Open Source vs Closed Source

[NoXzema]

Most people who use Free Software aren't programmers. In fact, they're just hipsters/kiddies who follow blatant propaganda.

You don't seem to have a grasp on the role of "Free Software" and you have a mentality to that of a racist when it comes to grouping people together. You can't seem to separate free and open-source, and you don't seem to understand the concept of either appropriately. You look at it all as, "bad because hippie propoganda" which is naive at best without an understanding of the role it plays in current programming communities.

You also don't seem to understand that you can have open-source or free while having a proprietary license. It means the terms are tangled and you don't really care to figure it out before labeling everything.

By saying what you did, you've diminished the work of thousands, potentially including myself, for reasons unknown or some personal hatred that you don't seem to express well. That's not an argument, that's a direct insult and isn't something that should be said regardless of your opinion.

[z05DSL3A]

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.

That sounded like sarcasm to me.

[rapidcoder]

Most people who use Free Software aren't programmers. In fact, they're just hipsters/kiddies who follow blatant propaganda.

Apple uses plenty of open-source products internally. So does Google and Microsoft. And they also contribute back a lot of free software. Actually majority of Linux development is made by full time paid programmers, working just on Linux source code. Your bank, your hospital, or your ISP very likely use open-source software in critical parts of their systems. Without open-source / free software those companies wouldn't be where they are now. Are you implying those companies hire hipsters/kiddies? Good joke.

[Little Bobby Tables]

Actually majority of Linux development is made by full time paid programmers, working just on Linux source code.

exactly. linus is paid full time to manage the linux kernel (which usually means just adding in the best parts from git pushes AFAIK). google itself has said they help with ubuntu source quite a bit

[Avilius]

ne555 wrote:

Hiring other people to modify a system for you does not make you a developer. It makes you a client

I interpreted the usage of "you" as in yourself (with no association with a company). There was no mention of hiring.

Grey Wolf wrote:

Open Source Development - An Introduction To Ownership And Licensing Issues
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/iprguide

Thank you, I did not know about this.

NoXzema wrote:

You don't seem to have a grasp on the role of "Free Software" and you have a mentality to that of a racist when it comes to grouping people together. You can't seem to separate free and open-source, and you don't seem to understand the concept of either appropriately. You look at it all as, "bad because hippie propoganda" which is naive at best without an understanding of the role it plays in current programming communities.

You're definitely right, and I'm sorry about that. This belief pretty much stemmed from a bunch of "Computer Geeks" that jumped on the Linux bandwagon and tried to explain why Free Software should be the only software after hearing some nonsense from your typical Free Software extremist.

Grey Wolf wrote:

That sounded like sarcasm to me.

It wasn't. See above.

rapidcoder wrote:

Without open-source / free software those companies wouldn't be where they are now. Are you implying those companies hire hipsters/kiddies? Good joke.

No.

[ne555]

> There was no mention of hiring.

maybe the company is too damn slow that you can save money by hiring other people to fix it.

[Avilius]

But here:

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.

You were making separate points that weren't really related to each other. I was not aware that the last two were related.

[3hM2Nwbp]

@RHS https://gist.github.com/LukeLeber/8838995

[ne555]

¿who is RHS?

Your proposed license has too big restrictions on usage.
By the way, I don't think that GPL forces the distribution of binaries.

[LB]

Luke Leber wrote:

and by forcing licensees to distribute sources with binary distributions.

ne555 wrote:

I don't think that GPL forces the distribution of binaries.

I think you misread.

[ne555]

No, I think that the sentence makes a big assumption and leaves an ambiguity, just making fun of it.
the two elements are equivalent or you could even argue that the source code is a bigger product.

By the way, would you say
the law have enforced the sales of
- "motorcycles with helmets"
- "helmets with motorcycles"

[JLBorges]

A kill GPL version of PHK's FreeBSD Beerware license?
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/

/*
 * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * "THE KILLGPL BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 1):
 * <Luke....@.....> wrote this file. As long as you 
 * a. retain this notice, and 
 * b. do not include any part of this either in original or in a modified form 
 *    in software distributed under viral (copy-left) licenses like GPL, GPL2, GPL3
 * you may do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
 * this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return.
 * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 */

Optionally, add a clause that unambiguously absolves the author from any liability; in words that can be easily understood by every programmer:

This software is provided "as is"; in no event shall the author/copyright holder
be liable for any consequence arising from the use of this software.

[NoXzema]

I think saying GPL has twisted the meaning of freedom is like a Muslim saying a Christian's religion isn't right. It's just as naive as the opposing party. I find it a little more odd that nobody finds the KILLGPL licenses roaming around to be more toxic than GPL itself.

I think you misread.

Here's a quote from the License on conveying a verbatim work:

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

If it's not clear, GPL explicitly allows you to distribute binaries without source as long as it's verbatim work. Modifications are covered in another section of the license.

[JLBorges]

The freedom that GNU talks about is a different freedom from the freedom that, say, FreeBSD talks about.

The "free" that GPL refers to is "free" applied to software: "free software".

The "free" in FreeBSD is "free" applied to people: the unfettered freedom to do what one wants with a piece of software.

Microsoft C++ is "free"; one does not have to pay for it.

GNU C++ is free; "more free" than Microsoft C++. But it not "as free" as LLVM C++.

In my opinion, LLVM C++ is truly free: I don't have to pay for it and I can do whatever I want with it. As per FSF, LLVM C++ is not "truly free" because the result of whatever I have done with it need not necessarily be free.

Though I have never shared the FSF sentiment, I did not reject it as invalid; I could empathise (a lot) with the somewhat platonic ideal of furthering the "good of the software community as a whole".

However, it now appears that FSF is pursuing their narrow idea of "freedom" as a political goal; that the "good of the software community as a whole" no longer matters to them; it is something that can be readily sacrificed, if doing so can inflict some damage on their political opponents:

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.

[helios]

Though I have never shared the FSF sentiment, I did not reject it as invalid; I could empathise (a lot) with the somewhat platonic ideal of furthering the "good of the software community as a whole".

You say it like that sentiment is unique to the FSF.

And maybe it's just me, but GNU has always come across to me less as "the benefit of the community" and more as "the undermining of Big Business". That quote is not at all inconsistent with this mental image I have of Stallman as a dirty hippie. Someone really ought to tell him that he's late to the party by like 40 years.

[JLBorges]

I see that no one has responded to the last couple of posts.

Even if GNU/FSF may not have "the benefit of the community" as a goal, there is no gainsaying the contribution that they have made to the software community. We wouldn't be where we are today, without GNU.

My mental image of RMS is, above everything else, the image of a truly great programmer; someone I admire. Sometimes I wistfully think about what might have been if he had continued to expend his energy on writing programs. And there are no pretences about what FSF/GNU is: "Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model".

That is the other side of the coin.

[Avilius]

JLBorges wrote:

Though I have never shared the FSF sentiment, I did not reject it as invalid; I could empathise (a lot) with the somewhat platonic ideal of furthering the "good of the software community as a whole".

I find this pretty ironic, since they're actively trying to effectively kill proprietary software. They personally just want to see proprietary software gone. If they were really about "furthering the 'good of the software community as a whole'", then they wouldn't add so many restrictions on the GPL. Hurting proprietary software is hurting the entire software community.

[Duthomhas]

From their point of view, killing commercial software is the greatest good for the software community.

[Avilius]

Well, you have to be careful, because 5 million people are going to correct your usage of "commercial" and change it to "proprietary", lol.

I just think that view is a product of naiveté. It's just not realistic at all.

The anti-gpl licenses are pretty retarded tbh. If you want to release source code then you shouldn't provide any restrictions (aside from maybe credit). You shouldn't prevent someone from doing what they'd like to the code. I mean, I really would hate for someone to use it in a GPL program, but in the end I couldn't care less.

[Duthomhas]

/s/commercial/proprietary/