Open Source vs Closed Source

[htirwin]

You can think what you want about the ideals, but the fact is that the free software movement has, and is doing a lot of good, and nothing bad to the software community.

You shouldn't prevent someone from doing what they'd like to the code. I mean, I really would hate for someone to use it in a GPL program, but in the end I couldn't care less.

Remember that it's your choice how you want to license your work. If you don't want to release your code with GPL then don't. It's another option. What's great is that you can choose to use it if you want, and that gives you more freedom/more control over what becomes of your work.

As I see it, you're griping about not being able to profit off of other peoples work. What the GPL does is make it so people can't freeload off of you.

And as extreme as Stallman and free software foundation may be, there are also much more powerful people at the other extreme. For example Paul Allan trying to patent trivial graphical user interface things, and then suing everyone who ever wrote a highly successful web application. And the mighty overloads of the MP3 format who have championed an inferior encoding through connections, layers and so forth, so that it has become the standard format that almost all music is released in. And if you try to sell a program that can play it, they'll sue you to hell. But don't worry, they have a nice cell waiting for you at the cube farm; for now. Eventually those will fade, as their tasks become easier to automate and most of what's left is shipped to the country with the cheapest labor and most lax employee protection.

I you are really concerned about the software community, you would be much more worried about software patent scams, corporate intimidation, lobbying/corruption, and so forth.

We are lucky as hell we have people like Stallman who are crazy enough to take these issues on. And what harm can they do really?

When you try to start a company and find yourself being sued by patent trolls and eaten up by the big fish in the sea, you wont be blaming free software. And if your product isn't anything more special than what people are already willing to give away for free, then why in the world should you deserve to make money from it? It's like you think you're entitled to illegitimately squeeze money out of people, and you are complaining about people making it hard for you to do it.

But thank goodness you have a dirty hippy to blame.

[Z e r e o]

And if your product isn't anything more special than what people are already willing to give away for free, then why in the world should you deserve to make money from it?

Yes why in the world should people deserve to make money from stuff they make. Shame on them for thinking such things. ;p

It's like you think you're entitled illegitimately squeeze money out of people, and you are complaining about people making it hard for you to do it.

Now on to a more serious note.

It sounds like you are saying that charging money for a product of possible sub par standards and that others have released already for free is squeezing money of out people am I correct? But this just isn't true, people have the right to charge whatever they want for something that they have created(Whether people will actually pay for it is another matter entirely). It doesn't matter if other people have released something similar in nature for free or not.

Just because one person wants to release a product for free and another decides to charge money for a product of same/similar nature does not mean that guy is trying to "illegitimately squeeze money out of people" it just means that he has created a product that he believes will be useful enough to others for them to warrant paying for it.

If the consumers are willing to pay the money for said product then they will buy it, if they aren't willing to then they won't buy it. It is really just as simple as that when you break it down.

He is not trying to squeeze money out of people like you say, because lets face it he is not forcing a single person to pay for his product, he doesn't have a gun to their head and they have other alternatives that are free available to them.

[htirwin]

The squeezing refers to the complaint that the free software is even there ( "because it's whats ruining the software community" ). The alternative, what is ultimately being argued for, is that free software is removed somehow from the picture, so that one might sell crap and charge for it, and what should be free is now something that people have to buy.

The way the world is headed, we will soon be working our asses off just to afford buying water. And if people could force you to buy air, they would do that too. That's the environment we're in, and that's the mind set that the FSF rebel against.

[helios]

the fact is that the free software movement has, and is doing a lot of good, and nothing bad to the software community.

I can think of a few bad things the movement does to the community. An easy one is the constant bickering between the free software people and the OSS people. I would say the intentional non-implementation of features on idelogical grounds is pretty bad, too.

As I see it, you're griping about not being able to profit off of other peoples work. What the GPL does is make it so people can't freeload off of you.

If I'm already releasing the source (and presumably I've already put in the time), why should I care how other people use the code? What difference does it make to me?

I you are really concerned about the software community, you would be much more worried about software patent scams, corporate intimidation, lobbying/corruption, and so forth. We are lucky as hell we have people like Stallman who are crazy enough to take these issues on.

And what exactly does RMS do on these matters beyond giving talks? The GPL in no way prevents patents from being issued.

that free software is removed somehow from the picture, so that one might sell crap and charge for it, and what should be free is now something that people have to buy.

Is that what anyone is saying, though? What I see is complaints about the GPL and GPL'd software (and, more generally, copyleft BS), and also some complaints about the philosophy of free software as opposed to that of open source software. I don't see anyone saying "gosh, I wish every product was commercial! I sure do love getting screwed!"
Also, it kind of sounds like you're confusing free-as-in-freedom and free-as-in-beer. Free software doesn't preclude (at least in principle) having to pay for software.

[Avilius]

htirwin wrote:

As I see it, you're griping about not being able to profit off of other peoples work. What the GPL does is make it so people can't freeload off of you.

No. If I release source code, that means I don't care about what people do with it. Whether you want to keep your modifications private, or if you want to take over the world with it I released it with the intent of making it common knowledge.

And if your product isn't anything more special than what people are already willing to give away for free, then why in the world should you deserve to make money from it?

The GPL doesn't prevent making money off of software. I just think it's unrealistic in many cases. Someone can use your work to make money off of it.

Does making modifications or using other's work in your work, does it make your work their work? (Tongue twister, lol.)

But thank goodness you have a dirty hippy to blame.

So you're saying without the FSF no one at all would release source code? And I don't see how the FSF stops patent trolls, because if you use a "Free" MP3 decoder then you still can be sued.

that free software is removed somehow from the picture, so that one might sell crap and charge for it, and what should be free is now something that people have to buy.

So now companies are holding guns to consumer's heads and forcing them to purchase their products.

The way the world is headed, we will soon be working our asses off just to afford buying water. And if people could force you to buy air, they would do that too. That's the environment we're in, and that's the mind set that the FSF rebel against.

...

[tath]

Open software* is nice idea until you have to pay the bills.

*in this context Open->Free, Closed->commercial

[helios]

What about open source commercial software, closed source freeware, or closed source commercial freeware (free-to-play, ad-supported, etc.)?

[LB]

Don't forget decompileware like Minecraft and Terraria.

[Avilius]

helios wrote:

What about open source commercial software

I think this was already discussed.

closed source freeware

Closed source freeware typically are written by hobbyists, or are written by a large company to improve public relations.

closed source commercial freeware (free-to-play, ad-supported, etc.)?

Usually micro-transactions are included in the game.

[LB]

Avilius wrote:

Usually micro-transactions are included in the game.

That's the whole 'gotcha' of "free-to-play".

[ResidentBiscuit]

That's the whole 'gotcha' of "free-to-play".

Is there ANY game, F2P or not, that isn't riddled with microtransactions anymore?

[Gvp9LyTq]

I thought the whole "is open source a bad business model" had been put to rest many years ago. It looks to me as if open source has done nothing but created many ways to make money. Think about how many business have made lots of money either directly on indirectly from Bell Laboratories release on the UNIX system code.

Now how one should license their own code, that is a personal decision; if you want to prevent others from using your code to make money that is totally your right. But it seems silly to me to be angry with RMS because he chooses to limit what you can use his code for.

I have never seen a reasonably profitable scenario that Stallman's code has prevented. Really if you have a scenario post it someone will explain to you quite quickly how you can easily continue. Although you might have to spend some money.

You do realize that there are lots of reasonably inexpensive alternatives to using code constrained by his license. If you want to make money honestly then sometimes you have to spend a little money. And if your venture is so weak that you can't afford to invest a little money then it is probably not worth doing.

[LB]

ResidentBiscuit wrote:

Is there ANY game, F2P or not, that isn't riddled with microtransactions anymore?

The answer is obviously "Yes" because your query is too broad.