What's more important to you? Free? or Open Source?

[DigitalDuality]

Curious....

Growing up with technology, i've was pretty jaded to the idea of paying for software... even paying for music, and movies.

I've grown to be pretty moralistic and ethical about it... issues concerning DRM, proprietary software, intellectual property and patent abuses and the whole shebang. I find myself feeling kinda guilty i even supported the RIAA/MPAA, MS, and a number of organizations... and find it wrong that i've massively "shared/stolen" from them for a long time.

Nowadays i find myself supporting independent artists, Open source software, and free (as in beer) really isn't the focus for me..but the free as in freedom.

So curious, how many Ubuntu users use it because of the cost (lackthereof?) and how many use it because of the principles that surround general public licenses and open source in general?

Most people really don't distinguish between freeware and open source as 99% of the time. Free is free to most people, but sometimes IMO "free" isnt enough.

Or do you have another reason for using this? I do think Ubuntu and alot of the software iwthin it are top notch and that's definately a reason to use it.. but not my base reason..

[drizek]

id rather pay for opensource software than get freeware for free.

[briancurtin]

i prefer things to be free as in freedom, but if they are only free as in beer i can handle that. i would not mind paying for things that are only free as in freedom though.

i dont agree with people expecting everything to at least be free as in beer though

[blackant]

I think being free and open source would be good for the development a software.

But the world can't be full of 'free for all', hence there is still place for commercial softwares to go hand in hand.

Being free and open source has its place in helping the technology moving forward. Giving everyone who has the talent/creativity but without money, to try the software and further improve or feedback for improvement.

I understand the difference free and open source, but I prefer those which are both free and open source. :)

[mstlyevil]

I stated other because I support both formats. I believe in freedom both for those who wish to make their software freely available to everyone to use and edit as they wish and to those who want the creative control of their software but still want the price to be free as in beer. I have no problem with some one who creates intellectual property doing with that property as they wish. Whether they decide to charge for it or make it free as in price but retain control. Or those that want to make it free as in speech for anyone who wishes to do with as they please.

What is wrong is to limit anyones right to do with their property as they wish. If laws were to be passed that forced all software to become GNU or "free", that would be more immoral than making people pay for your software. Then you would be telling people that the time and money they spent developing something is not their own but belong to everyone. You do not expect a carpenter, plumber or even a musician to work for free yet people expect software developers to work for free. Ultimately freedom means that when someone develops something they have control and can choose what they want done with it. If that means they want to make it free for all to use as they wish then they expressed their freedom by their choice.

[Iandefor]

Freedom of software is preferred, but I think it's pretty awesome that I can get awesome software for nothing. If it came down to political freedom or economic freedom, I'd jump for political freedom.

[aysiu]

I prefer free open source, but if I have to pay for open source, that's cool, too... once I get some money.

[DigitalDuality]

I don't mean to knock commericial software. Personally i think MS and Apple, and a ton of other companies (Intuit, Adobe, Macromedia, etc etc) have made incredible products. I just can't support their business models anymore. I don't really have this typical idea that the sky is caving in, but the things alot of these companies are pushing for is some pretty scary stuff and i'd just prefer my dollar not go to it.

i prefer things to be free as in freedom, but if they are only free as in beer i can handle that. i would not mind paying for things that are only free as in freedom though.

i dont agree with people expecting everything to at least be free as in beer though
Agreed. Freeware is ok.. but i've even gotten conscious about that. I don't even want to use the mp3 format for instance anymore. Most audio formats are free as in beer, but we're begining to see them lock people into certain actions with data they probably paid for and are using legally. I have a problem with that. A major problem.

Though if someone creates a fine product, owns it, patented it, i have no problem with that person getting paid. I don't think patent terms should be continually extended as it seems they have been lately.. and there's about 100 patents i could think of at the top of my head that i'd like to take a flame thrower too.. (one click for instance, or Creative winning the rights to the iPod interface)

[BSDFreak]

To me it's OSS that is the most important part for one simple reason, it's a superior development model that produce better software.

[DigitalDuality]

To me it's OSS that is the most important part for one simple reason, it's a superior development model that produce better software.
While i wouldn't want to strip away the greatness of ALOT of wonderfully made applications out there under the OSS model..

There's still some apps that could use a ton of work. Quanta/Bluefish/Nvu for instance. :\

[BSDFreak]

While i wouldn't want to strip away the greatness of ALOT of wonderfully made applications out there under the OSS model..

There's still some apps that could use a ton of work. Quanta/Bluefish/Nvu for instance. :\

Yes there are, there are also alternatives and the thing is, if you think it needs work, you're free to contribute. ;)

[23meg]

I feel a need to stress that the poll is asking whether the "free as in beer" aspect or the open source aspect attracts us, not "Free as in freedom" or open source. Without doubt, I'm in it for the openness.

[DigitalDuality]

Yes there are, there are also alternatives and the thing is, if you think it needs work, you're free to contribute. ;)
hehe.. you're right. In this particular instance though.. i think they need work as they are no where near being a true replacement for FrontPage (crappy program in alot of ways.. but great for simple websites for people that don't know how to make a site otherwise), and Dreamweaver. I can't code the sites i want to make entirely... so i know i'm not coding FOR the apps :)

[BSDFreak]

hehe.. you're right. In this particular instance though.. i think they need work as they are no where near being a true replacement for FrontPage (crappy program in alot of ways.. but great for simple websites for people that don't know how to make a site otherwise), and Dreamweaver. I can't code the sites i want to make entirely... so i know i'm not coding FOR the apps :)

Well have you told the developers about what needs to be done, what you believe to be most urgent, whatever bugs you have found and so on?

I don't think that they ever WILL be a replacement for current software, it's hard to go from one program to another if the new program isn't like the old one (hell i've had enough trouble just going from one shell to another when switching between Linux and BSD), i think the aim is towards new users, not to draw users away from other software (unless they are unhappy with the other software).

I don't use Frontpage or Dreamweaver myself (nor bluefish or any other OSS program for that task) so i really cannot comment on it's progress or differences.

[BSDFreak]

I feel a need to stress that the poll is asking whether the "free as in beer" aspect or the open source aspect attracts us, not "Free as in freedom" or open source. Without doubt, I'm in it for the openness.
I knew you'd say that. ;)

[drizek]

hehe.. you're right. In this particular instance though.. i think they need work as they are no where near being a true replacement for FrontPage (crappy program in alot of ways.. but great for simple websites for people that don't know how to make a site otherwise), and Dreamweaver. I can't code the sites i want to make entirely... so i know i'm not coding FOR the apps :)

you are comparing FOSS apps to commercial apps. even though frontpage sucks, its still got a bunch of paid developers working on it, so it is going to have the upper hand if the OSS stuff isnt being actively developed. This thread is about whether FOSS is better than just freeware, and even in this case, it is. How exactly would the developers of those apps benefit by making their apps closed source?

Short answer: They wont

[23meg]

I knew you'd say that. ;)
I felt it needed to be said since the thread title sounds like it's asking about Free Software vs. open source, but in the original post the question goes as "free as in beer vs. open source", and I know that many people who use forums post replies after only scanning through the original post and getting a rough idea of what it's saying. Also I'd prefer using "free as in beer" instead of freeware, which may again be a misleading term. I'm such a jackass literalist, right :cool:

[Mustard]

OSS is important to me because people know what it does. Anybody can look through the source code and find out what the software is doing. For me this means security, and no backdoors peaking into my computer. It's a transparent system. FOSS is just as important to me as I have don't have a lot of money to throw away on software.

[drfalkor]

OSS and FOSS :)

[BSDFreak]

I felt it needed to be said since the thread title sounds like it's asking about Free Software vs. open source, but in the original post the question goes as "free as in beer vs. open source", and I know that many people who use forums post replies after only scanning through the original post and getting a rough idea of what it's saying. Also I'd prefer using "free as in beer" instead of freeware, which may again be a misleading term. I'm such a jackass literalist, right :cool:

Oh, not that, i meant that you like the OSS part more than the F part of FOSS. ;)

I was thinking of our discussion regarding MSN Messenger as i read the question. ;)

I agree with that though, open code is open, can't hide nothing in there.

[BSDFreak]

OSS is important to me because people know what it does. Anybody can look through the source code and find out what the software is doing. For me this means security, and no backdoors peaking into my computer. It's a transparent system. FOSS is just as important to me as I have don't have a lot of money to throw away on software.

Well it's kinda redundant as both would be OSS the way you put it, i believe the question is whether you'd take F over OSS or OSS over F. ;)

[nocturn]

I'm missing an option, Free Software which is different from both Open Source and Freeware.

I prefer GPL licensed software.

[23meg]

Oh, not that, i meant that you like the OSS part more than the F part of FOSS. ;)

I was thinking of our discussion regarding MSN Messenger as i read the question. ;)

I agree with that though, open code is open, can't hide nothing in there.
I don't know how you deduced that from that discussion but I do like the Freedom aspect; it's just that it's out of context here, and that's what I was stressing :cool: In other words, I'm in it more for the openness than the freebieness, but again, more for the Freedom than the openness.

[BSDFreak]

I'm missing an option, Free Software which is different from both Open Source and Freeware.

I prefer GPL licensed software.

Ya, don't we all, but which do you value most about it, that it doesn't cost anything or that it is open source?

[BSDFreak]

I don't know how you deduced that from that discussion but I do like the Freedom aspect; it's just that it's out of context here, and that's what I was stressing :cool: In other words, I'm in it more for the openness than the freebieness, but again, more for the Freedom than the openness.

It's my superhuman mind. ;)

Nah, seriously i though about how closed source isn't open for review and that you were anxious about letting anything go through MS's servers without being encrypted.

I don't really know what you mean by freedom, does using FOSS make you more or less free?

If i didn't beleive that OSS was a superior development model that provides superior software then i probably wouldn't use it.

[23meg]

Nah, seriously i though about how closed source isn't open for review and that you were anxious about letting anything go through MS's servers without being encrypted.Spot on :cool:

I don't really know what you mean by freedom, does using FOSS make you more or less free?It makes me more free, both due to its open nature and its initial reasons of existence, the way of thinking that's motivated it.

[awakatanka]

Doesn't matter for me as long as the prg is good i use it, payed our not that doesn't matter, Closed our not also doesn't matter for me, as long as it works and there is support/updates for then i'm ok with everything.

[BSDFreak]

Spot on :cool:
It makes me more free, both due to its open nature and its initial reasons of existence, the way of thinking that's motivated it.

Ah, well more free in the sense that you can use, review, distribute, modify and have full control over your software and information? I completely agree about that.

I'm not much for the ideals of RMS and the FSF though.

[closeyourwindows]

first of all I want to say that I have been a M$ user since 3.1 and just learned about Linux couple years ago, using fedora mainly for about 1 year and just switched to Ububtu.

I use and have used M$ because there is so Much software for it but I have started to see the corporate hoopla in the software such as... installing a game and you might end up with a new tool bar and so on...

I also admit that I never paid for any software for MS including the OS. I have always found a crack or a serial, etc.. But I have recently started to see the funtionality in open source and have found alternatives to the hacked software I have been using. so I would say I would prefer open source because there is a community to support this rather that an idependant company usually with intentions to exploit your computer. I am always a bit sceptical of using free ware since nothing is free.

[23meg]

Ah, well more free in the sense that you can use, review, distribute, modify and have full control over your software and information? I completely agree about that.
Right.

I'm not much for the ideals of RMS and the FSF though.
RMS and the FSF want all software to be free; other than that, what you mention are more or less their ideals. I too have no problem with some software remaining proprietary; we'll outscore them in just about any game with open source anyway.

[nocturn]

Ya, don't we all, but which do you value most about it, that it doesn't cost anything or that it is open source?

That it is Free software, I'm on the Free Software Foundation's side of the Open Source against Free Software debate.

I value all the rights specified equally (right to use, study, modify, ...). I choose Ubuntu because of the social contract (over SuSE or any of the others).

[Derek Djons]

I voted for 'other'. I think both platforms need eachother. Not totally (for 100%) but there wouldn't be a crowded audience which worked community-wise or in what other form to improve and release new software.

[BSDFreak]

That it is Free software, I'm on the Free Software Foundation's side of the Open Source against Free Software debate.

I value all the rights specified equally (right to use, study, modify, ...). I choose Ubuntu because of the social contract (over SuSE or any of the others).
It's a hypothetical question, do you value that you don't have to pay for it more than that it is free to modify, distribute and open sourced.

I don't care for the ideals of FSF and RMS, especially his comments that Debian should rid themselves of the nasty point in their social contract to support people who use non free software.

In their efforts to get rid of restrictions they are creating a whole new set of restrictions.

This is exactly why i believe that the BSD licence is better than GPL, it's not as restricted.

[BSDFreak]

Right.

RMS and the FSF want all software to be free; other than that, what you mention are more or less their ideals. I too have no problem with some software remaining proprietary; we'll outscore them in just about any game with open source anyway.

See my post above.

I definently agree with you that FOSS will outscore CS which is why i don't believe that the restrictions of the GPL are neccessary.

FOSS is simply a much better way to develop software.

[earobinson]

open standards is most important to me, for example google telling anyone how to connect to there service, or microsoft telling everyone one how to open up .doc files... (they dont do this but will with the next version im told)

[sbasak]

Free software is more important to me. Of course, if it is open source it is better. But to tell the truth, for 99.99% software, I don't care about the code. Only if I like the program really, I may want to alter it.

[commodore]

Free software as in GPL. Free software is also open-source.