Open Source? Proprietary? Why the fuss?

[Kernel Sanders]

I was just thinking. Why the fuss about these two? I definately get the advantages of open source, dont get me wrong, but I also see nothing wrong with proprietary software either.

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?

Having read a lot of the posts around here, I know there are some people that would never go near a project that i'd outlined above, and I was just wondering why I guess, and why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open? :-k

[23meg]

However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work,
It can still be your project if you open source it.

Having read a lot of the posts around here, I know there are some people that would never go near a project that i'd outlined above, and I was just wondering why I guess, and why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open?

That distinction is usually made between proprietary vs. Free rather than proprietary vs. open. Free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) (by the GNU definition and other similar ones) is about more than monetary freeness and availability of source code.

[Brunellus]

I was just thinking. Why the fuss about these two? I definately get the advantages of open source, dont get me wrong, but I also see nothing wrong with proprietary software either.

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?

Having read a lot of the posts around here, I know there are some people that would never go near a project that i'd outlined above, and I was just wondering why I guess, and why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open? :-k
Proprietary software encourages vendor-dependence: getting into it is easy, getting out might not be.

An example: I ran Lotus Smart Suite as my office suite for two years--this was before IBM/Lotus had gone with the OpenDocument standard. I recently wanted to recover some of my old files from those days.

I discovered that the old .lwp format in which my files had been kept was not readable by anything other than the program which generated them. They were binary files, and there wasn't even a way to extract the text I'd typed in.

Luckily, I still had the software and a functioning Windows partition, so I was able to recover and convert my files. Granted, the transition was from .lwp to .doc, but the next step will be to move towards a more .odf compatible format.

The moral of this story: I depended on proprietary software to keep my data. When I needed it again, I still needed to depend on the same software to read the same data. If I hadn't had the software, I'd have been up a creek without a paddle.

Contrast this to free formats. You don't really *need* Abiword or OpenOffice.org Writer to read the default file formats generated by these programs. The plain text is always easily recoverable in a text editor--even if you do lose the formatting information. In an emergency, I'd be better off with the free format than I would be with the proprietary one.

That's the practical concern.

[lyceum]

Wow! Don't say that too loud in front of some people! :D

It really depends on who you ask. There are some people that feel that locking people out of the code is a crime against humanity. The code should be free, because it is a God given right to look at and alter the code, much like the US's first amendment rights.

There are other people that feel that by closing the code, you lose room to better the code. If I make a program, and you fix a but, everyone wins. So, that is not a right, just a better way of doing things.

The third problem with closed code is that it limits what you can do with the program. For example, if I buy a program with closed code I can normally only put that program on one or two different PCs. You have to get licensed and it is very easy to accidentally use pirated software.

I think the code should be free/open because I paid for it. I don't want to rent my programs, after all, I am not going to be giving it back. The programs themselves are not "good" or "bad", it is the people behind them. If the company is trying to create a monopoly, or they don't give you everything you need, they are bad. The program is only as god as it was written, and if the program is closed it won't get any better until the next release.

Check out this link:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2170549/open-source-grows-asia

[BoyOfDestiny]

I was just thinking. Why the fuss about these two? I definately get the advantages of open source, dont get me wrong, but I also see nothing wrong with proprietary software either.

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?

Having read a lot of the posts around here, I know there are some people that would never go near a project that i'd outlined above, and I was just wondering why I guess, and why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open? :-k


Well it's pretty simple.

Does your "binary" work across all distros? Different OS's too?
Does it work on more than 1 architecture?
How long do you plan to keep it up to date?
Will you one day charge for it?
Will you embed some sort of "phone home" aspect and not tell anyone until it's found out? (cough WGA...)
What happens if the sourcecode is lost (it's happened, look at ZZT)
Will your software work in 20 years? (I have games that do, not all through emulation, some get gpl'd (sopwith) or the code freed to public domain)

This situtation gets worse with drivers. I have no problem with proprietary games, especially in an virtual machine.

If your app doesn't adhere to standard formats things get worse. If you were talking drivers things get much worse. Devs hands get tied, have to wait for vendors to release it, or break compatibility with a new release that benefits users not needing the driver... We shall see how things like that go with Fiesty...

Anyway, I'll take multiplatform, multi architecture, GPL'd code any day of the week over some "useful" freeware if I can help it.

EDIT: Just to echo 23meg, you can have something "open source" and proprietary. Real life example: most books.

[lwr]

There are many advantages to the open-source way of doing things. For one, you have a whole load of people doing bug fixes and feature improvements for you. As 23meg said, it can still be your project. You'd still be the one in control of what went into the application and in charge of the direction. I think this is how it works with just about everything, including the Linux kernel itself. I could add some crazy messed up stuff to the kernel, but it doesn't mean Linus Torvalds is going to include it in the next release.
Apart from producing better apps, open-sourceness allows people to customise your application to exactly suit there needs, and they can be sure that it's not in any way malicious.

[Cynical]

You have this concern that because you open up the code, you may no longer run the project yourself. Thats not true, but if you release it under the GPL, others are free to take your code and make better versions of your program. Most often thats why the open source method produces better quality and more diverse software. I dislike proprietary software because of the vendor lock-in someone above described. I prefer open-source software because its more secure and stable.

An example of the type of project you are describing would be utorrent. No doubt its a popular client, but because of its proprietary nature, people wanting to use it in Linux must resort to compatability layers like wine because the authors choose not to port it. If the code was open I'm positive someone would step up and do the work themselves. Another benefit is that other clients like Azureus could take advantage of techniques utorrent uses to keep its memory footprint low.

[engla]

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?


If you try starting an open project you'll find that it will depend completely on your direction and hard work. Many projects are run like this by the author in solitude. Just because it's open source doesn't mean (sadly) that people come running eager to help and pull and tear into your project.

For example, InitNG was hyped and all over our sphere. The main dev collected some core people that helped him a lot, but now that the main author disappeared nothing is really happening at all.

[maniacmusician]

just to diverge a little off topic, Ludde did have plans to release uTorrent for linux eventually. But lets forget that now, it was a faliure. Actually, uTorrent is a great example of why not to keep stuff proprietary. open-source is easier because you can build a community around it, have a bunch of people that will help write the code, submit bug reports, make improvements, etc. You'll end up with a better program, which I think is more important than keeping it proprietary just to be able to say "Hey look, I did this all by myself". [sigh] I do wish Azureus had a smaller footprint, but that's not going to happen. I'd rather that someone just build a client that can match the speed and features of Azurues with a smaller footprint (because uTorrent, though small, can't match the download speed of Azureus)

[v8YKxgHe]

The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on.

People put all their hard work into a program, and people wont use it because it's not free enough, even though it is open source. You can't expect everything to be free ( price )

Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.

[Brunellus]

The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on.

People put all their hard work into a program, and people wont use it because it's not free enough, even though it is open source. You can't expect everything to be free ( price )

Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.
If it's as OpenSource as it says, then the grousers will build it themselves.

[technodigifreak]

All of the arguements above are valid. The simplest explanation of proprietary is that you are simply renting it from the manufacturer. It was never yours in the first place and it never will be.


The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on... Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.

Look at MySQL AB, they have a very successful business based on a dual license. Also, most projects are supported by donations. As a general rule, anytime I use FLOSS for a commercial project I make sure that either the company that recieves the benefit from the software makes a donation to those FLOSS projects or I build a "donation fee" into my billable hours spent on that project.

[syrleb]

who really cares....

[lyceum]

The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on.

People put all their hard work into a program, and people wont use it because it's not free enough, even though it is open source. You can't expect everything to be free ( price )

Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.

I agree with that. At some point FOSS will get big enough to take over the PC stores. The Microcenter I go to sells some Linux and FOSS stuff. I don't buy the stuff I can get for free or won't use, but otherwise, what is the difference? It is free and in beer, right?

[Brunellus]

who really cares....
I do.

I run "Free where possible, proprietary only when necessary."

I've been burned by vendor lock-in, and have no desire to be burned again.

[Brunellus]

I agree with that. At some point FOSS will get big enough to take over the PC stores. The Microcenter I go to sells some Linux and FOSS stuff. I don't buy the stuff I can get for free or won't use, but otherwise, what is the difference? It is free and in beer, right?
MicroCenter have been remarkably positive (compared to the rest of the industry) to the Linux community. My local one is well-supplied with *nix resources.

[raublekick]

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?

It is pretty egotistical to think that YOUR vision is the same vision for EVERYONE. It is also pretty egotistical to think that YOU ALONE can make the best program for EVERYONE.

Opensource projects generally don't result in a melee of programmers tossing whatever they want into the source tree. Many retain the goals of their creator, and keep small development teams that adhere to those goals.

[maniacmusician]

The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on.

People put all their hard work into a program, and people wont use it because it's not free enough, even though it is open source. You can't expect everything to be free ( price )

Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.

I don't buy things right now because I have no money :( When I can back up my words with cash, I certainly will buy things. But I know the type you're talking about. They drive me crazy :evil:

[muep]

Is there some free software that needs to be paid for?

If it's free software according to FSF's definition, I have no problem using it. The only thing is that all this software can be obtained free of charge.

If it's open source but proprietary, I'll rather use something else.

[Brunellus]

Is there some free software that needs to be paid for?

If it's free software according to FSF's definition, I have no problem using it. The only thing is that all this software can be obtained free of charge.

If it's open source but proprietary, I'll rather use something else.
yeah, RHEL and SLED, for instance.

[darkmediator]

Norton was found to be using rootkits in its antivirus. Closed source. That could be found only with high level of expertise.
Open source => u can just see it urself even if ur a low level programmer although even if open source software containing some contamination is released, then it will be in news the next day.

I guess thats enough and satifying reason to hate closed source apps. Rootkits..... keep losing ur data for an year or more and later find to ur nightmare that u've been ruined and bankrupted.

[lyceum]

MicroCenter have been remarkably positive (compared to the rest of the industry) to the Linux community. My local one is well-supplied with *nix resources.

I just wish their staff knew more about it. <sigh> The day will come...

[Lord Illidan]

Open Source doesn't mean that the source is like a wiki as in anyone can edit the code and save changes willy nilly. You can still have control over who can upload patches, etc. You can refuse patches if you want...then people can fork your program. OSS is quite flexible.

[awakatanka]

Open Source doesn't mean that the source is like a wiki as in anyone can edit the code and save changes willy nilly. You can still have control over who can upload patches, etc. You can refuse patches if you want...then people can fork your program. OSS is quite flexible.And the fork gets more popular and nobody is using the original anymore. So you don't have control anymore over you're own code. Both have goodthings and badthings. I use what ever fits me the best. And if i have to pay for it i look if i can our else i search for something that is cheaper our for free but does almost the same.

[Frak]

I'll tell you this, first time I came close to this, I was afraid of open-source because I thought that it would be terribly unstable compared to proprietary software, took the leap one day, and I'm very happy, everything I do on here is the same I'd do on proprietary software, and its better because I can mend it to my needs.

[.t.]

Read my writings at http://tibsplace.co.uk

[Koori23]

I understand the arguments either way. Frankly though, I've never looked at the source code of anything I've installed. I do feel as though, if one has the knowledge to interpet this information.. You should be able to do so. The main argument is, in my eyes... Restrictive licensing and it's limitations.

If I purchase a push lawnmower, it's mine. I can pretty much do whatever I want with it.. As long as I don't sue them for getting hurt operating the mower outside of it's design. It's the same if you mess with something in Ubuntu and it ends up breaking.. Should you blame GNOME or whoever it is? No. You messed with it, it's your responsiblity. Open Source promotes responsible coding.

[.t.]

Exactly!

With Windows (or any closed software), this is never true.

[thk]

FLOSS needs to compete with proprietary on merit, up to the point where the marginal cost of using proprietary outweighs the gains in added features. For most people, the marginal cost is very low, so it really comes down to which program is better. Many FLOSS projects are way better than their proprietary counterparts, but not all. Note that if you have to invest significant time learning proprietary, then the marginal costs go way up because the value of your skills become tied to someone else's intellectual property (they can pull the software from the market).

[Lord Illidan]

And the fork gets more popular and nobody is using the original anymore. So you don't have control anymore over you're own code. Both have goodthings and badthings. I use what ever fits me the best. And if i have to pay for it i look if i can our else i search for something that is cheaper our for free but does almost the same.

That's called competition. And forks can be good things...GNOME was originally just a KDE fork, because Qt was propietary. KDE is now improving because of the competition from GNOME, like MS is now improving IE because of the competition from Firefox.

If you let your program get stagnant because you don't let anyone update it, then it's your own fault that people are not using your program. But it is within your rights to maintain a hand on what code people can enter into the tree, like Linus Torvalds does with Linux and Richard Hipp does with SQL Lite.

[Polygon]

i like open source as since anyone can edit the code, and report bug fixes, the program ends up just being overall better, more stable and even in cases with the kernel, more secure then something that a group of engineers working in a company could create. With open source, you basically open up your code to a lot of different eyes, and maybe something you missed someone will pick up.

not to mention you cant beat free.

[Lord Illidan]

Also, if you are learning programming like me, you can learn heaps by looking at the source code of existing programs and adapting them to your own use.

[Sef]

You need to use what you feel is best for you. Most everyone here will feel that open source is better than proprietary software. I will use proprietary software at times if I like it. Opera is not my main browser, but I do use it at times. Mainly I use Epiphany.

[aysiu]

I like the idea of open source better than proprietary, but I'll use whatever's best/cheapest. Of course, if it's the best and free and Free... even better.

For me, it depends greatly on the application. Much as I like Evince, Adobe Reader offers me the ability to fill in PDF forms, and Evince does not. Much as I like the idea of Ogg, MP3 is what works to share with my wife and to use on my Sandisk player. Gnash may be great ideologically, but you have to admit--if you want to view a website that uses Flash, you'll almost always need Macromedia's Flash, at least at this point.

On the other hand, I think the best mail client for me is Thunderbird. Firefox is the best browser for me, and I also favor Rhythmbox, GIMP, and OpenOffice... and, of course, Ubuntu.

Since less than 15% of users on these forums have totally Free systems, I'd say there really isn't that much fuss...

[23meg]

And the fork gets more popular and nobody is using the original anymore. So you don't have control anymore over you're own code.Only possible if you choose a license that permits forks, such as the GPL.

[addicted68098]

If there is no money involved I think it should be open source, open source is about combining resources and improving the end result, not trying to one up each other.

[Iandefor]

Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that? It could still be your project. A practical difference between OSS and proprietary software is that, while you can maintain an iron grip on both kinds of software, if your software doesn't meet my needs, I can take your software and run with it if I need to when it's open. See Compiz and Beryl- the Beryl people felt like Reveman was more conservative than they liked to be, so they forked Compiz. Reveman is still entirely free to be as conservative or liberal as he likes with Compiz without needing to worry about those folks from Beryl constantly badgering him with patches for features he doesn't want to bother with. Both parties maintain as much control over their projects as they want, and everyone's free to take the code and run with it if a project doesn't meet their needs.
Having read a lot of the posts around here, I know there are some people that would never go near a project that i'd outlined above, and I was just wondering why I guess, and why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open? :-kFreedom matters enough to me that I'm not comfortable patronizing software that doesn't grant me the freedom to change it or get it changed on my terms if I want to. So I try to steer clear of proprietary solutions.

That's not saying I only use totally libre software- there are lots of formats out there I can't reliably access or use without a proprietary product and I don't have much choice but to compromise there.

[lyceum]

Only possible if you choose a license that permits forks, such as the GPL.

That is a good point, how free is free? IF you can't fork, but can change the code for home use I guess it is free, but limited freedom. This, of coarse is still better that not free at all. I found a distro once that let me down load the OS, free, put it on my PC, free, and use it how I wished, free. But, if I wanted to share it, I would have to download it again, make a new disk for every PC I wanted to use it on. So it was free, but not free, you know?

[23meg]

That is a good point, how free is free?As free as the license says, no more and no less.
IF you can't fork, but can change the code for home use I guess it is free, but limited freedom.
A license may also say that you can contribute openly, but cannot fork. It's always good to take note of what license a program is available under before dedicating time and energy to utilizing it. It's the license that defines what you can and can't do with it.

[Rhapsody]

Only possible if you choose a license that permits forks, such as the GPL.

That would be a proprietary licence though. One of the defining traits of both free and open source software is that forks are allowed.

[az]

I was just thinking. Why the fuss about these two? I definately get the advantages of open source, dont get me wrong, but I also see nothing wrong with proprietary software either.


It depends. I have no problem with an individual who choses to run proprietary applications. It's their computer and their choice.

I do not like having someone tell me that my freedom to use my computer has been lost because they claim rights on software they wrote.

If proprietary software did not involve software patents, then the problem would be an order of magnitute smaller.

Software patents only serve the owners of the patent and do a disservice to the public (users).

I also don't like being forced to use proprietary applications and closed formats. But again, if someone else choses to use them, I could care less...




Say for example I thought of an application that would benefit a lot of people. So I started from scratch, poured my heart and soul into it, and then gave it away for free. However, I want this to be my project, with my direction and hard work, but I just want to give the benefit of it to anyone and everyone. Would there really be anything wrong with that?

There are a variety of licences that you can use to release your code under those terms - some proprietary and some free/libre (including the GPL.)

When you release code, you automatically own the copyright on it. You then can decide under what licence to distribute it to others. You get to decide because you own the copyright.

Copyright per se does not restrict your or my freedom. It's the licence you use that can do that.



why there is such a negative vibe towards free software that is proprietary rather than open? :-k

Because unlike most industries, the software industry changes quickly and innovates very often in very small steps. The fact that one person can legally take possession of one idea (software patent) and then prohibit others from using and building on that idea is insane.

If everyone who owned software patents actually used them to their full extent, the software industry would be at a complete standstill.

Imagine a doctor who is no allowed to do research in a particular field because another doctor owns a patent on that particular disease. That is exactly how patents are not suited for software and how they serve the owners of the patents and benefit in no way the users of the software.

[23meg]

That would be a proprietary licence though.That would be true to the extent that you base the decision on grounds of property ownership. I'd call it a restrictive open source license.
One of the defining traits of both free and open source software is that forks are allowed.While the OSI, like the FSF, wouldn't approve not allowing forks, it is still doable with custom and/or dual licenses, but obviously at the cost of one of the important characters of open sourcing.

[awakatanka]

That's called competition. And forks can be good things...GNOME was originally just a KDE fork, because Qt was propietary. KDE is now improving because of the competition from GNOME, like MS is now improving IE because of the competition from Firefox.

If you let your program get stagnant because you don't let anyone update it, then it's your own fault that people are not using your program. But it is within your rights to maintain a hand on what code people can enter into the tree, like Linus Torvalds does with Linux and Richard Hipp does with SQL Lite.
agree on competition, but if you have a vision and want to take your prg there on a secure but slower way but the fork people do it more unsecured and faster way and because of that the fork is more popular then the original, slowly the original is going to die because people don't use it and don't give feedback there goes you're vision of a secure and good app. Compiz and beryl fit in those description. The developer of Compiz want it on a slower and more secure way and doesn't allow unsecured hacks. The Beryl people think its better to hack around and give the people what they want faster but more inscure.

If its really more insecure i dunno and i dunno of that is the real reason, but it could be possible on the long run because of hacks around problems and to fast coding to fit the needs of the users. i as simple user don't care of that all i want the newest the fastest way and a lot of people think the same.

I love the opensource and i think its a goodway to go, but i can understand that people bring apps under a different license so they are really in control of there little project.

[Rhapsody]

That would be true to the extent that you base the decision on grounds of property ownership. I'd call it a restrictive open source license.

That you may, but the Open Source Initiative would disagree. I've seen MAMEDev use 'source available' to describe the terms of the (non-free) MAME License. Perhaps that's what you were aiming for.


While the OSI, like the FSF, wouldn't approve not allowing forks, it is still doable with custom and/or dual licenses, but obviously at the cost of one of the important characters of open sourcing.

A custom licence not allowing forks would not be free or open source, while dual licensing under both a free/open source and a proprietary licence would allow forks under the free/open source licence. Either the software is free or it's not, you don't get a middle ground.

[az]

Either the software is free or it's not, you don't get a middle ground.

I think you both are trying to say the same thing.

A FLOSS licence means the software is free. A more restrictive licence is still open source, but non-free.

Dual-licencing the same application can allow you to do business with people who want to link with your code, but do not want to have to adopt the same licence. Such dual-licencing schemes tend to put a damper on the community surrounding the project, IMHO.

[Hex_Mandos]

As a user, I side with OSS whenever I can, as I like using free (gratis) stuff but distrust non-libre freeware (I hate malware). I agree that there might be some cases in which proprietary software might be much better than free, as I think a proprietary license protects the rights of an individual profit-oriented developer better (sure, you can forbid people from forking from your source, but they could do it and sell a disguised non-free version of your work... you could probably sue the offenders, but it'd be prohibitive for an individual).

What I would encourage, even for proprietary developers, would be using free file formats. It can still be "your work" and use more transparent formats, benefitting everybody. I consider Flash to be a big offender... I need it to use websites with a semblance of "normalcy", but I can't modify it in any way. Even when I first started surfing I'd on occasion look at the page html, and flash prevents me from doing this.

[argie]

I find it harder to trust proprietary software because even very popular companies have been caught being "evil".

Also, you can restrict your code in such a way that when source is distributed it must be distributed as vanilla source + patch files and that would still be compliant with DFSG. (LaTeX does this?)

Still, I must admit, I use Opera now and then.

In any case, unless you introduce all sorts of anti-crack stuff into your program like Soldat does (and even then) you'll just have your stuff getting cracked, so money is not an issue there. The people who'd pay will pay, others won't.

See, I'm sure the real users will happily pay for a boxed binary that comes with support, and the ones who'll freeload would be the ones applying cracks in the first place anyway.

[Rhapsody]

I think you both are trying to say the same thing.

A FLOSS licence means the software is free. A more restrictive licence is still open source, but non-free.

'Open Source' frequently means the OSI-definition though, using it to describe licences that don't fit their definition of open source software is just asking for trouble.


Dual-licencing the same application can allow you to do business with people who want to link with your code, but do not want to have to adopt the same licence. Such dual-licencing schemes tend to put a damper on the community surrounding the project, IMHO.

We were talking about forks though, and the fact that a free/open source project can always be forked, by definition.

[Lord Illidan]

agree on competition, but if you have a vision and want to take your prg there on a secure but slower way but the fork people do it more unsecured and faster way and because of that the fork is more popular then the original, slowly the original is going to die because people don't use it and don't give feedback there goes you're vision of a secure and good app. Compiz and beryl fit in those description. The developer of Compiz want it on a slower and more secure way and doesn't allow unsecured hacks. The Beryl people think its better to hack around and give the people what they want faster but more inscure.

If its really more insecure i dunno and i dunno of that is the real reason, but it could be possible on the long run because of hacks around problems and to fast coding to fit the needs of the users. i as simple user don't care of that all i want the newest the fastest way and a lot of people think the same.

I love the opensource and i think its a goodway to go, but i can understand that people bring apps under a different license so they are really in control of there little project.

Don't forget that in the long run, the projects might also share some code, so for example, Compiz might adopt some Beryl plugins, and Beryl will try and make itself more secure.

It's just like Debian and its derivatives. Ubuntu, Knoppix, and all the hundreds of derivatives out there are getting more popular than Debian. Is Debian forgotten? Hardly.

[forrestcupp]

Proprietary software encourages vendor-dependence: getting into it is easy, getting out might not be.

The moral of this story: I depended on proprietary software to keep my data. When I needed it again, I still needed to depend on the same software to read the same data. If I hadn't had the software, I'd have been up a creek without a paddle.


That's not necessarily the case. I used GnuCash to keep track of my finances. I kept track of everything for about a half a year. Then I decided I wanted to switch to something else that could print checks for me. Guess what, GnuCash couldn't export my data to any file that something else could read. So when I switched software, I had to manually enter a half a year's worth of data. GnuCash is opensource Free software. So that argument doesn't really apply.

I think people who refuse to use good software just because it's proprietary are just whiners. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not our God-given right to be able to view all source code. It is our right to have whatever freedom the publisher decides to give us according to the license.

If I find proprietary software that just works better than the opensource alternatives, I will use it. You can do whatever you want.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Sometimes proprieary stuff is good though, I like trillain on windows and I like Opera all around.
Opera though is hands down the best proprietary software though, but they could do more for non windows OS integration.

[DarkOx]

Speaking as a user who can't program at all, whether or not I can look at the source code is entirely irrelevant to me. All I want is to be treated well as a customer: to have the ability to use my data how I want to use it, to know I'm not being spied on, to have software that's generally free of defects, etc.

Open Source does a great job of keeping people honest about these things, which is why I like it. But if a proprietary company treats me the same way, the difference between proprietary and open source isn't distinguishable to me, as a non-programmer.

The one thing I don't like about Open Source is that it removes economic incentive to improve your product. If me and another guy are making competing products, it makes sense to just fork his code every time he has a good idea. It takes less time, less effort, and less cost. Unless you can attach a service to the product you're providing (which is not always possible), there's no way to differentiate yourself through your code. I imagine this must suck a bit if you're a coder wanting to make your living off that code. (Note that there may be other incentives to improve the code in an Open Source situation, like getting the product to suit your own needs. I'm just talking about the economic ones here.)

In a nutshell, I love the benefits of Open Source, because it ensures you're treated well. But I can fully understand why a coder would want to keep his work proprietary. I'm kind of on the fence on the whole open vs. closed issue; I think the program you're trying to make and what you hope to do with it should determine what kind of license you use.

[DoctorMO]

Speaking as a user who can't program at all, whether or not I can look at the source code is entirely irrelevant to me.

Er no it does effect you, your a third party in this sense; but the thing that keeps the code clean and free of defects are your good programmer friends whom you might not know but are doing you a good service by improving the code and making sure there is nothing malicious. they don't want for anything and don't even know you exist. on the other hand a company with shareholders has very clear goals. to make money, lots of money as fast and as much of as possible. that doesn't always lead to good code and all your programmer friends who you don't know can't do anything to help you what so ever. you have indeed painted yourself into a corner because you are not considering the bigger picture.


The one thing I don't like about Open Source is that it removes economic incentive to improve your product. If me and another guy are making competing products, it makes sense to just fork his code every time he has a good idea. It takes less time, less effort, and less cost. Unless you can attach a service to the product you're providing (which is not always possible), there's no way to differentiate yourself through your code. I imagine this must suck a bit if you're a coder wanting to make your living off that code. (Note that there may be other incentives to improve the code in an Open Source situation, like getting the product to suit your own needs. I'm just talking about the economic ones here.)

Economic incentives is about receiving monetary compensation for the work you _do_ not for the work you have _done_ many times over and over because you _own_ it like your selling the same piece of land over and over again. it doesn't make sense in the software world to sell software in this manner, there is no cost to reproduce only to research and create the first instance. and it's got to be the biggest waste of time for 50 other people in 50 other companies to have to program the same things over and over because no one wants to share. even though they all would dearly love to because it would save them money.

In the end what differentiates you is not how ruthless a bastard you can be, but how good the work you do is. and that my friend is how free software keeps people honest. it removes the economic incentive to be what my friends like to call 'capitalistic abusers' and puts it squarely with those who do the best work.

I'm a programmer, I do open source code, I don't get paid for it. my incentive is love for my community. and I refuse to be pitied because I don't make money from it.

[aysiu]

Closed source means a lot of reinventing the wheel. Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants.

And open source generally makes money in different ways. Firefox has made millions from Google searches. Red Hat and Novell (and possibly Ubuntu in the future) make money from offering support. Home users do not like to pay for support, but companies generally are distrustful of products that do not offer pay-for support.

I am an end-user (not a programmer), and open source affects me directly. If I use an open source product, there are fewer restrictions on me. I don't have to worry about how many times I install the software, on how many machines, what extensions or plugins I can or cannot install. Open source is generally trustworthy--I have yet to come across any open source software I want to use that costs money, is known to carry spyware along with it, requires an activation key, or has only a 30-day trial period.

[23meg]

That's not necessarily the case. I used GnuCash to keep track of my finances. I kept track of everything for about a half a year. Then I decided I wanted to switch to something else that could print checks for me. Guess what, GnuCash couldn't export my data to any file that something else could read. So when I switched software, I had to manually enter a half a year's worth of data. GnuCash is opensource Free software. So that argument doesn't really apply.The point is, even if there was such an inconvenience in your case, since the software is open and uses open standards, you can always get your data out of it. In your particular case, the obstacle wasn't vendor lock-in and closed standards, it was (perhaps) the lack of an implementation of a certain feature. Even in a worst case scenario, if you must have your data back, you can place a request for it to be implemented, or if you're in a rush, hire a developer to implement the feature. You couldn't do that with proprietary software; your data would be at the mercy of the vendor.

I think people who refuse to use good software just because it's proprietary are just whiners.No, they're choosers. Logic is good audio software, but I choose Ardour, which is technically less good, but is getting better all the time. Because it's open, it's not tied to a company who can take arbitrary decisions on its future (Logic is no longer available on Windows since Apple bought Emagic, the company that develops it; to use it, you must get a Mac), I can have a say on the direction it's taking, so on.

Contrary to what some people believe, it is not our God-given right to be able to view all source code. It is our right to have whatever freedom the publisher decides to give us according to the license.I'm not arguing that it's our right to view the source code of all software in existence; I'm just choosing not to use proprietary software and go with an open source alternative if possible, because, as you say, if I use it, I'm to be bound by what the publisher said in the proprietary license, and I don't want to be.

You're missing a distinction: not everyone who insists on using Free software is claiming that all software should be Free.

[Tomosaur]

The thing which I can't understand is why people still will refuse to use Open Source software that you have to pay for! Open source I can agree with, but not using it because you have to pay?! Come on.

People put all their hard work into a program, and people wont use it because it's not free enough, even though it is open source. You can't expect everything to be free ( price )

Selling support is not always an option, what if it's the kind of program you really can't give support for - or if you have a community forum where people help each other, for free.

If it's open-source, I can just compile it myself, so why would I pay? Sure, if the software needs data files - images and such, then yeah ok, I'll buy it. The software is basically just glue. If I spent enough time, I could (feasibly) write my own software which ties all of the data together to make a clone, which is what many open-source games projects do. How many times have you read:

'You need a CD of Game X to access the data files'

when downloading an open-source clone of a game?

Yes, it sounds mean / greedy / whatever to say 'I don't feel like paying, so I'm not going to', but the developer made a choice to open-source their code. Better to open up to a potential market than to keep it out completely by developing in a closed-source environment. If I buy the data, then great. If I don't, then I have useless software unless I spend all of the time creating the images and models and whatever, which is probably much more time consuming than writing the code.

I guess it all boils down to how you view software. It's only because of negative stereotyping of programmers that not everybody can do it in the first place. To borrow from RMS - code is really nothing more than a recipe. All you're doing is making hardware behave in a certain way to get some end result. When you bake a cake, all you're doing is putting ingredients together in a certain combination. It's the exact same principle. Have you ever heard of a closed-source cake? Of course not. If you felt like it, you could buy a cake in a shop and sit down and find out it's ingredients just by tasting it, smelling it, or otherwise analyzing it. Yes, this will take time, and yes, it's annoying, but if the baker just released his/her recipe, then you wouldn't have to waste your time, and you could just make the exact same cake for yourself. If the baker dies, then the recipe is lost forever, and then everybody loses out. This process of analyzing the cake can not currently be carried over into software. (Well, to some extent, it can, but for more complex things - no, it's not really possible). Things like Wine are prime examples of this. The wine devs don't really have much to go on except from how Windows looks and behaves. They have to throw things at their own code, see if it sticks, and if not, they need to go back and add something, or fix something. Why does it have to be like that? All they're trying to do is open up the wealth of Windows software to non-Windows users. Can you only drive a Ford car on a Ford road? No. The situation software is in is just ridiculous. Maybe it's a hippy-ish way of thinking, but it just seems to me like information should be open to as many people as possible. The only reason big software is so successful (in terms of profits), is because the company behind them knows it's taking the ****. A brand new copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2 costs (and this is from the Adobe website): £569.88. Do you see that? That's an insane amount of money. Yes, you can blame piracy, low demand, whatever, but what it all comes down to in the end is that Adobe takes the ****, and people won't stand for it, just like record labels have been doing for years. The problems they face with low demand (and high piracy levels) are their own damn fault. I would buy a lot more music if I didn't have to spend a week's rent to get hold of it. I'd probably buy a lot more software if I didn't have to hand over my bank account to the developer. The current prices for such products lock out the vast majority of potential buyers. I know I can't afford a legit version of Photoshop, and according to this site (http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php), I'm in the richest 15% in the world. Doesn't this just scream unfair to you? Just owning photoshop would open up new career oppurtunities for people, but no - the rich make it, and only the rich get to play with it. It's ridiculous.

Sorry if that was a bit long-winded, but this problem really does go much deeper than 'I don't want to pay for it'.

[az]

Speaking as a user who can't program at all, whether or not I can look at the source code is entirely irrelevant to me.

It's a little more than that. Having the source code avialable is almost useless unless you have the freedom to actually use it. And this is what motivates a community around a healthy free-libre open-source product. And the health of the community around the project impacts the end-user.



Open Source does a great job of keeping people honest about these things, which is why I like it. But if a proprietary company treats me the same way, the difference between proprietary and open source isn't distinguishable to me, as a non-programmer.

Really? How many other software projects do you know of that will send you a free cd and have so many people gather together to make the best and biggest linux forums on the planet? (not to mention mailing list, LoCo teams, etc...)




The one thing I don't like about Open Source is that it removes economic incentive to improve your product.

Big fat No! One example is Mark Shuttleworth. When he built Thawte (a certificate authority - allowing secure internet transactions for things like banks) he used free-libre software and did not have non-lucrative intentions. He made millions.

Free-libre does not mean non-comercial!


I imagine this must suck a bit if you're a coder wanting to make your living off that code. (Note that there may be other incentives to improve the code in an Open Source situation, like getting the product to suit your own needs. I'm just talking about the economic ones here.)

Many companies invest millions in free-libre open source. Millions. Sun, HP, IBM, etc...

As mentioned, the way it works is that most of the money you pour into FLOSS goes into new code - as opposed to the proprietary model which has the customer pay for code that was written and then published. The customers pay over and over for the same work done by programmers.

But most code written is not for a shrink-wrapped product which will appear on a shelf. Most code written is for in-house non-distributed projects. Those applications are not sold, but the developers still make a living from it.




In a nutshell, I love the benefits of Open Source, because it ensures you're treated well. But I can fully understand why a coder would want to keep his work proprietary.

The problem is that it is hard to own an idea. Claiming that code as your property can involve a lot of unfairness, especially when the idea is not particularly clever, just one of thoese things that would have eventually been written by someone else anyway - which describes the vast majority of software.

I have no problem with someone who doesn't want to release their code as free-libre. Just don't mess with my rights to use my computer on the basis of that.

[blueturtl]

To me it makes no big difference wether software is open or not. There are highs and lows for both open and propriatory models as far as application development and quality of code go. I do however insist upon information exchange being free (by this i mean document formats of course). The reason is quite simple: information is what computers are about. Editing, distributing and sharing documents and information is what computers are really meant to do, and you cannot do this with a single entity (be it Microsoft or other vendor) having control over the document format(s). If the formats for documents were open we wouldn't have to worry about which software to use, we could just pick the type we like (be it propriatory or free) to do the task we want. Case in point: I wouldn't want to use Microsoft Office because I find it cumbersome and difficult. My freedom of choice in this matter is however restricted by other people's choice. Every time someone sends me a Word-document to my email they're really saying "You too have to spend 350€ for an Office Suite that you do not need or want". Imagine if every TV manufacturer had their own implementation of the signal for the image? To watch Sony channels you'd need a Sony TV, to watch Panasonic channels you'd need a Panasonic TV. This is how things currently work in computer-world and it is simply ridiculous. As Opera proves the closed-source model can in fact bring about wonderfull software and competition. However, until the playing field is even (aka the information exchange is free) the applications we use cannot directly compete and cannot be directly compared.

[forrestcupp]

You're missing a distinction: not everyone who insists on using Free software is claiming that all software should be Free.

I was mostly talking about the people who think all software should be Free. I realize the benefits of Free software, but if I choose to use a proprietary software, I don't want to be lambasted for it because of someone else's "closed" mindedness.

[23meg]

I was mostly talking about the people who think all software should be Free.I see; the way you put it missed the distinction I denoted.
I realize the benefits of Free software, but if I choose to use a proprietary software, I don't want to be lambasted for it because of someone else's "closed" mindedness.That doesn't happen often around here. As you can see in this thread, people mostly detail why they prefer Free over proprietary, and don't attempt to impose their choice on others.

[lyceum]

Closed source means a lot of reinventing the wheel. Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants.

Well put.

[az]

I realize the benefits of Free software, but if I choose to use a proprietary software, I don't want to be lambasted for it because of someone else's "closed" mindedness.

So you take a shot at people who beleive in software freedom:

"I think people who refuse to use good software just because it's proprietary are just whiners. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not our God-given right to be able to view all source code. It is our right to have whatever freedom the publisher decides to give us according to the license."


If it weren't for those whiners, there would be no GPL, no Ubuntu and the software industry would pretty much be at a standstill. Most people who contribute to free software projects do so because the GPL takes such a strong stance in regards to software freedom.

It's probably natural for people to react negatively to software freedom at first. I remember thinking that I was perfectly fine with running proprietary software because I thought that I was not at risk. "I don't care if they are spying on me, I have nothing to hide."

But when I realised how pervasive computers are, and how trivial it is for someone to capitalise on such complacancy, I became more concerned about protecting my rights and freedoms.

A lot of people tend to call other people who stand up for rights and freedoms "whiners".

[Klaidas]

Well put.
Well... I don't see photoshop reinventing the wheel and GIMP standing on giants... do you?

[deanlinkous]

Well... I don't see photoshop reinventing the wheel and GIMP standing on giants... do you?
well someone has to build the giant first and I would say the gimp is a fantastic effort at that, the cool thing is that right now if YOU wanted to build a photoshop killer you could start from scratch or you could start with the code from the gimp - which would you choose?

[az]

Well... I don't see photoshop reinventing the wheel and GIMP standing on giants... do you?

An excellent point! The Gimp is great, but how much better would it be if it was allowed to build upon photoshop?

[argie]

Well... I don't see photoshop reinventing the wheel and GIMP standing on giants... do you?
Well, you'll notice a lot of programs standing on the GIMP's shoulders. Where do you think GTK came from?

Also imagine how much less work it would've been if they didn't have to recode each filter, PS's closed-sourcedness causes this wheel reinventing business

[Klaidas]

Well, yes, you guys were right at some points. However, if I just need to edit a picture and I can choose between photoshop and gimp, I go with photoshop.

The idea of closed source "reinventing the wheel" works in theory, however, usually not in real.

Let's go back to our Photoshop and GIMP. If a developer of Photoshop reinvents something in a week, while a GIMP developer uses some written code and still does not achieve better results in a month, the reinventing theory kinda collapses. I mean, if in the end of some period of time PS is still more advanced than GIMP, who cares if a developer spent a week on reinventing? Well, a lot of people do, but not the end user.

[Hendrixski]

Proprietary software encourages vendor-dependence: getting into it is easy, getting out might not be.

Open Source software is not immune from this. What you're really talking about is Standards compliant software versus vendor standard software. Open source tends to be more standards compliant hence the moral high ground. But after a type of software has been around long enough its file formats become standardized, and you can exchange information from one application to another. Unless of Course Microsoft is involved then it will always be vendor standards all the way.

[OffHand]

So you take a shot at people who beleive in software freedom:

"I think people who refuse to use good software just because it's proprietary are just whiners. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not our God-given right to be able to view all source code. It is our right to have whatever freedom the publisher decides to give us according to the license."


If it weren't for those whiners, there would be no GPL, no Ubuntu and the software industry would pretty much be at a standstill. Most people who contribute to free software projects do so because the GPL takes such a strong stance in regards to software freedom.

It's probably natural for people to react negatively to software freedom at first. I remember thinking that I was perfectly fine with running proprietary software because I thought that I was not at risk. "I don't care if they are spying on me, I have nothing to hide."

But when I realised how pervasive computers are, and how trivial it is for someone to capitalise on such complacancy, I became more concerned about protecting my rights and freedoms.

A lot of people tend to call other people who stand up for rights and freedoms "whiners".
You are missing his point; He is saying that if he chooses to use proprietary software he is totally free to do so and does not like to be told what to use by other people or judged because of is choice to use it.

P.S. That's a reaction on the quoted part. I did not read his whole post. (If there is more)

[Hendrixski]

If it weren't for those whiners, there would be no GPL, no Ubuntu and the software industry would pretty much be at a standstill. Most people who contribute to free software projects do so because the GPL takes such a strong stance in regards to software freedom.

That is a very good point. We DO need the purists, the people who think that everything should be open source. They drive a lot of development, and make us think really deeply about the world around us. But we should keep them away from decision making (case and point Richard Stallman).


if he chooses to use proprietary software he is totally free to do so and does not like to be told what to use by other people or judged because of is choice to use it.

A bad software developer handicaps the way that a user can interact with the program, a good software developer is one that offers users a choice. Likewise a good member of the software community will not impose his/her dogma on other community members. What are we really about here, the ideology or the technology? As a developer myself I hope it's the technology.

[ZylGadis]

GIMP vs Photoshop is not a very good example of the point people are trying to make, because the people behind Photoshop are intelligent and innovative and it does not really matter that PS is a monopolist in its niche (well, except the ridiculous price).

In the general case of capitalism, however (and you can look at any number of proprietary monopolists, including the obvious example of Microsoft), lack of government control over an industry means that monopolies are naturally formed. A monopoly is something bad first and foremost because it stifles innovation: it spends its resources to protect its assets as opposed to drive innovation, and by protecting its assets it stifles others' innovation attempts, too. The fact that monopolies have total control over the prices is another, much more superficial, corollary of their definition (though generally this is the first, and often the only, thing people see).

There is very little state control (or any control, for that matter) over the IT industry for a variety of reasons that are too many to enumerate. The fact that matters is we have naturally-forming monopolists in all aspects of the IT industry. Some try to defy their nature, like PS, but most are bad.

Barring some kind of a political scheme (I'm not a politician) that would impose much stricter state control on the industry, the only way for people to fight monopolies is to get rid of the capitalist mindset that is the fundament for monopolies. One very successful way of doing that is simply to share your software code according to the four FSF freedoms. In fact I would put an additional clause there - if I have chosen to share my code and not make any money from it, I would definitely ban anybody else from exploiting my code commercially in any way possible. The FSF freedoms imply that, but do not state that explicitly, which I think is important.

That is why people (or those who care, at least) should use free software. Think long-term. Thinking only short-term is the surest way to get in the grip of monopolies - in fact their primary reason for existence is to exploit the natural tendency of people to think short-term.

Of course, here I am making the fundamental assumption that progress / innovation is a good and very important thing. If you don't agree with this assumption, then nothing built on it would matter for you.

One final comment: a lot of people here honestly believe that once Microsoft is gone, everything will be alright. This, in my opinion, is very short-sighted. If Microsoft goes down (which it inevitably will in less than 10 years), Apple will rise. Apple are much worse than Microsoft, because they have total control over their hardware (meaning they can put whatever DRM they want with much less hassle than Microsoft), and they have blind devoted zealots who take anything they are given (most Windows users are just people who need computers, not the power-users of Apple). We are not fighting Microsoft; we are fighting the ideology behind Microsoft and their ilk.

[aysiu]

Actually, GIMP v. Photoshop is a great example, because look at all the work GIMP developers have had to put into making a Photoshop-like app from scratch (i.e., reinventing the wheel) simply because Photoshop is closed source.

Firefox, however, is an excellent browser because it's based on open-sourced code from Netscape, and if you prefer Flock or Swiftfox, you are enjoying the benefits of "standing on the shoulders of giants."

Ubuntu also was not created from scratch and could be nowhere near as great as it is today (or as great as it will be next year) if it weren't for Debian being open source.

[forrestcupp]

So you take a shot at people who beleive in software freedom:

"I think people who refuse to use good software just because it's proprietary are just whiners. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not our God-given right to be able to view all source code. It is our right to have whatever freedom the publisher decides to give us according to the license."

When I said what you quoted above, I was not taking a shot at supporters of Free software. I love and use opensource and Free software. My intent was about the people who absolutely refuse to use proprietary software of any sort and those who give others a hard time if they choose to use proprietary software.


I see; the way you put it missed the distinction I denoted. That doesn't happen often around here. As you can see in this thread, people mostly detail why they prefer Free over proprietary, and don't attempt to impose their choice on others.

That's not necessarily true. Just take a look at any of the threads about Adobe Flash. You'll see some heated things being said about using proprietary software. If you don't want to use things like Flash, that's fine. But please don't look down on me if I do. (btw, I'm talking more about end-user than developer).

And about the financial side of things. I hear what all of you say about being able to make money off of Free software, but can someone actually point me to some Free/opensource software that costs money? I would like to see it. And I'm not talking about paying for some service or help; I'm talking about actually paying for software that is under some sort of Free license.

[aysiu]

Well, there's no point in charging for the software itself when anyone can download the source code and compile it themselves.

There are instances of open source projects charging for packaging (hey, even Ubuntu sells DVDs on eBay), but the actual software itself is freely downloadable.

Under the terms of the GPL, you can charge for your software, but no one really does because there's no point.

The real issue about money is about whether you can make money off open source--and the answer you can. You don't charge for the product, though. You charge for support, packaging, advertising, and whatnot.

[lyceum]

Well... I don't see photoshop reinventing the wheel and GIMP standing on giants... do you?

I don't use Photoshop, but GIMPshop would be standing on the shoulders of giants, as it is based on GIMP (don't use that either). All of the photoshop rip-offs with closed code had to start over, so they are not standing on the code of photoshop, just re-inventing the wheel.

If I want to create something better than what is out now, I have two choices. I can start from scratch and hope for the best. This will take a long time with lots of bug fixes. Or, I can take a FOSS program that is close to what I want and, as long as the license says it is okay, create a fork. The new product would come out faster, as I would just be changing and adding code, not starting over.

So, you can start from scratch and re-do someone else's work, or you can stand on the shoulders of giants.

[az]

My intent was about the people who absolutely refuse to use proprietary software of any sort and those who give others a hard time if they choose to use proprietary software.


What about people like me who refuse to run any proprietary software but don't really care what you chose to run on your box?




but can someone actually point me to some Free/opensource software that costs money? I would like to see it. And I'm not talking about paying for some service or help; I'm talking about actually paying for software that is under some sort of Free license.

Linspire. Mepis. Cedega.

The idea there is that someone can also cut their own hair, change their own oil or bottle their own water, too. But they chose to pay someone else to do it. The same goes for gathering upstream source and compiling it and maintaining it. Are these the most successful business models? No.

[Fitzy_oz]

I like the idea of open source better than proprietary, but I'll use whatever's best/cheapest. Of course, if it's the best and free and Free... even better.

For me, it depends greatly on the application. Much as I like Evince, Adobe Reader offers me the ability to fill in PDF forms, and Evince does not. Much as I like the idea of Ogg, MP3 is what works to share with my wife and to use on my Sandisk player. Gnash may be great ideologically, but you have to admit--if you want to view a website that uses Flash, you'll almost always need Macromedia's Flash, at least at this point.

On the other hand, I think the best mail client for me is Thunderbird. Firefox is the best browser for me, and I also favor Rhythmbox, GIMP, and OpenOffice... and, of course, Ubuntu.

Since less than 15% of users on these forums have totally Free systems, I'd say there really isn't that much fuss...

That summed it up for me - I use Free software where I can (AmaroK - is a great example of Free Software that I use over prop.) where that's not possible I use prop. software - especially given drivers - I paid for the functionality of the hardware - I'll take the functionality at it's best open source or not - It has nothing to do with how I feel about the ethic or ideology behind open source or prop.

Like Anything:
Everything in balance...

[mushroom]

I believe that free software is inherently better than proprietary. However, I don't believe that all software has to be free. It would be nice, but coexistence works, too. I'll put it this way: I'll use the free counterpart to a proprietary solution in all cases unless there's an essential bit of functionality that isn't implemented (see NVIDIA). In Kubuntu's case, NVIDIA and Flash are the only pieces of proprietary software I use, and once Nouveau and Gnash are in a stable state, I'll consider using them if they work as well as their counterparts.

[SunnyRabbiera]

What about people like me who refuse to run any proprietary software but don't really care what you chose to run on your box?




Linspire. Mepis. Cedega.

The idea there is that someone can also cut their own hair, change their own oil or bottle their own water, too. But they chose to pay someone else to do it. The same goes for gathering upstream source and compiling it and maintaining it. Are these the most successful business models? No.

last time I checked mepis was free of charge, unless you mean the ta fusion one

[23meg]

That's not necessarily true. Just take a look at any of the threads about Adobe Flash. You'll see some heated things being said about using proprietary software. If you don't want to use things like Flash, that's fine. But please don't look down on me if I do. (btw, I'm talking more about end-user than developer).You should expect bias towards Free software and against proprietary software in the Ubuntu forums, since Ubuntu as a project embraces Free software. People who are biased against proprietary software are here and not somewhere else for a reason. You wouldn't see those attitudes in the forums of an OS that doesn't make the distinctions Ubuntu makes between Free and proprietary.

And to restate, I haven't seen (m)any cases where someone was bashed for their choice; telling someone not to use proprietary software isn't lambasting them for their choice. Sure, it goes beyond the "I use Free software by choice and don't care what you use" position and recommends you to review your choice, but as I said, it is to be expected, and still differs from the kind of lambasting attitude I've seen elsewhere.

[forrestcupp]

What about people like me who refuse to run any proprietary software but don't really care what you chose to run on your box?

If you don't care if I run some proprietary stuff on my box, then I don't have any problem with people like you who choose not to. Even before the FSF, I have dreamed about the possibility of having a completely free system. But there are areas that I am not satisfied with the current Free choices, so I choose to use proprietary instead in those cases. It doesn't bother me if you choose not to as long as you don't choose to force that ideology on me. Although one of my major gripes about OpenOffice.org is being taken care of with the LanguageTool grammar check plugin. Then there are other things that will never be opened up, like the Windows Media files that my friends and family keep emailing me.


You should expect bias towards Free software and against proprietary software in the Ubuntu forums, since Ubuntu as a project embraces Free software. People who are biased against proprietary software are here and not somewhere else for a reason. You wouldn't see those attitudes in the forums of an OS that doesn't make the distinctions Ubuntu makes between Free and proprietary.

That's true, but even Ubuntu somewhat supports some proprietary things, or at least makes support easily accessible. Look at all the work on their websites and repos put into things like MP3, DVD, Flash and Windows Media playback. I think they even opened up a proprietary repo, didn't they? I know they don't officially offer support, but they sure put some work into making it easily accessible. Why? Because they want people like me to use their distro, too.

[23meg]

That's true, but even Ubuntu somewhat supports some proprietary things, or at least makes support easily accessible. Look at all the work on their websites and repos put into things like MP3, DVD, Flash and Windows Media playback. I think they even opened up a proprietary repo, didn't they? I know they don't officially offer support, but they sure put some work into making it easily accessible. Why? Because they want people like me to use their distro, too.Doesn't that support my point? They are proponents of Free software, they want you to stick to it, but if you don't agree, then non-Free software is also available in a clearly separated, easy to install/uninstall way. Same goes with the community in general, as I said; they'd rather you used Free software, but they don't hang you for choosing to use non-Free either.

[Hendrixski]

last time I checked mepis was free of charge, unless you mean the ta fusion one

"Free" in english can be confusing. "free software" is not "free" as in "free of charge", think about how much money Red Hat or Novell make from licensing Enterprise Linux platforms. Think about the money the consultants make, etc. What it really means is free as in "free speech". If your proprietary software does not allow you to modify the code to fit your needs, or to study how it works, or even to share it with a friend the way you would share a book, then it is not allowing you "free speech" with its code.

The problem with many open source zealots is that they believe Free software MUST also be free of charge, those people live on a different planet.

So Mepis is mostly free software (Linux and a lot of open source software that runs on Linux) but it also has non-free components, like proprietary device drivers for example. You cannot modify the driver code because the company does not want their competition to copy it and improve it. That's why it's not "free software" even if it is free of charge.

Hell... Internet explorer is free of charge, it is not "free software" either.

[aysiu]

Actually, in this case, we're speaking strictly about money, not freedom. Mepis is free (as in you don't have to pay anything) currently. You can download the ISO without a subscription or premium.