Do you think that all properiatery software should be made OpenSource?

[pumpum]

There is a poll which should hopefully give us good results. Also, please give reasons as to why.
Thanks.

P.S. I think they should be because they are not losing anything in the process.

EDIT: I apologise very profusely for not putting free in the title, I forgot about it, I had a mental block. I apologise once again.
Thanks,

[maniacmusician]

There is a poll which should hopefully give us good results. Also, please give reasons as to why.
Thanks.

P.S. I think they should be because they are not losing anything in the process.
That's not an easy question. I don't think they should be made open source, as in forced. The software/IT industry needs to come to open source on their own.

They need to realize that open source is good for them, and that in the end, it benefits everyone. We need to advocate open standards; that's how it will start. After open standards, the benefits of open source will be clear, and then we can focus on convincing people to open their code.

[tehkain]

No, but I do feel that copyright needs to be revised. Also software patents all need to be over turned. They are unconstitutional.

[WalmartSniperLX]

There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to make profit off of their own product (such as software). It's perfectly fine. Then again people can make money off of opensource software as well. I think this is a rather tough one but I voted no because I still believe that we as human beings have the right to get 100% credit for what we create. And, we have the right of property. Saying that having proprietary software is bad is almost (but not really) the same as saying owning (and having 100% control of) a home is wrong or unfair. It's yours :P

[M$LOL]

Why would we want Windows to become OSS? That would just promote it. Same as Office. One advantage that Linux has is it's OSS, we don't want to lose that.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Why would we want Windows to become OSS? That would just promote it. Same as Office. One advantage that Linux has is it's OSS, we don't want to lose that.

If windows were open source then we wouldn't have anything to worry about since they wouldn't have the same ownership over their software. Instead, they would only contribute to the cause of NIX and other Open Source endeavors.

[Kvark]

And, we have the right of property. Saying that having proprietary software is bad is almost (but not really) the same as saying owning (and having 100% control of) a home is wrong or unfair. It's yours :P
Copyright is not property. If it was then you'd be allowed to do anything with a program you bought since property becomes your property when you buy it. But you're not allowed to copy it and give/sell copies, the author has a monopoly on that. Copyright is a monopoly on copying information.

I think it's perfectly fine that some make a profit from proprietary business models. I'm even in the tiny minority that doesn't violate proprietary copyright licenses. The only problem I have with closed source is trust. I hesitate a little before trusting secret code to run on my computer but for non-executable stuff like for example music CDs that isn't a problem either (or is it, Sony?).

However, the Internet is going to force everyone to change to open source or at least freeware business models. It's futile in the long run to rely on business models that depends on having a monopoly on copying information when the Internet wants to copy and spread information and it seems impossible to defeat the Internet. So everyone will eventually have to find business models that works even now when copyright is a sinking ship that is impossible to enforce. And those business models don't lose anything on opening up their source to cut development costs and improve quality.

[Mathiasdm]

There is a poll which should hopefully give us good results. Also, please give reasons as to why.
Thanks.

P.S. I think they should be because they are not losing anything in the process.

EDIT: I apologise very profusely for not putting free in the title, I forgot about it, I had a mental block. I apologise once again.
Thanks,
That's not necessarily true.

Nobody should be forced to open source their software.
Open format specifications, that's a different thing...

[Adamant1988]

There are certain portions of software which MUST remain closed source, for the good of the world (like MadWifi's closed bits). But no, no one should be forced to open source their software, it would be nice, but it shouldn't be forced.

[Stone123]

Rather linux compatible then open source.

[%hMa@?b<C]

there should be no forcing. that is the freedom of choice that is supposed to be stressed in FLOSS.

[karellen]

no. that's plain stupid and simply unjust
software should be made exactly how the creator wants. if I write a book, I may give it for free (and it would become free-book, to say so), I may sell it(copyrighted&stuff) or I may allow everyone to come and modify it's content a little (which I wouldn't do in case of a book, of course)

[samjh]

People who develop products and services have a right to be paid for their work. That includes software developers. If their business model is better suited to releasing proprietary, closed-source software, then that's fine. If their business model is suited to free and/or open source software, that's cool too.

The only thing I disagree with are software patents, because they cover too broad a scope and are issued without enough scrutiny. I've no problems with copyrights or intellectual property, apart from those that are blatantly anti-consumer or anti-competitive, such as DRM.

So simply speaking, my answer is "no".

[Adamant1988]

Why would we want Windows to become OSS? That would just promote it. Same as Office. One advantage that Linux has is it's OSS, we don't want to lose that.

This is an absolutely terrible argument. Windows being open source might actually upgrade the kernel to a point where it's good/great and would remove Microsoft as the only throat to choke for the product, effectively creating competition.

[BrokeBody]

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is Open Source, but under proprietary terms.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Copyright is not property. If it was then you'd be allowed to do anything with a program you bought since property becomes your property when you buy it. But you're not allowed to copy it and give/sell copies, the author has a monopoly on that. Copyright is a monopoly on copying information.

I think it's perfectly fine that some make a profit from proprietary business models. I'm even in the tiny minority that doesn't violate proprietary copyright licenses. The only problem I have with closed source is trust. I hesitate a little before trusting secret code to run on my computer but for non-executable stuff like for example music CDs that isn't a problem either (or is it, Sony?).

However, the Internet is going to force everyone to change to open source or at least freeware business models. It's futile in the long run to rely on business models that depends on having a monopoly on copying information when the Internet wants to copy and spread information and it seems impossible to defeat the Internet. So everyone will eventually have to find business models that works even now when copyright is a sinking ship that is impossible to enforce. And those business models don't lose anything on opening up their source to cut development costs and improve quality.

Oh yes it is PROPERTY :P. Copyright prevents others from copying your software unauthorized. Seriously. If it isnt property then why do you think its called "proprietary"? It is property. FYI I think I know what you misunderstood...

I meant property to the copyright holder (usually the writer of the program and/or one who lisences it)... not purchaser.

[awakatanka]

if they choose to do it great, but if they don't want to do it, its oke to. Forcing is for people that want to have control on someone else.

[happysmileman]

I chose yes, but because the way I interpret the question seems to be different to what you think it is...

I don't interpret the question as "Should everyone be forced to make software open source"... I interpret it as "Would it be better if all software was made open source".

And personally I think it would be a lot better in every imaginable way.

However I do think one exception would be games...
The quality of games would get a lot worse if they were required to make it open-source as it is both incredibly difficult to program games and incredibly profitable to make good ones at the moment...
I think games developers should be required to make multi-platform games, and preferably use an open-source engine.
But definitely keep the source to themselves if they want to...

Another exception would definitely have to be products for the use of only one company/person/agency...
For example the FBI should definitely never be required to share it's source code for security, same with any other software required to protect data as important as this

All other programs, especially business-related products should be made open-source.

[Kvark]

Oh yes it is PROPERTY :P. Copyright prevents others from copying your software unauthorized. Seriously. If it isnt property then why do you think its called "proprietary"? It is property. FYI I think I know what you misunderstood...

I meant property to the copyright holder (usually the writer of the program and/or one who lisences it)... not purchaser.
They behave very differently. Property changes ownership to the purchaser, copyright stays with the seller. If property is stolen you no longer have it, if copyrighted materials are copied you still have the original. If someone modifies your property (graphitti on your house?) you now have the new version of the object and the old version is history/lost/ruined. If someone modifies something you have copyright on your original remains the same. Property has been around since the dawn of civilization, copyright is only a couple centuries old. Property remains yours forever, copyright expires. I think it's obvious that property and copyright are two entirely different concepts. Both should still be respected though.

As for the "why do we use that word then?" argument. That changes depending on which language you're speaking. Copyright is not called "intellectual property" or "proprietary" in Swedish, it's called "author's right" or "sole right". Digital piracy is called "unlawful copying" or "pirate copying" while the word "theft" is only used when the 2 crimes are compared to each other (but copying without paying for a license is more comparable to freeloading without paying for a ticket). The concepts are so different people wouldn't think of using the same words when talking about both. Perhaps it is property when speaking English but not when speaking Swedish.

While I'm at it, another difference is that we have different words in Swedish for free as in speech and free as in beer since it would sound stupid to use the same word for both and say "I cost nothing." or "Do you want some candy that has freedom?" (...did the candy escape?).

[Adamant1988]

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is Open Source, but under proprietary terms.

This is simply not true. Red Hat conforms to every single aspect of the GPL to the letter of the law. You can go and download the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code RIGHT this moment and build it yourself if you like. The only thing that Red Hat locks down at all is their trademark, which only makes sense to do so.

[juxtaposed]

And, we have the right of property.

Property is theft!

;)

Sofware shouldn't be forced to go open source, but I am sure it would be better if all software was open source.