I don't totally believe in open source software. Specifically, I don't believe that all software should be free. This is because AFAIK free software does not put money in a bank account. Programmers need some money to eat, buy coffee, obtain internet connections, etc.

However, I don't believe that all software should be closed. In such a case, we would all tend to know less.

There is a sweet spot somewhere in-between. Perhaps some programs (especially programs that everybody must use) should have free versions so we don't all have to pay tax to a single company because we want to use computers. If all programs were free, fewer great programs will be written because very complex, top-quality programs require the collaboration of 100s of programmers.

There's no easier way to get 100s of programmers (who all need $$$ for survival) to work together than some $$$.

Nevertheless, without an open source operating system like Linux, my system will be probably be crippled! Power to Linux!

--------
What do you think?

I would agree with most of that, I dont beleive in this All Software should be free BS that crackers use, to try justify their existense.
Also I feel that if these crackers used their awesome skills to be constructive, we could really excel faster than we are now,m a lot of time is spent in software developtment, eg Games, Programs, even OS's trying to stop ppl from crackin it, this time and money could be spent makin the program better, more options, even more stable etc.

[ This Message was edited by: sacah on 2002-04-01 02:03 ]

OpenSource is changing in these years. There are coming big teams together (such as the GNOME developer team) which are huuuugge. It's still only a few projects that are this huge, but I think that there will be more and more in the next few years.
[addsig]

Sure, OpenSource for everything would kill the software industry. But what do you want to do? Try to limit the production of OpenSource projects by law? Hey if some Linux hobby programmers can create a better program in their spare time than a whole crew of company programmers then this does not indicate great skill for the professionals.

Also I think, that you have to differ between software for private and for professional use. Companies will most probably stick to commercial software, because if it is buggy you get better support and ir is the vendor's duty to fix the problem as fast as possible. Sometimes the vendor might even have to pay for any loss caused by the bug. An OpenSource DevTeam _might_ fix your bugs, _might_ do that as fast as possible and so on.

So I don't really see a threat for all those software companies out there. Many of them produce software specially for business problems. Such programs are seldom written by
Free Software ppl. [addsig]

Closed source, proprietary software limits our freedoms a lot. Therefor, I don't like the idea of having any closed source software for private use. With perhaps one exception: games, because modifying those programs isn't useful to you, only fun .

There are alternative ways of making money off software than to close the source. Shipping packages with manuals, or giving support, for instance. As mox said, companies will buy software from vendors who can support it.

Also, I think web based application development has quite a future.

Now, I can't explain how I mean in detail because I've got to go eat something. See you guys

modifying games is not usefull?
if you find a bug, or you want to do how they made this and that effect, it's hell great if you have sources.
What do you modify applications for or read the source of it? I think you do it with absolutaly the same intention, don't you?

Anyways, even opensource projects can earn money, maybe even more than commercial companies. You find a but in windows. So, where do you submit it to? how do you let the windows developers know? Look at the M$ page. Try to find a place where you can submit bugs
You can submit bugs for Opensource Project on the homepage, if you're luck it even includes a program that can send bug-reports for you, and bug-buddy in gnome.
OpenSource projects can earn money by givin support, selling manuals,boxes and CDs.
Makes sence?
anyways, dinner
[addsig]

KaGez:
Games aren't generally useful for anyone. They serve as entertainment. Of course, it's "useful" for you to correct the bug if you want to play the game without problems. But it's not something of such a priority as correcting a bug in a program that people use when doing their job, for instance.

hey, playing games _is_ the job of many ppls out there. OK, maybe not as many as those trying to get some jobs done with let's say a word program, but quite many. For example if you are working for a game-magazine company or such, you have to test those games. bugs in there could let the magazine company make thousands of dollars loss.
Don't think games are only for enternainment anymore. They also show us how "bad" our human communities are, and reflect many of the things that we don't see in all-day life.

"Game Development - It's serious businnes" (taken from a Primatech AD)
If you're interested:
http://www.PrimaGameDev.com
[addsig]

Hehe, I don't think finding bugs in the tested games would make a gaming magazine go bakrupt. If they fix the bugs, they are actually deceiving their readers! Now that would be a shitty magazine .

And a professional Q3Arena player does not need to fix bugs, ID Software will.

I don't mean that it's good to close the source of your games... I'd prefer open source ones too. But they are of much less priority than software that is useful. (Yes games can be useful for learning to program from their source, but I'm talking about the common _use_ of the software)

-->OpenSource projects can earn money by givin -->support, selling manuals,boxes and CDs.

I'll rather earn money by doing what I love best: designing and writing programs. Anybody can give sell manuals/boxes/CDs and give support for programs that are well designed to be easy to use - you don't have to ba a programmer to do that.

I don't wanna be reduced to a part-time programmer and full-time support department member.

What do you think?

-->-->Closed source, proprietary software limits our freedoms a lot.

Really? I'd like some proof to back that up

-->-->You find a but in windows. So, where do you submit it to? how do you let the windows developers know? Look at the M$ page. Try to find a place where you can submit bugshttp://support.microsoft.com/support/feedback/ (that actually took me closer to 5 seconds to find) and (B)If your program crashes in windows due to a bug, a bug report program pops up, with a log of everything, ready to send off to MS (XP only AFAIK).

Open source software is useful as a learning tool, but that's about it. Face it. If you want to make money and *not* take it away from hard-working programmers, open source is definately not the way to go.

[addsig]

I am really amused by the "face it" manners.. In both camps, mind you.

-KEN-: Read about certain kinds of freedom here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Of course, you might not agree with the neccessity of these freedoms. But I believe that they are the best for development and usefulness, as opposed to sheer money making.

seunosewa: I would personally contribute to the world with what I love to do: programming. Making money is secondary. Primarily, it's something I like to do, and it's also a contribution, as I said. You can make money indirectly on your software with the manuals etc. Why not found a company where you can code on without caring about support, where a support team does that for you?

Is it just a feeling of me or a you closed-source lobbyist afraid of your (later) income? I mean, "if you want to make money and not take it away from hard working programmers" sounds just like you want to forbid people to develope OpenSource.
I can tell you, that I don't pity any programmer or Software company which produces expensive software which is avaible for free in similar quality. That is the law of the market gentlemen, if you can't compete there you're out of it. And so I can only ask you guys: What do you want to do? Influence the market with laws denying ppl to give away their product for free because they make money with something else? (Cable TV will die fast...)

But I can tell you, there'll always be need for qualified programmers and you will get you money if you're good enough. And as I stated above companies will always prefer closed source and they always have a need for software which fits their business perfectly. Such specialized software will probably never be Open'n'free.

So, keep OpenSource alive, it won't do you no harm [addsig]

Something I want to add:

I know no private user who runs his Windows without "stolen" software. Maybe you (-KEN-?), who you are so fond of closed source do so, to not "take away money from hard working programmers", but perhaps you don't, like I did'nt.

For me and for most young people, if not for most private users at all, professional software is just much too expensive. Who can afford to buy an Office Pack or an major compiler for private use...So for me OpenSource and Linux was the choice. HEre I get _everything_ a private user needs for free and I just don't see why that should be wrong. [addsig]

I dont have stolen software.

Nope, not stolen software here. I have a completely legal copy of MSVC, and a borrowed (oh c'mon, everyone has some borrowed, not stolen, software) copy of Windows XP. [addsig]

-->-->Of course, you might not agree with the neccessity of these freedoms. But I believe that they are the best for development and usefulness, as opposed to sheer money making.strongly against Companies(MS) who try to kill OpenSource. As they put it, OpenSource and free software is the root of all evil in computer business...but I say, as long as there is a free alternative, which can at least nearly compete with commercial stuff, the consumer should decide himself which one to use.

[addsig]

My point isn't that people selling software are evil, either. But I dislike the way business works, and especially the software business, as it's such a useful resource for everyone. I know you'll call me a communist for it, but who cares...

Neither do I like it, that the whole business is mainly about egoistic money making. Today you don't need the best product, but the best PR to sell...In other words, you need money to make money. That's shit, but it'S the way it is, and we won't change it.

Alas, most probably I'll get a part of the money-making-machine as well, as soon as I enter the business...(I still have a few years ) [addsig]

nobody will ever manage that alone, but big communities that are really targeted @ free software, big one, will manage it, if even slowly. You can see it today too. See how the big linux community managed it in the last few years.
[addsig]

-->-->have you even read the page I referred to? The first freedom is running the program, don't you believe in that one either?-->The software industry would only be "crushed" if we assume that it cannot work any other way than it does today - which is just a misconception.making a living, except I'm missing something.

Where's the prob? Release your software as closed source if you like. And sell it if you want. But don't blame anybody to buy a OpenSource and freely released similar product if it is also of similar quality. [addsig]

everyone has "closed source" which isnt paid sacah [addsig]

suggesting that you can fix the problems of todays software industry by opening everything up, would only *promote* transglobal monopolies like M$; it would wipe out instantly the individual shareware coder, small businesses, and people who just expect respect for the code they give to the world. Companies like M$ would have the resources and the reputation to survive on corporate consultation and support, and writing software tailor made for hardware applictions, but individuals or small organisations would be cut out immediately. i have great respect for anyone hwo uses their own time to give their code, open, to the world; but if this takes over then it would become harder for people to get into coding anyway; even if just for pleasure. Since microsoft arent selling their platforms for profit anymore, it means they dontgive a damn whether Joe Bloggs can code for it, pushing the platform further into the world.
I do believe though that students should not have to pay for most commercial software *At all* and i believe if there was some secure way of doing this, the companies would find it in their best interests anyway. like Alias Wavefront Maya, the cool 3D SW they use for CG stuff in loadsa big films, would have cost me £16k+(GBP) if i hadnt been fortunate enough to find someone who wanted to 'give' me their licence...
Having learnt the s/w though, im surely much more likely to get future employees to purchase it for my benefit if i need a 3D package? How could it possibly be considered stealing? Through using the s/w i certainly haven't deprived AW of anything(i dont feel like spending the £16k in my wallet just yet thanks), i reccomend it to people i know, i learn _it_ in preference to other s/w, and i may end up working some place where i can chage the company for it legitimately anyway. How damaging to their company this must be!
&student licence prices from M$ are still a huge joke..

How could it be considered stealing? Well, it _is_ stealing simply. You can't steal a car and if you like it you recommend it to others...That is stealing as well.

If the company gives you a trial version, then you would keep to the legal stuff, but as you did it, you actually stole a thing that was worth 16k pounds - I don't know how your law treats such deeds, but I think you'd go to jail here...

Anyway, you are right about student licenses. If these were cheaper, maybe I would have never switched to Linux for learning purposes(which I don't regret, cause I learned a _lot_)... [addsig]

If I have a program I want to write, and there is an Open Source equivalent that does the job better, then why should I write the program? I could just download a copy of the program and modify it to suit my customers (like all the Linux distributors do) In efect, my creativity has been hindered because of the open-source situation: My ability to come up with innovative solutions has been hindered. I'm reduced to a systems integrator; i no longer have the freedom to desing applications from scratch and make a living from that process.

No, no, no!!! not that!

Could you "income-dudes" stop thinking about noone else but yourself for a change? This is not about you guys buying coffee or not, it's about freedom. See, it's about us not being cotrolled by some blackbox operating-system in a few years. We have to stay in control of our environment ALWAYS.

Would you give M$ root on your box? - Well with WinXP, you just did.

fabs

[ This Message was edited by: fabs on 2002-04-06 03:24 ]

For goodness sake, non-programmers are not the ones complaining about the closed nature of software; they can't do anything with the source code anyway. That's why most how they don't give a hoot about Linux

We are the only ones complaining about the closed nature of most software, and it turns out that we are the ones who need to make money from it ... except we are ready to sacrifice the status of software development as a profession. Spend your mornings and afternoons on a regular job, spend your evenings and nights on your 'hobby' as a programmer.

And that is, why I want both. OpenSource and closed source to coexist. They did so for years now and it never was a real problem. I also value Linux as _one_ of the alternatives to windows. I don't have problems with commercial software, but I do not like the idea to have only _one_ company out there producing OSes and most of the software. [addsig]

YPN: has noone noticed most open src advocates seem to be in the younger sectors? Its cool now to have programming as a hobby, but what about in ten years when you want a job you can enjoy and will support your family? I don't want to get a job as a tech support guy jus bcs some prima donna martyr coders want to throw away their meal ticket, to save computer owning professionals (not quite a poor sector) a few cents

But I don't want to support a monopoly with what I'm doing. So I support Linux because it is _one_ alternative to Windows. It ought to be possible to earn money without being involved with Microsoft... [addsig]

But if you give source code away, its not possible to make money, ppl will take ur code, plain and simple. Yes it is mostly young ppl who support open source, mabye when you get older you might change your mind, You might not also
(-:

no, we are not the only ones caring about the source code. ok, other peoples aren't interested in the source code directly, but they see something attractive in a free and secure system. For smaller (also bigger) companies, Linux is often the best solution, because these days, every company has to spend a low amount of money as possible. So why should they spend some thousand dollars for just getting a few applications for their PC in the office, or maybe even only the server?
Free Operating systems (espacially linux, BSD and Solaris) are the keys for those companies, even if they don't want the sources.
For users who use their PC once in a while it is also a big advantage to have a OS that is completely free, because they don't have to spend $500 just for having a OS that comes with a Security Holes filled mail program, or a sec hole full browser. They can also check mails on linux, and surf the web wiht those Free OSs. And, it isn't much more difficult to use those Free OSs than M$ Windows. No, not anymore
So, do you see that we're not the only ones interested in OpenSource software?
[addsig]

Sorry guys, but I'm not here to make money...

I don't know what you are thinking sacah. If a team of qaulified full-time developers can'T get a better product done than a bunch of hobby programmers spending their free time, well then they don'T deserve any money, do they?

And I never heard that any OpenSOurce developer died of starvation...

I am not against closed source. But programming is a passion for me - I would feel ashamed if people paid me for my private fun projects, so I releast them open and for free. If I work on some crappy shit for any company I'm sure to get paid by them...

And about the age...heh, I guess only few in the YPN can convince me with their superior wisdom of age

The older I got the less counted money for me - you need to live, not to drive Porsche...

If you want money become a unproductive manager and sell things others created... [addsig]

And something I need to add here:

If I find a way to sell cars for free how long do you think would ppl buy other cars?

Business is not about feeding everybody. If somebody found a way to do things less expensive then he will kick out the more expensive ones. That's the way economics work - every law incfluencing this is destroying the balance of the market.

What MS is doing right now is trying to keep up (or raise) the price of their products. They'll have to face the competition like every other company - at least I hope so... [addsig]

Hi,

"Young open-source programmer considering fashion designing as a way of making a living since all programs are now free, including Microsoft Windows ."

Seriously, I think we'll all just adapt. The truth is, nobody wants to pay for what can be obtained for free at the same quality. Perhaps the nature of the software industry is just going to change ... I don't mind programming for fun, if open-source takes over the world.

MoX:
"That's shit, but it'S the way it is, and we won't change it."
That's not a good attitude. That's the attitude that is common to the people of today, and it's really too bad. If we will not change it, who will?

seunosewa:
"i no longer have the freedom to desing applications from scratch and make a living from that process."
You were joking, right?

-KEN-:
Why you should give away the source code of the program? I think that comparing software to recipes is very suitable, I think you've heard it all before so I won't tell the story again.

Acting like "Why should I share? It's mine, I worked a lot on it, it belongs to ME, my preciousssss!" is quite an egoist attitude. The idea that useful information should be free and available is not just some drugged hippie daydream. It's a good ideal for all of us in an age when corporations grow larger and larger, patents are filed with a frenzy never seen before and everything is sold.

"Well then show me the light. Tell me how it would generate profits giving out its programs for free AND supplying the source?"
You still assume the way software business works today. I think I've already mentioned some alternative ways of making money related to software. It's basically selling services related to software rather than selling the software with closed source to make more people buy it. Of course, you could still sell the program, just as many GNU apps are available on orderable CDs, without limiting anyone's freedom.

sacah:
"But if you give source code away, its not possible to make money, ppl will take ur code, plain and simple."
'Take your code'? You mean, as in 'stealing'? How can somebody steal something that you've already given away? That's the whole idea, people should be able to enjoy the benefits of something you have done.

The GNU GPL (copylefted free software) stops everyone from taking your code and selling it as closed source to make profit on it that way.

Also, as I've already said a number of times, it's not impossible to make money on software just because it's free! Imagine, for instance, a small or middle size company (not to mention big companies) in need of some kind of software. They would most likely not install, set up and maintain it themselves, they would pay you to do it. Just as they do today with MS products, the difference is that the software itself is free.

seunosewa:
"Seriously, I think we'll all just adapt."
Why can't we make a change? Is adapting all we can do, wait and see what others decide?

It seems like a lot of people are just passive and scared of challenging an existing order. They assume that everything is meant to work like this, and they think it's the best alternative. It's so wrong though! This shit didn't drop out of the sky, people created it and people can change it.

If we'd always do things the "my precioussss" style unto each other, what could we expect to get back? If we only seek direct, short-term advantages of something useful that we create, can we expect long-term, universal benefits?

[ This Message was edited by: Peter on 2002-04-08 21:49 ]

since the dawn of computing, people have been figuring stuff out for free. It doesnt seem to have hurt M$ all that much...

Quote:
On 2002-04-08 14:57, MoX wrote:
And something I need to add here:

If I find a way to sell cars for free how long do you think would ppl buy other cars?

Business is not about feeding everybody. If somebody found a way to do things less expensive then he will kick out the more expensive ones. That's the way economics work - every law incfluencing this is destroying the balance of the market.

What MS is doing right now is trying to keep up (or raise) the price of their products. They'll have to face the competition like every other company - at least I hope so...

If historically there had never been any money interests in computing, there would be no computing. If there had been no commercial backing, computing would actually be more expensive and a hell of a lot more crap. not expensive from royalties and such; but expensive because of production and developments that are inefficient and resource intensive.
And people who say that IP debates dont apply to h/w manufacturers aren't on this planet. Do you know how closely guarded the production pipelines of chip manufacturers like intel are?
You can look back at all the early tech brakthroughs and see that loads were by unexpecting hackers in the middle of nowhere who'd never heard of profit before. You'll notice that most of these people sold out in the end though (or were heinously ripped off) which is damned good too else chances are we'd never even heard of them. How big do you think the home computing market would have been if big h/w+s/w manufactures hadn't raked it in to pay for the promotion of their wares? Most of the people here wouldn't be computer enthusiasts for a start.
I definitely am for open source software, and 11 times out of 10 i'd choose an open solution instead of an equivalent closed one, even where cost isn't an issue (it usually isn't with broadband)
Both open- and closed- source s/w producers help others to leanrn coding; coding through example and often accompanying advice, and through simply self-interested provision of resources to promote coding for their platform etc.
IP applies to everything. Take medicine for example. I hate to say it, but if people couldn't patent pharmaceuticals, ther'd be a hell of a lot fewer ppl looking for help for sufferers of cancer & so.
I'll continue to give code away for as long as i'm leeching off of parents. After that i'll have to find a nice big corporation to leech off of, thankyou very much.

(My interpretation of the sermon by big brother Peter)

Programmers shouldn't sell software anymore but should give away their software and sell services based on theri software. Perhaps thats why open source software is usually difficult to use?

(My response)
I exercise my freedom not to do so.

Ok, I did not explain myself again, I was sayin if you give the source code away, you will not be able to make money from it, it was in response to the last post, Most ppl that give source code away, have other full time jobs, thats why they dont die from starvation, one thing I find fun is to write down all these type of things that I though at times like that, and a few years later see how much my ideas have changed, It seems we change our minds till we die. Just an interesting thing to think about before you go sayin I Will Never ...
(-:

If Microsoft was not so concerned in makin lots (and lots, and lots) of money, their software would be very good, while still making them enought, but the programmers don't get enought time to make things properly. But closed source(talkin bout full time programmers) will almost always be able to do better software than opensource, every few nights programming, plus faster.

This is very long, I cant even remember what I wrote up the top, hope it all comes out properly.
(-:

As I said, I don't see OpenSource as a real threat for Windows and commercial software.

And I did not say that my opinions won'T change throughout my life...they actually change very often because of certain experiences. But I'm almost twenty now, and getting that old (yeah, I know it's still young) you change your opinions slower because you built up an own personality and your op is based on some years of experience.
[addsig]

Yjo:
Microsoft didn't exist all the time since the dawn of computing .

If historically there had never been any money interests in computing, there would be no computing.
For hardware, that is true. However, for software, it's a totally different story. Of course, you need hardware to create software, but since that became quite cheaply available, it's not an issue.

seunsewa:
I guess you find my opinion funny. However, I'm not preaching any more than you are, the difference is just that your opinion is commonly accepted, mine is not.

Also, your summary of what I said is not totally incorrect, but it's incomplete. I didn't just talk about software, but about the way society works and how our software creation interacts with it.

I exercise my freedom not to do so.
What a freedom. By excercising that freedom, you limit other peoples' freedoms.

sacah:
But closed source(talkin bout full time programmers) will almost always be able to do better software than opensource, every few nights programming, plus faster.
There are lots of examples to prove you wrong. Of course, an open source programmer can perhaps not stand for himself against a proprietary software programmer, but the open source / free software ideology takes advantage of other people's contributions. Open source / free software is about cooperation, the quite well-known bazaar model.

That's why free/open source software is usually developed both faster (new versions every week, or even every day is quite usual with such projects) and better.

ok, gotta go, lunch .

I hope you all don't see me as a rabiate agitator, I'm just explaining my point of view. I need to be this explanative because, as I said, this opinion is not commonly accepted.

-->"I exercise my freedom not to do so."
-->What a freedom. By excercising that -->freedom, you limit other peoples' freedoms.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom: one form of freedom always limits other forms. For example, I have a right to freedom of speech; this limits the right of someone else to kil me for saying something that doesn't please him. The "freedom" offered by GPLed open source software also imposes its own "limitations", if you read the GPL license terms. It inhibits the freedom of the innovator to make money from his innovation by selling it.

I think, to a certain extent, open-source is good. The most practical strategy for a software developer in the 21st century is probably a variation of Netscape's classical "open but not open" strategy:

When you have a broad range of products that work together, release the code for developers as open source (development libraries, specifications, beta versions, etc) Software developers want the power and freedom to improve your code.

Give average / normal users complete, easy to install and use packs that may cost them some pennies to obtain (they'll have had to pay for support, anyway, due to their level of knowledge).

I'm not a "religious programmer", but a practical one. For example, considering the fact that I come from a country where the rate of software piracy is over 90%, I have to wonder if this people would pay me anything if I added insult to injury by telling them: my software is free.

You know, Peter, I see nothing wrong with those views of yours - they're probably good for you!

NB: Many great open-source programs are great because organizations like the GNU, SuSE and RedHat pay programmers to
write them.

-->-->Acting like "Why should I share? It's mine, I worked a lot on it, it belongs to ME, my preciousssss!" is quite an egoist attitude.-->What a freedom. By excercising that freedom, you limit other peoples' freedoms.-->You still assume the way software business works today. I think I've already mentioned some alternative ways of making money related to software. It's basically selling services related to software rather than selling the software with closed source to make more people buy it. Of course, you could still sell the program, just as many GNU apps are available on orderable CDs, without limiting anyone's freedom.[ This Message was edited by: -KEN- on 2002-04-09 22:47 ]

Quote:
PETER:Microsoft didn't exist all the time since the dawn of computing

i'm not talking about M$. Think about the early h/w manufacturers who also made up the early s/w developers.
like Xerox (a huge, unrecognised player in modern computing, not just h/w),Texas Instruments, IBM (1911), Hewlett Packard, were ALL around before the invention of the transistor.
If people had only ever worked on intellectual projects for fun and not profit, we probably wouldn't have got as far as Babbage's difference engine.

Quote:
PETER:If historically there had never been any money interests in computing, there would be no computing.
For hardware, that is true. However, for software, it's a totally different story. Of course, you need hardware to create software, but since that became quite cheaply available, it's not an issue.

H/w and s/w development are a lot more closely related than you seem to think.
take the processor industry: exactly the same applies to chip layouts, to-be-released instruction sets, production techniques etc as for software source
Look even at printers. do you think that engineering these things is all about deciding where to put the cogs in your feed mechanism? Let me tell you that a printer (and most other peripherals) is 90% software. Look at the collossal vector graphics (postscript) wars that went on between Apple and Adobe and Microsoft amongst loads. Back then, having an streamlined assembly line where you stuck together bits of printer was good for shit. All the financial security came from the driving software. I'm a firm believer that a rule with loads of exceptions is a pretty crap kinda rule. If a rule is just, it should apply to everyone, anytime, everywhere. I would never pay attention to anyone who attacked open source in its own right, but to say that the computing industry would be as strong as, even stronger than, it is now if people had never witheld source code, is absurd.

One solution i would propose to the IP issue and software is a modification of patenting law. If I write a new basic text editor for windows, and put in some embeded image support or crap like that, the software, source, everything should be completely mine with copyright as i see fit. Nothing in a program like that is particularly innovative. Likewise with a program that plays DVDs with inverted coulours and reversed audio. Nothing is new in such a piece of software. it might be an original combination of ideas, but these ideas in themselves are not new. If on the other hand my software uses some new technique to which no simlar has been produced (say it gets user input by counting how many times i kick the motherboard [ok so maybe a groundbreaking video compression technique would be a better example]) then i should be able to release the software, with copyright, closed source, providing the new technique is patented. This patent would be such that for eighteen months or so (less than other industries) my company has exclusive intellectual ownership, development, reasearch and sales rights to this technique. After this period, i have to release a complete specification of the process, whatever techniques are employed, and suddenly the new technology is public domain. Enfored open source of any kind would be difficult to implement; its very easy to butcher code (or use obscure coding practices from ground zero) that make it impossible to decipher what your prog's on about.

Quote:
KEN:1) It doesn't allow you to sell it (and if Linux is under it, it's actually breaking it to an extent)
you should actually read the licence, try http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html or somewhere, in particular the bit that says
Quote:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

Oh well, one moot point out of the whole post isn't so bad, huh? [addsig]

give yourself a pat on the back

Open Source ain't that bad, it benefits other programmers and users to some extent.
Alot of free(as in "free beer" not "freedom of speech") software is open source.
Also, open source programmers can be professionals(any programmer can be a professional as long as he/she has great knowledge or a certification, I have a certification in HTML 3.2 and I am very good at Perl)
I amen't a professional, and I defenately amen't an amateur. Open source software lets me learn about other langs too, I had an idea of making some user-friendly UNIX/Linux tools, and to make them real user-friendly
I should make them in the form of a GUI, now, I have no experience in making GUIs in C/C++(two VERY powerful langs), but luckily, great GUIs like GNOME and KDE are open source,
I can look at the code and learn, and I could also develop apps for GNOME or KDE, what if other people want to know how I made that app?

Also, the price of software is outrageous, though the software industry does create money, there is no NEED to make software for money,
but you CAN make a nice lot of money from open source software. An example is ksh UNIX shell, the guy who made it(David G Korn), works at AT&T,
they SELL copies(and source) of ksh UNIX shell, even though you could just download it.
He also makes money from making BOOKS on using his UNIX shell, he can make money with that.

Open Source increases opportunities for users and programmers, take it from me
an ex-Closed Source programmer.

Thanks... ( UNIX power! )

Open Source ain't that bad, it benefits other programmers and users to some extent.
Alot of free(as in "free beer" not "freedom of speech") software is open source.
Also, open source programmers can be professionals(any programmer can be a professional as long as he/she has great knowledge or a certification, I have a certification in HTML 3.2 and I am very good at Perl)
I amen't a professional, and I defenately amen't an amateur. Open source software lets me learn about other langs too, I had an idea of making some user-friendly UNIX/Linux tools, and to make them real user-friendly
I should make them in the form of a GUI, now, I have no experience in making GUIs in C/C++(two VERY powerful langs), but luckily, great GUIs like GNOME and KDE are open source,
I can look at the code and learn, and I could also develop apps for GNOME or KDE, what if other people want to know how I made that app?

Also, the price of software is outrageous, though the software industry does create money, there is no NEED to make software for money,
but you CAN make a nice lot of money from open source software. An example is ksh UNIX shell, the guy who made it(David G Korn), works at AT&T,
they SELL copies(and source) of ksh UNIX shell, even though you could just download it.
He also makes money from making BOOKS on using his UNIX shell, he can make money with that.

Open Source increases opportunities for users and programmers, take it from me
an ex-Closed Source programmer.

Thanks... ( UNIX power! )

Where did you get that "certification"? [addsig]

To Peter I belive, Closed source, will be faster and Better, but I doubt we will ever see that, and closed source will prob go down hill from here due human nature being greedy, they feel that the faster they get out software the more money they get, so its not really good, In theory it's better than Open source, but no, not in practise.

I think closed source will be around for a long time, but mainly for uneducated Windows users, OR for Games, and mostly for programs that ppl dont really have an interest in, unless being paid for, but I certainly love Open source.

There are some very large posts in this thread, good to see ppl are postin their point, lets not let our emotions get carried away, this is not for personal attacks, just freindly debate.

Just thought I would add that.

-KEN-: YOu say that you won'T release your software OpenSource because somebody could take your code, modify it a bit and then sell it. I can only ask: WTF do you think anybody would pay for it then? It has to be at least twice as good as the free variant to make people buy it and I think if they really get it that good they probably changed so much of your code that I just can't think bad of them selling it now as their own. [addsig]

MoX: There's this certification place, some exams cost, but the HTML 3.2 is free, you can be certified in: C, C++, Perl, UNIX Shell Scripting, WML, etc
And you can signup free, and the certification is officially recognized, the exam only takes a few minutes.

Also, a note about open source: If u REALLY wanna make money that badly, you can sell software under most open source licenses, you could sell the source code too,
GNU LGPL allows you to mix open source and closed source software togheter(GNU GPL apparantly does not)
Also, Windows really do fool their users alot, "Oh Windows is an OS!", all Windowses up to Windows 98 are all just GUIs running on DOS,
Windows ME, XP, etc, I think are made of: Win GUI + DOS Kernel underneath. Geez! Bill Gates didn't have the guts to say Windows 95/98 is a GUI...

Another good way to make money from open source software(or any software for that matter), is writing books.
Eg: rob_ert wote "Cnasica", yes it is open source, but he could make a good pile of money selling the interpreter/source + a user guide book which he wrote about Cnasica.

Btw, if anyone wants to have a link to their project on www.linuxuser.tk, just tell me

With that certification site, all exams are free, but only for first sittin, well the one I went to was, and ppl will pay for closed source software because they cant be bothers, dont know a free version is avaliable.

-->-->-KEN-: YOu say that you won'T release your software OpenSource because somebody could take your code, modify it a bit and then sell it. I can only ask: WTF do you think anybody would pay for it then? It has to be at least twice as good as the free variant to make people buy it and I think if they really get it that good they probably changed so much of your code that I just can't think bad of them selling it now as their own.