I've be a mindless supporter of these movements for years now not because I was a developer myself but because most of them provided me with a lot of useful free software.
However now that I'm becoming more of a programmer I'm questioning the ideology behind these movements.
1. For which situations are these intended? For every developer?
2. Doesn't it go against the developer himself? How can he secure profit while still sustain such projects?
I know companies like RedHat exist but is this whole thing going to work for the rest of the software companies?
I know that GPL and BSD don't say anything on pricing of software but if you are forced to provide the source code, aren't you basically giving your work away for free?
Since you retain copyright, you can relicense or dual license it.
GPL is communistic in the sense that people have to provide the changes to you, while BSD doesn't require anything but recognition. Anyone is free to use BSD in both free and commercial closed-source works.
I like BSD/MIT/WTFPL/public domain/... because they force the least things on me. GPL is useful, but it's much more selfish in my opinion, so I'll avoid using any GPL'ed code in my applications, even if I may open source them (usually as public domain or do-whatever-the-fuck-you-want, since I don't like restricting people, just like I don't like being restricted myself). LGPL and LLGPL are also useful and can be used in libraries as they don't force too many things on you, and you only have to distribute the libraries' code if modified (LLGPL allows static linking as well, unlike LGPL which is fuzzy in this area).
If you want to make money of yours or other people's GPL (or other open source software), you can provide support or sell commercial licenses, the latter only if you agree with what it entails(someone who prefers GPL over BSD might not).
Besides, you can do software as a service, internal software development and many other things. In my opinion people paying a coder for their work is better than people paying the coder for a "product" (which costs nothing to duplicate).
Besides, you can do software as a service, internal software development and many other things. In my opinion people paying a coder for their work is better than people paying the coder for a "product" (which costs nothing to duplicate).
>>10
I'M KOREAN
SON OF A BITCH AMERICAN
AMERICAN IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A HAMBURGER?
DO YOU WANT A PIZZA?
AMERICAN IS PIG DISGUSTING
GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS A MURDERER
FUCKING U.S.A
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-27 20:43
>>1
Freedom, if it is equal and just, means that society must give up certain liberties. In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a community.
Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so software developers now control the way it lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of choice (for developers only).”
If “code is law,” then the real question we face is: who should control the code, the user, or an elite few? We believe the user is entitled to control the software one uses. Giving users that control is the goal of free software.
Say a software company finally makes a breakthrough in say computer vision. Something that can radically change computer visual input. How would said company go about ensuring a profit and the merited credits for such a discovery?
Say the company is willing to provide the source code (or pseudo code or whatever representation they use at such high levels; bear with me I'm just a newb) for improvements and such but doesn't want such methodology to be mercilessly copied by the competition (which would obviously be such a waste in R&D).
Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?
Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?
That would be absurd
>>20
Make a good product and beat your competitors out of the water. Compete with free alternatives and still win. That's the key, but nobody said this game is easy!
How can you compete with other corporations with free alternatives?
I mean sure you can make a better product and gain a better user base. That's understandable.
How would you make profit though. The whole point is to earn a living. How can you earn a living this way? Who would be paying for your work?
Any can't your competitors just copy your methodologies if the source code is freely available. If that was so, wouldn't it be basically impossible to compete with them?
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-28 3:31
>>21 >>22
I would say don't compete with the free alternatives. If there are already a dozen free 3D rendering applications out there, then don't plan on making your millions by writing a 3D rendering application.
Instead, look at it like this: You now have a great selection of free 3D rendering applications to use in making your "real" project, whatever that is, that will make you rich and famous.
The bottom line is that open source isn't really out there snatching up all the cutting-edge projects. It's filling in the gaps where the old applications were either monopolized or just generally shitty.
If you find that the application you want to write has already been done by open source, then your idea simply isn't innovative.
>>17 Say a software company finally makes a breakthrough in say computer vision. Something that can radically change computer visual input. How would said company go about ensuring a profit and the merited credits for such a discovery?
I really don't want to lecture on business principles but here it goes. I think this line of thinking is foolish, it isn't a good way to think about business. Companies do not deserve to profit, and profit cannot be ensured. Profit must be earned and due diligence must be applied before considering any investment for monetary profit. Do your standard market research: is there enough potential business in your target market to justify this investment, what do you provide that is more attractive than your (potential) competitors?
Now for the sales strategy. Please consider the idea that you wish to base your business on the model of selling an artificially scarce product. How about changing the strategy to selling something that isn't artificially scare resource; sell the service of your time. Sell the software then sell support as the designer/developer of the software. Worried about your competitors doing the same? Maybe you should have done more research to see how you could provide something worth paying for.
Thirdly, nothing is discovered in these days with regard to anything in CS. In everything that I've seen that can be regarded as interesting or novel, these 'discoveries' are mostly clever ways of making something work today that was previously infeasible or inefficient. Nothing is discovered, they are improvements on the previous works.
Say the company is willing to provide the source code (or pseudo code or whatever representation they use at such high levels; bear with me I'm just a newb) for improvements and such but doesn't want such methodology to be mercilessly copied by the competition (which would obviously be such a waste in R&D).
Could say a license be provided that allows everybody to view and modify the source code but he/she is not to use it unless given permission from the creator?
This licensing agreement, while technically possible, will infringe on the users' freedom. You aim to control the users' right to live a good life. Please don't do this.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-28 12:38
>>22 How would you make profit though. The whole point is to earn a living. How can you earn a living this way? Who would be paying for your work?
People make profits on shipping barrels of oil, even though anyone can find out how to put barrels on boats. People make profits cutting hair, even though everyone can find out how to cut hair.
Too many huge posts. Someone please post a summary.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-28 17:17
Hi, this topic requires someone who understands the reason WHY the GPL currently is, and WILL ALWAYS *HAVE* to remain VITAL to the software world.
In general, you have two kinds of software producers: greedy ones who want the monopoly, and fair-playing ones, who just want to have recognition, and their share of recognition or money for their hard-work.
The problem is the former. You see, I'd like to use a simple example to show WHY it's bad for a company like Microsoft to gain ANY ground with its paid-for software.
Let us take our very own world wide web, a huge network of HTTP servers which serve HTML pages over the HTTP protocol between HTTP protocol understanding browsers.
The HTTP protocol is a fixed standard. The standard is open, and free to implement. Why has it remained so? The most common HTTP server software used on "web" servers (HTTP servers) in existence today is the Apache HTTP daemon server.
This is a free, open-source web server. It became popular because of its command line nature, and its price: $0.00. The command line nature was an advantage because the WWW began among a small set of computers in a group of universities. I guarantee that these universities were not using Windows NT Server edition for US$300.00. They ran UNIX or Linux (I'm sure that Linux wasn't around then, but I haven't checked and cross refernced the dates).
So shell scripts and all that were the common way to automate these things, and starting a web server up quickly on boot with a simple shell script is obviously a good gain.
Now: Let us imagine what would have happened if Microsoft's web server product, the MS IIS (Internet Information Server) had become the most commonly used web server software.
First of all, IIS would be completely proprietary. Then, with adoption, MS would have become the de-facto standard setter. IF THEY changes IIS, then the WHOLE internet would be FORCED to change WITH IT.
That is, in less than 10 years, MS could make it so that interoperability between a free, standards compliant browser like Apache and IIS would be difficult. But nobody can complain: you have thousands of companies using IIS, and it woudl take too much money to re-train to begin to use apache.
So MS now has enough power to, one fine day, announce a "new" version of IIS with "enhanced capability" and "certain features in older versions of IIS disabled". Then, to mask it all, they release it with ".NET SOMETHING FLASHY", and then all of a sudden, the WHOLE of the Apache held market of the internet doesn't work...EXCEPT if they switch to IIS: IIS has the monopoly, and so it's likely that the Apache people will switch.
Also, MS would have been sneaking in hundreds of small, dirty changes to make the internet RELY on "extensions" to MS Internet Explorer.
All of a sudden, MS has control of the World Wide Web, and all servers. They then refuse to release the changes they've made to IIS to make it incompatible with the extablished ISO standards for the web, so no other servers can communicate on the web, and nobody can force MS to release their source: "it would place in danger their competitive advantage."
Then, we have a pure lock-out of ALL software developers who work on the internet: MS would then begin to phase out other technologies like HTML (add "extensions" until the language looks nothing like the original), CSS, PHP, MySQL, etc.
Until anyone who has a job on the internet is...BROKE and WITHOUT any fighting chance to FREE the internet again and get himself a job. And this is not farfetched: MS DOES NOT obey standards. They will FIGHT with ALL their might to get the standards on THEIR side, then "extend" them, and make their own standard the de-facto one.
This is what Silverlight is about, IIS, all MS Internet Explorer (they were trying to take over the web with it: integrating it into their OS, then since everyone buys Windows, they would have gotten the client side of the Web, then "added extensions", etc.)
This is what GREEDY companies do. So actually, open source software PROTECTS programmers.
You do not have to make your own software open source. No! But PLEASE: AT WORK, in your homes, USE open source software. When your company wants to implement a new system, keep suggesting a free open source alternative to any MS software. DO NOT allow them to grip our industry, or you'll be OUT OF THE JOB that you THINK that GPL is depriving you of.
OF course, you may make your own proprietary software. But by all means: release small open source products. Do anything to keep MS on the ground. Sell one or two main products. But small things that need no fee, please just release the source, and release it for free.
The GPL remains because it is NEEDED to prevent greedy companies from seizing the monopoly. So, no: you may not get money from an open source project: but it's open source software that guarantees the sanity of your work environment, and lets you NOT have to go to MS for everything to find out about what "extensions" they've made to a perfectly good standard, so you then have to be like a child going to them for food.
"You need to download KB937490 update since we've phased out support for your product."
"But...KB-WHATEVER is for the new version. I have to pay $100.00 to upgrade!?"
"Well, I'm sorry sir, but only the new version has the problem fixed."
Is this not what ALREADY happens? So the logic behind open source is not to make all software open source: it's to make KEY software in EVERY market be open source, so that greedy companies can't ever phase out the ability for programmers to implement common behaviour by following standards.
Non-developers won't bother compiling your application, so you can still sell binaries if you're a huge asshole, like the XChat developer.
Honestly, profits and etc. although practically necessary are all about selfishness. You need to get the right balance of profit and selflessness, and personally I think Open Source software is a good contribution to make to society.