Open Source vs Closed Source
If you want to make your code open source, that means you want to contribute to society. Asking for something in return is something that seems really sketchy to me. Anyone could have written that code; it's just a bunch of text. All you did is happen to be the person who did. Do you really think society cares? Why do you care if someone claims they wrote the code you did?
Last edited on
| I personally believe that any commercial program's that feature other libraries should at least make a small contribution back to that library. |
For instance, if Google say "we use libfoo to snafucate our garplies", is it worth the same to libfoo than if they don't say anything, even if they don't contribute code? Note that I'm not talking about prestige, I'm talking about how large the potential user base is.
Last edited on
| Why do you care if someone claims they wrote the code you did? |
Let's see. Someone goes and gets a nice, high-paying job by showcasing some of his resume, which includes some beautiful and useful code he says he wrote. Except he didn't. I did.
Let me ask you a reciprocal question: Why should it be acceptable to plagiarize a programmer when it is morally reprehensible to do the same in any other field?
NB: Remember SCO? And the lawsuits that came from their plagiarization? Know why Linux was rewritten from scratch? People do care.
(And related -- some people hate anti-plagiarizing software because when they resubmit an assignment it comes back tagged as plagiarized -- when the student was the original author.)
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| Please provide references. |
| open source software can work fine avilius... *looks to the left at redhat* |
Has there actually been any software that was developed "free"ly(?) and sold successfully (A modern day example please.)?
The FSF is just stupid. If I want to share source code, I'll release it under either public domain or a license like the MIT or BSD one. The GPL and friends aren't "free."
I personally don't give a damn about how my software was developed. As long as it has pretty good quality I'll use it, regardless if it's source is freely available or not. I look for functionality, and usually "free" programs don't provide the quality I look for.
Chances are the user wont be looking at source code anyway, so the fact that you can fix bugs in the code is completely irrelevant. Fixing bugs is the developer's job, not the user's. I don't want to dive through source code that's quality varies from project to project to fix some non-trivial bug. If I wanted to be active in the development of a program I wouldn't care, but this hasn't been the case for me yet.
| I'll release it under either public domain or a license like the MIT or BSD one |
Edit: missed a word
Last edited on
| You can sell support, sure. I haven't seen much people do that, though. |
| The FSF is just stupid. |
GPL is one of many that holds one ideology. Not everyone in FSF is the same as Stallman... rather some dislike him for his odd and rude behaviors. He's extreme. I don't dislike his extremism since it isn't damaging anything and I can sometimes find his previous statements something to think about.
Have you tried google?
Linux
HHVM
Python
Perl
Panda3D
And so on and so forth.
| Has there actually been any software that was developed "free"ly(?) and sold successfully (A modern day example please.)? |
Have you tried google?
Linux
HHVM
Python
Perl
Panda3D
And so on and so forth.
> developed "free"ly(?) and sold successfully
some governments favor libre software.
you are paid for the development.
> Fixing bugs is the developer's job, not the user's.
maybe if you buy a software it comes with a warranty.
maybe such warranty already expired.
maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it.
maybe you want to add functionality.
some governments favor libre software.
you are paid for the development.
> Fixing bugs is the developer's job, not the user's.
maybe if you buy a software it comes with a warranty.
maybe such warranty already expired.
maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it.
maybe you want to add functionality.
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| Are you serious? |
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| Let's see. Someone goes and gets a nice, high-paying job by showcasing some of his resume, which includes some beautiful and useful code he says he wrote. Except he didn't. I did. |
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| Let me ask you a reciprocal question: Why should it be acceptable to plagiarize a programmer when it is morally reprehensible to do the same in any other field? |
Note: I will always attempt to respect the rights and wishes of others, when possible. I do not expect the same in return.
Last edited on
I have to agree with all 3 points. I feel the same way.
To me at the end of it all, after I write a few hundred lines of code and get it to compile and work, I remember something:
The code I write is not the code that runs, my source file is parsed and generated into machine code, because I am too stupid to do it otherwise.
To me at the end of it all, after I write a few hundred lines of code and get it to compile and work, I remember something:
The code I write is not the code that runs, my source file is parsed and generated into machine code, because I am too stupid to do it otherwise.
| Little Bobby Tables wrote: |
|---|
| except you know… Red Hat themselves… Also, how could you possibly know that? Im sure there are plenty of companies that use the support |
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| Have you tried google? Linux HHVM Python Perl Panda3D |
| maybe if you buy a software it comes with a warranty. maybe such warranty already expired. maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it. maybe you want to add functionality. |
"Proprietary is evil, Free is good!"
It sounds like your typical 90s RPG storyline. It's childish to say the least. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Things aren't black and white.
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| > developed "free"ly(?) and sold successfully some governments favor libre software. you are paid for the development. > Fixing bugs is the developer's job, not the user's. maybe if you buy a software it comes with a warranty. maybe such warranty already expired. |
| maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it. maybe you want to add functionality. |
| If there are some, they are definitely in the minority. |
You clearly know nothing about enterprise level IT operations then. Or even how Red Hat support works. You HAVE to buy support to even use RHEL. Repo access is limited only to clients with support contracts. So sure, you could grab the RHEL image, but you can't do much with it.
So, no most places actually do buy support. Even if they could use RHEL to its full potential without it, they still would. When shit breaks at 2AM, you need somebody to call.
| Avilius wrote: |
|---|
| Wow, I did not know that these were all sold. |
Google gets large amounts of money from advertisements. Linux tends to have large donations, and some distributions are commercial like Red Hat or SUSE. Perl, Python and Tcl have advanced (commercial) versions sold by ActiveState.
Even apart from that, there are other times when open source software can be sold (though admittedly, nowhere near as many as others). As an example, I recently started fiddling around a bit with a graphics editor called Aseprite - both open source and you need to pay to get the software. Look it up. Also have a look at things like MySQL, JBoss and GNU Ada.
| Avilius wrote: |
|---|
| Most people who use Free Software aren't programmers. In fact, they're just hipsters/kiddies who follow blatant propaganda. "Proprietary is evil, Free is good!" It sounds like your typical 90s RPG storyline. It's childish to say the least. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Things aren't black and white. |
So those who are programmers and do want to fiddle around, fix bugs and add features without having to wait for the original developers to suddenly appear again should be left out? Just because most people might not be programmers doesn't mean that those who are should be disallowed from doing what they want with the source.
Also, there are other benefits such as allowing a structural base if you need something specific for your company, or so that you can know for sure that the code doesn't have security vulnerabilities, or that it isn't region locked to say America and you want to use it with your own language you can just add it in. All things that can be done with Open Source / Free software that cannot be done with proprietary software, not without perhaps paying exorbitant amount of money to 'convince' the original developers to do it for you specifically, considering that you might be the only one of their customers requesting this kind of thing.
| Avilius wrote: |
|---|
| When has this ever happened with Free Software? |
Which bit? Non-American governments like opensource software - it isn't propriety code from a foreign nation, which could lead to security problems. Many countries encourage Linux workstations over the American Windows family of OS's. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Market_share_and_uptake (the Use in Governments subsection)
Last edited on
> Most people who use Free Software aren't programmers.
Free, open source libraries are very widely used; for instance Boost is an integral part of mainstream C++ programming.
For software that is distributed, most organisations completely avoid free software with viral licences as part of their code base. Even when there is no commercial consideration involved, no one wants to get entangled in legal complications.
Free, open source libraries are very widely used; for instance Boost is an integral part of mainstream C++ programming.
For software that is distributed, most organisations completely avoid free software with viral licences as part of their code base. Even when there is no commercial consideration involved, no one wants to get entangled in legal complications.
| ResidentBuscuit wrote: |
|---|
| You clearly know nothing about enterprise level IT operations then. Or even how Red Hat support works. You HAVE to buy support to even use RHEL. Repo access is limited only to clients with support contracts. So sure, you could grab the RHEL image, but you can't do much with it. So, no most places actually do buy support. Even if they could use RHEL to its full potential without it, they still would. When shit breaks at 2AM, you need somebody to call. |
I did say something like this earlier, though.
| NT3 wrote: |
|---|
| Google gets large amounts of money from advertisements. Linux tends to have large donations, and some distributions are commercial like Red Hat or SUSE. Perl, Python and Tcl have advanced (commercial) versions sold by ActiveState. |
| Even apart from that, there are other times when open source software can be sold (though admittedly, nowhere near as many as others). As an example, I recently started fiddling around a bit with a graphics editor called Aseprite - both open source and you need to pay to get the software. Look it up. Also have a look at things like MySQL, JBoss and GNU Ada. |
| Avilius wrote: |
|---|
If there are some, they are definitely in the minority. |
| Which bit? Non-American governments like opensource software - it isn't propriety code from a foreign nation, which could lead to security problems. Many countries encourage Linux workstations over the American Windows family of OS's. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Market_share_and_uptake (the Use in Governments subsection) |
I'm not saying completely disregard FLOSS. It definitely has it's place, but I can't see it leading the market any time soon.
Last edited on
| It definitely has it's place, but I can't see it leading the market any time soon. |
If you had to place a bet I think the odds are pretty heavily in your favour.
But that fact doesn't diminish free software ideas and philosophy. Nor does it mean that there is no (paid) market for free software. A vision of a free software future may be unrealistic, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do my part to make that vision a reality.
> Most people who use Free Software aren't programmers.
¿how does that relate to my comment?
It's obvious now that I wasn't clear enough, but that was simply a list of reason why a client company may want the source code for the product that they purchased.
>> maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it.
>> maybe you want to add functionality.
> Wouldn't that make you a developer?
Hiring other people to modify a system for you does not make you a developer. It makes you a client
> When has this ever happened with Free Software? (having warranty)
The idea of `no warranty' is the `no responsibility'. (I want my /usr back)
But if you are hiring, it would be quite stupid to not ask for warranty (maybe by limiting the terms of use).
¿how does that relate to my comment?
It's obvious now that I wasn't clear enough, but that was simply a list of reason why a client company may want the source code for the product that they purchased.
>> maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it.
>> maybe you want to add functionality.
> Wouldn't that make you a developer?
Hiring other people to modify a system for you does not make you a developer. It makes you a client
> When has this ever happened with Free Software? (having warranty)
The idea of `no warranty' is the `no responsibility'. (I want my /usr back)
But if you are hiring, it would be quite stupid to not ask for warranty (maybe by limiting the terms of use).
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Open Source Development - An Introduction To Ownership And Licensing Issues
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/iprguide
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/iprguide