Releasing Beta copies of games....

[MojoJojo]

Very good point. But if pythagorean theorem were a modern discovery/invention/whatever then would it not have some kind of license and terms of usage attached? If it could be patented then it would be!

And this would be a good thing how? Luckily, mathmatical theories cannot be patented.

Open source isn't free to use. If you don't want to pay the costs, don't use it.

Sort of silly you give the example of spyware as a bad restriction on "free" software - this would be impossible with Open Source software.

The restrictions on using open source code are there to guarantee it remains free. You seem to be complaining that you can't get code for free and completely free of restrictions. Why you expect that you should be able to is a mystery to me

 

[rcx21000]

I am anti-micro$oft because they make lots of coll stuff, and with an allowance o $5.50 a week, there is no way I am going to get it. If they made it NORMAL price like other ppl, I'd like them.

Also, about you saying that you would rather pay for something then get a 'half baked' one for free, you can just IGNORE all the open source stuff. Ohhhh, now I am going to start an argument closed source is the cause of all the troubles, because you CAN'T ignore closed source (ads and stuff) and you CAN ignore open, because there aren't any adds! AND you say that the IT economy would be going down if everything was open, I think 100% diffrent, look at Linux(sp?) the businesses doing that haven't closed down so they MUST be making money even when Linux is open!! And if everything is open you can just dl the source modify it, put the modified version on the inerenet, then sell it on CD, so anyone that knows how to code can make money Sorry if I am a bit kuku, but I think that the world would be better if everything was open (except any security parts of an app, it would be hackers paradise if they could see the security code of what they were hacking )

EDIT: About not arguing about anything because there is no way to tell, I think that one of the most interesting things on the inet is arguments (w/o bad words and death threats )

 

[MojoJojo]

Eh, some of the Linux distributors have closed down. I believe MandrakeSoft is currently in receivership.

But the IT industry as a whole isn't in to good shape, and RedHat just went back into the black.

 

[MojoJojo]

And if everything is open you can just dl the source modify it, put the modified version on the inerenet, then sell it on CD, so anyone that knows how to code can make money

Uh, no you can't. That's sort of the entire point of Open Source as opposed to free code, and sort of what we've been arguing about.

 

[rcx21000]

?? Whatevwr, I don't even know what I am talking about :lol:

 

[Snooty]

And if everything is open you can just dl the source modify it, put the modified version on the inerenet, then sell it on CD, so anyone that knows how to code can make money

Uh, no you can't. That's sort of the entire point of Open Source as opposed to free code, and sort of what we've been arguing about.

Surely - that's exactly what you CAN do?

 

[MojoJojo]

sigh... if you use a piece of Open Source code in your program, you have to release your program as Open Source. The only money you can charge for open source code is a small amount to cover distribution costs (i.e. cost of a blank CD and postage).

This is so that Open code remains Open.

 

[skeezix]

You can sell code derived from GPL.. no problem. The freedom to sell is part of the greater freedom.

GPL has never been about cash.. they leave that to peopel making a living.

GPL is about freedom as in freedom to do stuff.. not free of cash.

ie: There are *many* open source costware things out there. Its atough model to lvie with, but its being done all the time.

jeff

 

[Snooty]

(Points at --==> skeezix!) - Yeah, what he said!

Some people here are out to confuse me.

 

[Rico]

Basically if you sell code, you must provide credit to the original and provide the original source of anything you worked from.

 

[MojoJojo]

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

1.  You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. 

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.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

B..) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

So you can charge for warranties/service(e.g. RedHat), but if you try to make money simply by selling the program, like you would with a game you run into two problems: You also have to make it available for free (2b) and anyone who buys it off you is free to make as many copies as they like and give them to anyone they like(1).

Can you give me any examples of costware Open Source programs? You can charge for distribution and warranties - you cannot charge for a license to run the program.

 

[Rico]

I guess it's important to note, free (not necessarily open source) software's importance. It goes far beyond collaborative working...

Microsoft have tied you down to an office format. When they release a new version of Office, you may find yourself forced to upgrade so that you can understand documents sent to you. When DRM moves in big time, you may be forced - literally - Office will suddenly refuse to save as an older format.

Horror stories, but a lot of it is the truth. The Office format isn't public. Nobody else knows it. Who do you trust with your data? Microsoft have the ultimate power to make your documents unreadable...

Same goes for programs, you don't know what's in there. Not just paranoia, there were a lot of stories about backdoor access to any XP machine through the government (master keys and such).

Now let's look at OSS. Free, open formats. Everyone knows the format, nothing can be kept in the hands of just one company/business.

Now add the fact it allows tons of people to work on one project, new versions released regularly (you don't download a new version of IE every day, and you never will be able to either)... OSS / free software just works.

 

[skeezix]

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

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.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

B..) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

So you can charge for warranties/service(e.g. RedHat), but if you try to make money simply by selling the program, like you would with a game you run into two problems: You also have to make it available for free (2b) and anyone who buys it off you is free to make as many copies as they like and give them to anyone they like(1).

Can you give me any examples of costware Open Source programs? You can charge for distribution and warranties - you cannot charge for a license to run the program.

I beelive you can charge for GPL'd works; they say you may do this or that, but do not say you cannot charge above that.

At any rate, what I was referring to (though I mispoke by using "GPL") was that open source can be costware too.

example: Trolltech Qt..

I doubt it is GPL, but it is certainly open source, and certainly is costware (for profit use, though free for non-profit); theres hundreds of open source costware things out there.)

GPL has waffled on the issue a few times though over time. Heck, GPL was really messed way back.. I recall when using GPL'd code anywhere near your code was bad.. ie: Using gcc to compile a works meant you had to open source it. They figured out that was badm, since no one used gcc. Then they realized GPL was bad for libs (like liba) so made LGPL etc.. a complex mess. Hard to track down ebverythign nowadays

But with regards to Qt etc, you see how it works.

Myself, I've got code that is both published open source, and also commercial. In that particular jobs case, it is not GPL for a variety fo reasons, but I let peopel have the code so they can contribute, examine for bugs or security holes, or extend at their will.

jeff

 

[skeezix]

Here we are.. details on Qt from Trolltech.

Note that KDE is base don Qt, and has some issues a result of it..

So Qt is open source with several licenses (the Q license and the GPL), but if you intend to use it commercially you get the same sourcebase exactly, but also some support, and you get a very difference license.

--snip---
The Qt Free Edition is distributed under the Q Public License (QPL). It allows free use of Qt Free Edition for running software developed by others, and free use of Qt Free Edition for development of free/Open Source software. There is more information about the QPL at the Trolltech web site.

Note that the Qt/Embedded Free Edition is not distributed under the QPL, but under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

For development non-free/proprietary software, the Qt Professional Edition is available. It has a normal commercial library license, with none of the special restrictions of the QPL or the GPL

 

[Rico]

Note that KDE is base don Qt, and has some issues a result of it..

...which led to the creation of GNOME. GNOME only arrived because Qt wasn't technically free software...now it is, but GNOME still continues today.