PDA

View Full Version : what is available for downloading for linux?


sdowney717
January 3rd, 2007, 04:35 PM
For example, I just bought Tax Act 2006 Deluxe.

runs on winXP.
If a company like 2nd story software which writes TaxAct released a pay version of TaxAct for linux, would this mean they would also have to release all their source code?
And if true, then why would any company really want to develop linux apps seeing competitors could rip their code?
just curious to know.
Mathiasdm
January 3rd, 2007, 04:37 PM
For example, I just bought Tax Act 2006 Deluxe.

runs on winXP.
If a company like 2nd story software which writes TaxAct released a pay version of TaxAct for linux, would this mean they would also have to release all their source code?
And if true, then why would any company really want to develop linux apps seeing competitors could rip their code?
just curious to know.

They don't have to give out their source code, that's a myth ;)
meng
January 3rd, 2007, 04:37 PM
No it doesn't mean they have to release source code. I assume it would be a proprietary closed-source program.
Mateo
January 3rd, 2007, 04:38 PM
no, but a lot of people around here would tell you that they are evil if they don't.
meng
January 3rd, 2007, 04:39 PM
no, but a lot of people around here would tell you that they are evil if they don't.
Really?
sdowney717
January 3rd, 2007, 04:42 PM
I would like to see more binary apps written for linux, so what is the holdup?
What I see is linux has gotten much better and is attracting more users. So do you think in a few years this will happen?
Tomosaur
January 3rd, 2007, 04:48 PM
For example, I just bought Tax Act 2006 Deluxe.

runs on winXP.
If a company like 2nd story software which writes TaxAct released a pay version of TaxAct for linux, would this mean they would also have to release all their source code?
And if true, then why would any company really want to develop linux apps seeing competitors could rip their code?
just curious to know.

No, they don't need to release their source code. Linux just tends to attract open-source software, but it's not a requirement. The GPL is a particular licence designed to promote openness and to protect developers. It's not a legal requirement that all programs on Linux have to use a GPL or similar licence. However, if the developers use GPL code in their software, then they do have to use a GPL licence too.
bonzodog
January 3rd, 2007, 05:06 PM
Also, because of the way linux works, and the number of different distributions, they would have to compile packages for about 8 core distros before distribution or sale. It would help to have the Source code available as some distros really would need to be able to compile it to work. (e.g Gentoo Linux).
Open Source makes much more sense in this vein.
True, if it was Open Source, the most they could do was sell it as a boxset with manuals, but they would need to make the Source Code available, and that means that logically someone could then fork the project and distribute their own version.
Dragonbite
January 3rd, 2007, 05:17 PM
It would help to have the Source code available as some distros really would need to be able to compile it to work. (e.g Gentoo Linux).
I believe Gentoo does have some binaries in Portage but it may not take advantage of the USE flags for optimizing.

That is true about needing multiple architectures, though, and I wonder if there is a way around that? Does an RPM and DEB file have to be open or could they compile their code into architecture-neutral rpm's that SuSE, RedHat, Fedora and whoever can use? I've seen no-arch RPMs as not specifying the distro.

I'm not too up on these packages, but I think that's something on my list to learn.
23meg
January 3rd, 2007, 05:25 PM
no, but a lot of people around here would tell you that they are evil if they don't.
No, a lot of people here would tell you that they wouldn't prefer to use that program if they don't.
Sammi
January 3rd, 2007, 06:37 PM
No, a lot of people here would tell you that they wouldn't prefer to use that program if they don't.
So it's not common to call closed source software evil on the ubuntuforums? :twisted:
meng
January 3rd, 2007, 06:39 PM
So it's not common to call closed source software evil on the ubuntuforums? :twisted:
Well if someone wanted to cite a number of instances where closed source software has been labeled evil, I may be convinced.
Tomosaur
January 3rd, 2007, 08:29 PM
So it's not common to call closed source software evil on the ubuntuforums? :twisted:


Uhh no, I can't say I've ever seen that here.