For or against the existence of proprietary software?

[Jimleko211]

Honestly, I think that there are some things where the open source model doesn't work. For example, a game. No, not your casual game, but your blockbuster Mass Effect-like game designed to make lots of big money. Giving general access to the source would make the games too easy for people who can read the language to succeed in the game. Plus, then there would be spoilers for those giving a quick peruse (though this is obviously avoidable by not looking at the source code).

I suppose you could say that all of the arguments are null and void if the person who has the source code just doesn't look at it, and you'd be right. But if they released the source code, a lot of companies looking to just start out would "borrow" code from competitors, and while this would destroy the 'reinventing the wheel" problem, it would kill off a lot of creativity and, more importantly, motivation to BE creative.

The open source model works for a lot of products. Operating Systems, for one. Word Processors, Web Browsers, IDEs. Most types of software have no reason not to be open source. But, in my opinion, games are the exception to this rule.

What's your opinion on the issue? Can proprietary software and open source software coexist like they are now, or should it all go to open source or proprietary?

[garikaib]

Personally i respect copyrights. The only reason I support the open software movement is that i believe even a genius needs help. History shows that even Isac Newton messed! For it to be possible to offer help we have to see the code not cryptic error messages on the screen. In programming even the smallest error which is difficult to detect can cause really serous problems. I have heard of space satellite that crashed because somebody put a , instead of a . in the code.

On the other hand there is a famous example of how an attempt to put malicious code using an apparent misspelling was unearthed. And that was a misspelling of one word in a kernel that has tens of millions of lines of code!

[chriskin]

Giving general access to the source would make the games too easy for people who can read the language to succeed in the game

you don't really consider this an argument now , do you?

edit : even more strange things come after reading this : let's say that all the gamers understand reading code (!!!) , why will knowing how prince of Persia is programmed make me push the right button at the right time?

[transgress]

this question is a logical fallacy. The option almost everyone uses is something in the middle. That using both is fine. RMS and a couple other asshats are the only ones who would actually feel that it cannot and i doubt even Steve Jobs and Bill gates are only willing to use proprietary software... This debate on proprietary software is also pointless as it is not going away. This debate is a cancer eating at the linux community and it needs chemo.

[chriskin]

this question is a logical fallacy. The option almost everyone uses is something in the middle. That using both is fine. RMS and a couple other asshats are the only ones who would actually feel that it cannot and i doubt even Steve Jobs and Bill gates are only willing to use proprietary software... This debate on proprietary software is also pointless as it is not going away. This debate is a cancer eating at the linux community and it needs chemo.

-.-

[Viva]

I believe the proprietary software model is flawed and outdated, but I don't have any problem with their existence. They have the right to license their work any way they want as long as they respect others' copyrights.

[CJ Master]

this question is a logical fallacy. The option almost everyone uses is something in the middle. That using both is fine. RMS and a couple other asshats are the only ones who would actually feel that it cannot and i doubt even Steve Jobs and Bill gates are only willing to use proprietary software... This debate on proprietary software is also pointless as it is not going away. This debate is a cancer eating at the linux community and it needs chemo.

I think Linsux would love you. ;)

[ugm6hr]

No longer a gamer, so my opinion may be irrelevant...

Haven't gaming engines been borrowed for multiple games in the past? Don't remember names - but isn't there a common Quake engine for FPS and those 90's adventure games in the Monkey Island genre.

If something is successful, there is no reason not to borrow and improve it. Never hurt gaming to have sequels, as long as they improved on the original.

Open source games would simply do the same, but allow anyone to create their own sequel.

Additionally, gaming genres are no longer regularly being invented, even in the current proprietary gaming world.

[wojox]

But if they released the source code, a lot of companies looking to just start out would "borrow" code from competitors, and while this would destroy the 'reinventing the wheel" problem, it would kill off a lot of creativity and, more importantly, motivation to BE creative.

The great thing about open source software is it creates creativity. If person A releases a game with the source then person B can look at it and improve upon it. Who's to say person A knows exactly what their doing.

Look at Microsoft who is proprietary and full of bugs. Now look at Linux which is open source and isn't. Why, because more people can look at open source and tweak or fix it. The more brains the better.

[Sealbhach]

Both are fine but the open source model is proving to be the better one, it has its fair share of bugs but they get fixed a lot quicker.

.

[gnomeuser]

I think open sourcing games could work, instead a service could be sold around the game. This works very well for games such as World of Warcraft which are useless without connectivity and there you sell continued support and the stable network while giving the game away completely.

Other game types it's markedly harder to figure out a revenue stream. I am sure one could find a way to make it work though.

unfortunately the open source crowd has been historically very good at attracting good programmers but very poor at attracting creative talent. I think we can do better here, there must be tons of people with ideas for games out there and we most definitely have the tools or can make them. However currently writing big games from scratch the open source way as a community project is hard and ideas are few, graphic designers, story writers, voice actors and so on even fewer.

[DeadSuperHero]

I'm personally all for both. If a developer makes a game, and doesn't want to open source it, that's fine. There's no rule saying it can't be deployed in a Linux distribution.

In a perfect world, developers would want to share code. But, we don't live there.

Ultimately, it's up to the developer to share their code, and it's up to the user to choose whether to use it or not.

So, I support both.

[transgress]

Look at Microsoft who is proprietary and full of bugs. Now look at Linux which is open source and isn't. Why, because more people can look at open source and tweak or fix it. The more brains the better.

are you really claiming linux, firefox, banshee, rhythmbox, pidgin, etc are not full of bugs? All programming is full of bugs. This is a bad argument. Linux is nowhere near perfect. Stability on it is decent but so is windows 7. So is OSX. The main one up linux has on the other two is that it does get bug fixes more rapidly. And the capability is there for the end user to fix the bug if the bug fix is not readily available. But that is assuming the end user can program and delve deeply enough into linux code to fix it. Which most linux users cannot. Therefore most open source users are still waiting on some other person to come along and fix the bugs. Not saying the linux model isn't better than MS's model, but stop acting like linux is the jesus of all software. It is counter-productive.

[doorknob60]

Proprietary Software is fine. It's overpriced software (like Adobe and Microsoft make) and DRM ridden software (everywhere) that gets on my nerves.

[MasterNetra]

I think open sourcing games could work, instead a service could be sold around the game. This works very well for games such as World of Warcraft which are useless without connectivity and there you sell continued support and the stable network while giving the game away completely.

Other game types it's markedly harder to figure out a revenue stream. I am sure one could find a way to make it work though.

unfortunately the open source crowd has been historically very good at attracting good programmers but very poor at attracting creative talent. I think we can do better here, there must be tons of people with ideas for games out there and we most definitely have the tools or can make them. However currently writing big games from scratch the open source way as a community project is hard and ideas are few, graphic designers, story writers, voice actors and so on even fewer.

Well from the graphic design stand point, lets face it, as nice as gimp and the other alternatives to adobe products are, they still currently fall short of what adobe offers. And many if not most designers will prefer the the tool that can help them get it done faster, Which in many cases it seems is a adobe product.

[koenn]

The option almost everyone uses is something in the middle. That using both is fine. RMS and a couple other asshats are the only ones who would actually feel that it cannot
way to argue a case ... you've already decide what most people think, and you preemptively insult anyone who might take the side of "they can not coexist".

[Viva]

way to argue a case ... you've already decide what most people think, and you preemptively insult anyone who might take the side of "they can not coexist".

+1:lolflag:

[starcannon]

I am all for it.
I don't want proprietary software vendors determining my freedom of speech, I certainly do not want to determine theirs. Indeed, some of my favorite software packages are "closed". I don't mind paying for software, and I don't mind software vendors guarding their hard work. What I do mind is monopolies, price gouging, and vicious market manipulation, and bugs (listed in random order, they are all equal on my scale of sucks).

[keiichidono]

No longer a gamer, so my opinion may be irrelevant...

Haven't gaming engines been borrowed for multiple games in the past? Don't remember names - but isn't there a common Quake engine for FPS and those 90's adventure games in the Monkey Island genre.

If something is successful, there is no reason not to borrow and improve it. Never hurt gaming to have sequels, as long as they improved on the original.

Open source games would simply do the same, but allow anyone to create their own sequel.

Additionally, gaming genres are no longer regularly being invented, even in the current proprietary gaming world.

I'm sure game developers would want to make a lump sum of money from their games which might stop them from open sourcing it. So i would propose that 10 years after a game is made (and the sales all but halt) it enters public domain or gets auto-relicensed to Gpl.

[t0p]

I'm sure game developers would want to make a lump sum of money from their games which might stop them from open sourcing it. So i would propose that 10 years after a game is made (and the sales all but halt) it enters public domain or gets auto-relicensed to Gpl.

That old chestnut again: that Free (libre) software has to be free (gratis), that open source software can't make money.

Would you refuse to buy a game just because it was open source? How would you even know? It doesn't have to be printed on the box. But even if it was... So what?

Maybe i am just being dumb today. But i cannot see why a Free game would have to be gratis. There might be a market for "bootlegs" (put in quotes because you cannot really bootleg a Free program)... but proprietary games suffer from piracy too, and that is not used as a reason why proprietary software cannot make money.

[insane_alien]

Proprietry software is fine by me. there will always be an alternative to it and i'll shell out for which ever one suits my needs better. whether it's purchacing the software or a donation to a FOSS project.

In my perfect world there would be a wide range of proprietry and open-source software co-existing and when proprietry software is no longer supported it would be open-sourced. or at least freewared.

[infestor]

Proprietary is evil
:twisted:

[koenn]

Honestly, I think that there are some things where the open source model doesn't work. For example, a game.
maybe, maybe not.
but your reasoning isn't valid, imo

Giving general access to the source would make the games too easy for people who can read the language to succeed in the game. Plus, then there would be spoilers for those giving a quick peruse (though this is obviously avoidable by not looking at the source code).
Is this any different from having published cheat codes ?
plus: If a developer knew the game's source code would be published, he probably write it so that reading the code doesn't help in playing the game better - not by obfuscating the code, but by designing the game so that knowing how the game works doesn't help you to cheat




But if they released the source code, a lot of companies looking to just start out would "borrow" code from competitors, and while this would destroy the 'reinventing the wheel" problem, it would kill off a lot of creativity and, more importantly, motivation to BE creative.

If this is true, gamers would have no preference between one FPS over the next, between one car racing game over an other, etc. But they (probably) do. The difference is probably more in the game itself (plots, game objectives, the game's universe / context / ..., the way in which the game rewards qualities of the player) and their presentation (quality of the artwork, the 'feel' or the 'athmosphere', ...) than the actual code of game engine.

So if game engines were open source , game dev companies would have to make a difference (i.e. be creative, innovative, ...) where it matters most to the players : in how it feels to play the game.


What's your opinion on the issue? Can proprietary software and open source software coexist like they are now, or should it all go to open source or proprietary?
You picked games as an example, and you haven't convinced me.

In general, I'd say open source can coexist with proprietary software (it already does :) ), but probably companies that made it their business to build or distribute software under proprietary licenses can not survive, in the long term, when there is such a thing as open source development and free software that can't be made unfree.

Bill gates knew this in as early as 1976, when he wrote to computer hobbyists that, in order for his software producing company 'Micro-Soft' to succeed, they'd have to buy his software, not copy it from someone else.
A business like that would not work in an environment with an abundance of freely, legally redistributable software, which is exactly the environment which open source/free software are creating.

[The Toxic Mite]

EULA: Sharing is evil
BSD/MIT: Sharing is not evil
GNU (L)GPL: Not sharing is evil

Please tell me if I have it wrong :)

[LunaticHiatus]

I throw my vote in with the Free Software Foundation. I admit, I do use proprietary formats but only because I am forced to out of other peoples idea of standards (for example: my mp3 player, phone, psp only accepts .mp3 and .wma files.) even though most audiophiles I know prefer .ogg and .flac. A major hold back for free software is copyright and patent issues.

While its easy to see why patenting software is bad, many people don't get why copyrighting software is bad. I try to explain how there is little reason TO copyright your software (i.e. the added benefit of community patches). Most people don't care about the restrictions of copyrighted software because they don't even understand what software is.

Its intensely bizaar when you can't copy, fix, or modify something your purchased. If we started copyrighting cars and telling people that you couldn't let friends drive them, you couldn't fix them yourself, but had to take it back to the dealership if it breaks or make it faster or safer without breaking the law. Most people would be outraged.

ah well...

[LunaticHiatus]

EULA: Sharing is evil
BSD/MIT: Sharing is not evil
GNU (L)GPL: Not sharing is evil

Please tell me if I have it wrong :)

the gpl is a bit more complicated then that. It just insists that if the creator once it keep his code open. The code stays open. but you can attach proprietary code to gpl software.

While BSD just says "do whatever the heck you want with it"

[RiceMonster]

EULA: Sharing is evil
BSD/MIT: Sharing is not evil
GNU (L)GPL: Not sharing is evil

Please tell me if I have it wrong :)

In a nutshell, yeah, that's right.

[megamania]

Its intensely bizaar when you can't copy, fix, or modify something your purchased. If we started copyrighting cars and telling people that you couldn't let friends drive them, you couldn't fix them yourself, but had to take it back to the dealership if it breaks or make it faster or safer without breaking the law. Most people would be outraged.

ah well...
You can let your friends use your copyrighted software
You can "fix" proprietary software (antivirus, etc)

And making your car "faster" or "safer" on your own is illegal at least in most of Europe...

[dragos240]

Issue? What issue? Copyrights will always be in our society. And closed source software will always be around. It's fine by me. I use almost 100% FOSS software, except for flash.

[LunaticHiatus]

You can let your friends use your copyrighted software
You can "fix" proprietary software (antivirus, etc)

And making your car "faster" or "safer" on your own is illegal at least in most of Europe...

It is illegal to put copyrighted software on more computers then for your personal use and sometimes they even limit that right to only three computers. Otherwise your supossed to buy the software again. So, you can't share copy righted software with your friends.

Antivirus' remove virus' from an operating system. It does not fix bad code. and proprietary code is not allowed to be viewed or edited.

sorry about your cars in europe. Thats lame.

[megamania]

It is illegal to put copyrighted software on more computers then for your personal use and sometimes they even limit that right to only three computers.
Otherwise your supossed to buy the software again. So, you can't share copy righted software with your friends.

I know, I said you can let your friends use your software like you can lend them your car.


Antivirus' remove virus' from an operating system. It does not fix bad code. and proprietary code is not allowed to be viewed or edited.
It was just an attempt to say that the comparison with cars wasn't ideal.


sorry about your cars in europe. Thats lame.
I don't think it's lame to prevent people from potentially lowering security. A car can be dangerous for you and for the people around you.
If I increase the horse-power of the engine and then the tyres explode because they're not designed for those high-speed? Is it that lame to try to avoid it?

In theory you can modify your vehicle, but then it needs to get "approved" again. That's so much of a pain that you'll never want to get there.

[LunaticHiatus]

ok, maybe cars was not ideal but it was the best I had. (I think I got you lost with my examples since your following comments didn't really have to with what I was trying to say)

Er, in america, many people fix cars and are not part of any dealership and have no official schooling. They also will sometimes do things like put a filter on the intake to increase horse power. No one suffers from exploding cars due to it.

I guess thats another subject...

[bryonak]

EULA: Sharing is evil
BSD/MIT: Sharing is not evil
GNU (L)GPL: Not sharing is evil

Please tell me if I have it wrong :)
That's correct, but you present only one aspect of a not-so-trivial issue.

There are other "correct" statements like:
EULA: forbids community development (usually)
BSD/MIT: doesn't care about community (do what you want)
GNU (L)GPL: encourages community development (collaborate by giving back)

Or another one...
EULA: restricts freedom in the ideologic meaning
GNU (L)GPL: restricts the freedom to remove freedom
BSD/MIT: almost (bar the attribution) pure ideologic freedom

Oh, one more...
BSD/MIT: good for business (gratis code!)
EULA: OK for business (they can pay for the code)
GNU (L)GPL: indiffernt for proprietary business (they can't interact on the source level), good for open source business projects (by IBM, Google, ...)

The reason I categorise GPL as indifferent for proprietary business is that they always have the freedom to use GPL'd code and publish the changes / integrated code. OTOH they'll have a hard time buying such vast quantities of proprietary code (compared to FOSS code around to pick from). Especially if it belongs to a competitor ;).



You can let your friends use your copyrighted software
You can "fix" proprietary software (antivirus, etc)

When you buy proprietary software (i.e. it's not freeware), the first is usually illegal.
And for the second, I think he meant bugs...for example in the antivirus program ;)

[JohnnySage50307]

Both Open Source and Proprietary softwares have their advantages and disadvantages. In the case of Open Source, eventhough being able to look at the source opens itself to a higher standard of coding (i.e. people like my colleagues who just stare at the code looking for bugs to report), however it can open itself to security flaws--Someone may have a good algorithm, however in that work of genius, he may have neglected something that the general community may have not noticed, thus opening a backdoor for himself.

Being an American, we pride ourselves behind being rewarded for the work that we've done and making sure we have something *special* that separates ourselves from the rest. Good proprietary software is a healthy exercise of this. Some things, such as games, search tools, and others deserve the right to not be open simply because they do something special and unique and copyright/patent laws are still a lil murky when it comes to software (given how quickly technology evolves, things that are new right now tend to be common knowledge by year's end).

So, to answer the question, "For or Against," I am for it under certain circumstances.

[Simian Man]

Whatever the GNU extremists think, there will *always* be a place for proprietary software. There are categories of software that are tremendously difficult to develop in and only useful to a very small percentage of people. An example that I work with is the field of electronic design automation. The software packages used in this field are fairly expensive and there is just no need or motivation for open source equivalents. High-end Autocad and custom business software are other examples where there is no motivation for open source developers to invest the time for such niche markets.

Where open source is better than proprietary is areas that are not so demanding and are used by nearly everybody such as desktop operating systems, web browsers, office software and so on. I really think that in the future these kinds of areas will be dominated by open source because it just makes sense. Developers need these programs and, honestly, they aren't so difficult to develop that a company should be able to make millions off of them.

Games are kind of in the middle because the technology behind them is becoming increasingly centralized. Many games on the market license the exact same engines and modify them and build the game on top of that - mostly consisting of art, gameplay scripts and so on. On top of that there are several open source game engines that are really rivaling the proprietary ones in terms of features (eg Ogre, Horde...). I can see game technology being mostly open source with the actual game content and art being copyrighted and sold for profit.

[gn2]

Against in principle but forced to accept it in practice.

[Tipped OuT]

Why should we be against proprietary software? This is just silly. There's no real reason to be against it. How else are companies like Microsoft, Apple, Stardock, video game companies etc., suppose to make their money? Whether you like it or not, people need to make money to live off of, and the only real difference between open source and proprietary software, is one is free, and the other is not.

Being against something just because you can't modify it, and because it's not free, is just immature in my honest opinion.

[RiceMonster]

How else are companies like Microsoft, Apple, Stardock, video game companies etc., suppose to make their money?

Ask Red Hat. You can make money off open source, keep in mind. However, I still feel it's up to the company wheather or not they choose to release the source code, as in some cases proprietary software does make more sense for the company.

[Viva]

Why should we be against proprietary software? This is just silly. There's no real reason to be against it. How else are companies like Microsoft, Apple, Stardock, video game companies etc., suppose to make their money? Whether you like it or not, people need to make money to live off of, and the only real difference between open source and proprietary software, is one is free, and the other is not.

Being against something just because you can't modify it, and because it's not free, is just immature in my honest opinion.

There is a LOT of money in open source. And FOSS != free as in beer.

[Viva]

ask red hat. You can make money off open source, keep in mind. However, i still feel it's up to the company wheather or not they choose to release the source code, as in some cases proprietary software does make more sense for the company.

+1

[Tipped OuT]

+1

There is a LOT of money in open source. And FOSS != free as in beer.

Yeah, not enough to support a multi billion company.

And there's not "a LOT of money" in opensource. Please don't tell me I'm going to have to explain this. ](*,)

[RiceMonster]

Yeah, not enough to support a multi billion company.

And there's not "a LOT of money" in opensource. Please don't tell me I'm going to have to explain this. ](*,)

Sun was purchased by Oracle for $7.4 billion dollars, they support a very large amount of of open source software, and oracle is expecting their profits to increase by $1.5 billion in the first year. I personally think that's a lot of money.

Open source money does not come out of selling liscenses, rather it coems from other areas such as support. However, it does depend on what the company is doing. Someone like Adobe is not going to benefit from opensourcing, say, Photoshop.

[Viva]

Yeah, not enough to support a multi billion company.

And there's not "a LOT of money" in opensource. Please don't tell me I'm going to have to explain this. ](*,)

Most of microsoft's money comes from the contracts with OEMs and services. There is nothing stopping you from creating an open-source company, pour a lot of money into it and convince the hardware vendors into signing a contract.

I wonder how much money Apple makes directly from software. Apple is no different to a mobile phone or embedded device manufacturer that uses linux Again, if you have the vision of steve jobs, no one's going to stop you from shipping beautiful hardware with open source software on it. It actually saves them a lot of money because the development costs would be obviously lower. Would it makes them any less profitable if lets say, they ship the linux kernel instead.

Mozilla foundation makes around 70 million dollars per year. Not bad for a non-profit organization

Google and IBM are other multi-billion dollar companies who benefit from and contribute to open source projects.

Most of the misconceptions about money in open source software come from young/wannabe programmers who think they can create a distributable software and get rich quickly from selling it. It doesn't work like that. Companies hire programmers to write code, companies create software and companies provide services. These companies can benefit from open source software because it reduces the development and licensing costs and because they're reliable.

[chessnerd]

I'm all for proprietary software and I'm all for open source. The two ideas only conflict if you say they do. History shows that both models work but that some work better for one thing than the other and sometimes they work equally well.

For example, I've never seen a good open source video editor. Ever. The only decent ones are proprietary. On the flip side I firmly believe that file formats are better in their open source version. Ex: .doc is amazingly bloated compared to .odt.

And in the middle I think that both companies and open source groups can make good, stable operating systems. Argue against Windows all you want, but it is a good, solid OS.

What would be best is if the ideas worked together. Why can't Microsoft open source some of the parts of Windows that they need help with? Why can't Canonical go to a software company and ask them to make a strong, proprietary set of games for Linux?

[ViperChief]

I think Linsux would love you. ;)

Pfft...not so much.

[Tipped OuT]

Sun was purchased by Oracle for $7.4 billion dollars, they support a very large amount of of open source software, and oracle is expecting their profits to increase by $1.5 billion in the first year. I personally think that's a lot of money.

Open source money does not come out of selling liscenses, rather it coems from other areas such as support. However, it does depend on what the company is doing. Someone like Adobe is not going to benefit from opensourcing, say, Photoshop.

Most of microsoft's money comes from the contracts with OEMs and services. There is nothing stopping you from creating an open-source company, pour a lot of money into it and convince the hardware vendors into signing a contract.

I wonder how much money Apple makes directly from software. Apple is no different to a mobile phone or embedded device manufacturer that uses linux Again, if you have the vision of steve jobs, no one's going to stop you from shipping beautiful hardware with open source software on it. It actually saves them a lot of money because the development costs would be obviously lower. Would it makes them any less profitable if lets say, they ship the linux kernel instead.

Mozilla foundation makes around 70 million dollars per year. Not bad for a non-profit organization

Google and IBM are other multi-billion dollar companies who benefit from and contribute to open source projects.

Most of the misconceptions about money in open source software come from young/wannabe programmers who think they can create a distributable software and get rich quickly from selling it. It doesn't work like that. Companies hire programmers to write code, companies create software and companies provide services. These companies can benefit from open source software because it reduces the development and licensing costs and because they're reliable.

Ah okay, sorry then.

[Giant Speck]

pfft...not so much.

+1

[MikeTheC]

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/blog_files/Babylon%205/KoshS1.jpg

"The avalanche has already started.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

[Tipped OuT]

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n292/blog_files/Babylon%205/KoshS1.jpg

"The avalanche has already started.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

lol....

[hoppipolla]

I'm for it. I mean companies need to exist too, and be able to have their own projects and make money from them.

There are some great closed source apps out there (Spotify and Digsby are 2 I love in particular), but I know that as Open Source becomes more popular an increased abundance of coders will result in better software on our side too.

Time will tell which proves stronger :)