Propietary software.

Good roundtable debate about it here.

http://forums.siliconvalley.com/msgshow.cfm/msgboard=5968009897410465&msg=1431390223675614&page=1&idDispSub=5145094516046185

As one who wants to become a professional programmer, and who isn't quite a genius, IE, the working application that I'd write is not what I'd get paid for, rather the time I spent working on it, and that only really works if you are extremely bright and want to make damn near no money, Stallman fits that, most programmers do not. I really don't like the intent of the FSF (to end all propritary software). On the other hand, I have see nothing wrong with Open Source development, which is a great way to develop industry standards.

well, I actually like the Free Software Foundation for various reasons:
1. Stallmann often says he has nothing to do with open-source. That's of course, true, he has nothing to do with the open-spurce-movement BUT the GPL is a license which makes sure users get not only free binaries but also source-code. Now the major difference is that programs which are GPL-licensed are not only free software in their current state but it also protects the user's freedom in the future. This is so because yes, any piece of code may freely be copied BUT it must then be redistibuted free if at all.

You could say, the main difference between open-source and free software is that freesoftware is based on a philosophy aiming for a better society, open-source is very practical. Open-source simply says "We've made the experience that software is better when it's free", GNU says "We want to keep software free because we belive in freedom".

I'm a fan of freedom and that's why I'm a fan of the gnu.

fabs

I loke Open-Source because of the freedom . If I get serious what the program actually does , or how a other coder solved a problem I'm facing right now , it's just VERY good to get some help =) And looking at the code is MUCH more faster than asking the guy who wrote the program . And , I also just love the feeling when I compile a program myself . I can really feel the "freedom" =)
[addsig]

So now this is typical: Kagez, you're actually describing the GNU belief (Free Software Foundation) but giving all credit to Open-source movement
They are not the same.
fabs

I know that , but who actualy cares ??
[addsig]

@topic i find it horrible how 'shared source' is listed together with two open source licenses. shared source has NOTHING, NO NOTHING to do with users being able to see code or with users having ANY rights on it except doubleclicking on the little icon.

@kagez: uhm.. good question.. i guess a guy called 'richard' does.. lol

And microsoft says the bsd style licenses are ok, but the gpl isn't. why? because, hehe, they are not allowed to put gpledded code under their EULA license, that is, they can't use it in their software.
Everybody knows the windows nt/2k/xp tcp/ip stack is stolen form bsd. (That's known becasue there is an obscure thing called 'queso' that can recognize OSes... Now, guess why it can't make a difference between bsd and nt...).

Of course nobody can now if m$ is using gpledded code, as they are not showing anybody their source.
And that shared source things nicely makes sure that if a BIG hardware company got a license to view some of m$'s source, and that big hardware company was finding gpledded code, they wouldn't be allowed to report it, because at the moment they go to their lawyer and thereby talk about m$'s with another person, they are violating the shared source license!

"Shared source" is just a nice name for something software companies have been doing for ever: give other big companies some of their source so that they can write better programs for the system, and make sure that they keep their mouth shut after they saw some of the code.
[addsig]

hey , heard the latest new about this topic ??/ Microsoft is gonna disallow ANY open-source programs in Windows . What will a programmer do in Windows without DJGGP , PERL etc ?? lol ... windows sux
AND , the best thing follows :
Microsoft wants to replace Java with C# .... lol
I think those guys @ MS are real asses , unable to do anything NEW
[addsig]

LOL, I's starting to feel like an enemy of the state, some kind of computer-terrorist
"Mommy, I have to confess something... I shared source-code with my friends... I'm sorry, I know it was bad of me... -Oh, you bad boy! How could you?!"

fabs

lol ... and in 10 years it comes even better !!
"Mommy , I have to confest something ..."
"What my dear ??"
"I have bought software yesterday"
"Oh no , you bad boy !!"

hehe , someday ppls will wonder why we bought software
[addsig]

Uhm, the GPL doesn't say anything about getting Binaries for free. What the GPL states, is that the user gets the source WITH the binaries. Meaning, I can write software, and GPL it, opening the source to peer review, and still sell the software. I don't have to give my source code to anyone who does not purchase a copy of my software. In fact, it does not stipulate a medium for transfer of the source, so if I really wanted to, I could hire a bunch of Buddhist monks to etch it into golden plates, and sell it in leather bound books. Since I am able under the GPL to charge the cost of transfering the source, I could then charge ten million U.S. Dollars.

Under the GPL I don't even have to package the source with the software, I merely have to make it available. I can also take GPL'ed software, and incorporate the code into my own system, and profit, because, my original software was GPL'ed, it would remain GPL'ed. There would be no reason, aside from professional courtesy for me to even give the Programmer of the source I used, anything. All of this is legal under the GPL. I would merely have to mention that certain amounts of code were written by X, and that code was used under the GPL.

Pretty nifty, eh? The GPL is not about free as in free beer. The GPL is about freedom to see the source code. It can be a profitable means of software development, except that everyone who uses it, is stuck in the software as services frame of mind. You can make money off the GPL, if you actually read it.

the gpl states the sources have to "be available from the same palce". so i guess, yes, you haver to package the sources with it.

and that's what i said, do it like richard stallman and just sell your free software.

One person buys the binaries, puts them on the net, and then people have the option of A. buying them from you, B. getting them free from the net.

Yeah, it is possible to make money programming GPLed code, it's just really damn hard. You need to accept the subscription model. It's a one time fee, regardless of how good/bad your code is. Given, if you write crap you are likely to not get another contract. But if you write great stuff, you are still not going to make that much money. You get paid for the time you spent writing code, not the code that is produced.