for this topic"
@xkcd reference: Ctrl+F "Tracking options for this topic"
Last edited on
^
Most of the compositions the FSF uploads is cringe-worthy to say the least. Richard Stallman in particular is your typical liberal hippie programmer.
Generally Open Source & Free Software don't work commercially.
Most of the compositions the FSF uploads is cringe-worthy to say the least. Richard Stallman in particular is your typical liberal hippie programmer.
Generally Open Source & Free Software don't work commercially.
Last edited on
Yeah, I can't say I disagree. I think Stallman does have some good things to say (or at least things worth thinking about), I do like his views on software patents, but then you ask him why he doesn't use a mobile phone and you start pulling out the tinfoil hat.
I linked to the article because of the distinction between Open Source and Free Software.
(emphasis mine)
I linked to the article because of the distinction between Open Source and Free Software.
| In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. Fortunately, few programs use those licenses... |
| Generally Open Source & Free Software don't work commercially. |
Please provide references.
I think Stallman's a lunatic. He pushes his agenda to liberate our minds property and convince us that there is some inalienable right to do whatever we want with someone else's software -- something which often represents real value in time and money and other resources, for which some people believe they ought to be compensated (unlike Stallman).
The reason the LGPL exists is because the GPL is extremist and unreasonable, and even Stallman has to concede to existing conditions and behavior.
Personally I use the Boost License for that kind of stuff. It's sort, sweet, leaves off the defensive moralizing/brainwashing, and does the one thing it should: protects my claim to authorship.
What Stallman (via the GPL) wants in addition is the "right" to force me to release my code under his conditions if I use any of his code/libraries in my application. (And again the LGPL gives us some leeway there, recognizing that some libraries are excellent and in widespread use.)
IMHO
The reason the LGPL exists is because the GPL is extremist and unreasonable, and even Stallman has to concede to existing conditions and behavior.
Personally I use the Boost License for that kind of stuff. It's sort, sweet, leaves off the defensive moralizing/brainwashing, and does the one thing it should: protects my claim to authorship.
What Stallman (via the GPL) wants in addition is the "right" to force me to release my code under his conditions if I use any of his code/libraries in my application. (And again the LGPL gives us some leeway there, recognizing that some libraries are excellent and in widespread use.)
IMHO
Last edited on
open source software can work fine avilius... *looks to the left at redhat*
A famous (an infamous) exchange:
ESR:
RMS:
An ancient parable, modernised:
GOD: I will grant you whatever you desire; but I will also give this other guy exactly what you receive.
RMS: Please, God, make me blind in both eyes. Let this other guy also become completely blind.
ESR:
| ... GCC is in near-term danger of losing its dominance in open-source C development; I would say the danger is imminent if not that people are innately conservative about major changes to their toolchains. ... To keep its #1 spot, GCC needs to out-improve and out-compete clang. And not just on the technical level, either. "Using clang is easier than to fight with FSF policies" indeed. Unless that changes, GCC's future is as a legacy tool, a backwater that developers are exiting as fast as is practical. ... https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00209.html |
RMS:
| ... The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us. ... https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html |
An ancient parable, modernised:
GOD: I will grant you whatever you desire; but I will also give this other guy exactly what you receive.
RMS: Please, God, make me blind in both eyes. Let this other guy also become completely blind.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| Little Bobby Tables wrote: |
|---|
| who are ESR and RMS? |
Eric S. Raymond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond
Richard Matthew Stallman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
I personally believe that any commercial program's that feature other libraries should at least make a small contribution back to that library.
This is as simple as the software libraries that are opensouce and free to use for non commercial use, but if you wish to gain profit from something you've made using the library then a small percentage should be returned to the library.
This is as simple as the software libraries that are opensouce and free to use for non commercial use, but if you wish to gain profit from something you've made using the library then a small percentage should be returned to the library.