Well, I haven't seen whether there is a poll on this or not, but I'm posting it anyway
Oskilian
Printable View
Well, I haven't seen whether there is a poll on this or not, but I'm posting it anyway
Oskilian
another poll owned by me
sorry, but anyway, look at it as I -reopened- the thread :)
Oskilisn
Guess what i chose.... option #1
Open source and free software are different entities. I am much more supportive of the former than the latter. As long as I am coding a project I have the right to distribute (IE, not a professional project) and it is substancial, I'll release it as open source. However, I believe people should have the right to distribute their software without releasing its source, if they so choose.
Well I vote 1. However, to quote Daft Punk "People should have the freedom to be open-minded, or closed-minded. It's their choice". Well apply that if you will to Open Source. I'm more than happy to show someone my code and to use parts of it, but others might not. And that's cool - it should be up to the programmer or company whether or not they want to support OS or not.
Its up to the programmer, to decide if he want to release his souce code. Neither one is right or wrong. If open source made you greate, then god pong would be making me millions. ;)
I like open source because it allows others to build and expand on things. That's the way we came so far so fast. This whole new attitude being spurred by high power corperations that see only the money and not the challenge and drive are bad.
However I can certainly see the economic side of it...hey I'm an idealist...so sue me....
i bet some weird company in a third world country took your source and sold it to uncounted millions for a ridiculous profit as "Osama BinPong" or something to that sort... although they are probably being sued by Mr. Video Pong (spanish and japanese in nationality) for illegal and undocumented use of hist name publicly and for profit.Quote:
Originally posted by gamegod3001
Its up to the programmer, to decide if he want to release his souce code. Neither one is right or wrong. If open source made you greate, then god pong would be making me millions. ;)
>Daft Punk
right on... i agree...
:DQuote:
Originally posted by doubleanti
>Daft Punk
right on... i agree...
I believe in cheap software, but not in OpenSource, if I am a third world programmer, how can I eat?, anyone could "steal" my five years work and flush my entire life.
Camilo Pino
(Future elite programmer in his last day of school)
i agree with camilo... y'know, what about the rest of the world? seems that all of our concentration is pushing the envelope, but what about sealing it up...
i mean to say, the average of the condition of the world can be improved if we go the lesser countries and get them up to speed... harder better faster stronger...
I think the current closed-source code is actually the best way to do things. There is enough code that is publically available that companies can't really horde secret ways of doing things -- I mean, so long as you use the same language, each group has the same tools available.
Closed source is just another form of competition. Competition *and* cooperation are necessary for progress. Companies each hire many people who cooperate with each other, but compete with other such teams in other companies. This leads to the most rapid progress. Without competition, there is stagnation, without cooperation, there is too much redundant work done.
And economically, for people who make a living from their code, to give it away free would put them on the streets. Sometimes, source code can be worth significant amounts of cash -- sometimes companies will sell their source code + licence to modify for hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some companies, source code is their primary means of making money.
Free exchange of ideas is important, but source only does so much in this respect. I mean, the crucial algorithms, protocols, etc. that any piece of software uses are almost always public domain information anyway. The only thing "hidden" is how they implement it, which isn't always very useful (except to rapidly develop an application similar to one alreay made).
As a professional developer, my real problem with open source OS/layered products is simply support for my application. If I write some software against OS(x), (put whatver you like in that box), and test it to meet my ISO requirements, and then release it to a customer who runs OS(x), and then one of their whizz kid programmers modifies the OS so now my app doesn't work anymore, who is legally liable for this?