Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
gnu=borg - discuss
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---It makes it harder to make money as it doesn't protect your code and algorithms from the competition and there's no way of forcing people to pay to use your software.
--- End quote ---
The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I can think of plenty of pieces of software that wouln'd be as good if they'd been released under the GPL
--- End quote ---
I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.
If the kernel went to shit, then some software company could fork it and improve it, and then they'd be the primary developers and they'd make some money.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---and I certainly wouldn't relese a GPL program if I wanted to make serious money.
--- End quote ---
Well there's people that write software with the aim of making money, and others that write software with the am of making some good software. If you're in the former, then the GPL might not be the best choice unless you're a brilliant programmer, but it's not an impossible choice either.
--- Quote from: ksym ---Nothing wrong specifically ...
--- End quote ---
Good!
--- Quote from: ksym ---It is just that technological superiority in computer software businesses must be protected by distributing software as binaries. Otherwise anybody can copy the code, and make a competing product.
--- End quote ---
And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.
--- Quote from: ksym ---And since most software businesses make money by selling closed-source binary software distributions, then GPL won't stand a chance in the enterprise ...
--- End quote ---
So be it!
--- Quote from: ksym ---But still most closed source apps like Microsoft Office, Corel products, Adobe products, Macromedia Flash ... they all depend on their proprietary formats and the apps that run/create them. Unless all their relevant protocols and fileformats are TOTALLY standardized in the open, no really good GPL software can be created to compete with their products. And so they can make money by selling software ...
--- End quote ---
Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.
And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---The GPL was designed for the benefit of the software and not it's owners, that is true.
--- End quote ---
And that's why it's not very popular.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I think that if all software was licenced under the GPL, then whover does the best job of Photoshop or The GIMP or Firefox or Internet Explorer or iTunes (or whoever the community chooses to develop whatever software (by paying for it)) will be the ones developing it (and getting paid for it), and the software is therefore as good as possible.
--- End quote ---
This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Good!
And if the competing product is better than the original, then it'll gain popularity. And if the original developers can't produce anything even better, they get fucked. That's competition. It's all good for the end-user, and all bad for the developers that can't produce better code than anyone else.
--- End quote ---
I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Um. OpenOffice.org. The GIMP. Inkscape.
And a closing thought: Inkscape + animation (currently under development) + scripting (dunno if it's even planned, but I'd guess it'll be possible) = Flash.
--- End quote ---
OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.
How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?
Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.
Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---This isn't always the case, in specialised fields like engineering this isn't true as the software is very expensive and is mainly purchased by companies, Pro engineer, Protel, Electronics workbench are all way better than their open source counterparts. I'll discuss more mainstreem software at the end of this post.
--- End quote ---
I was talking about if _all_ software was free (as in freedom) software.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I think this speaks for it's self as to why people don't invest much in opensource projects.
--- End quote ---
Didn't Ubuntu get ten million something off Conanonical? Although I got no idea if they'll ever get a penny back hehe.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---OpenOffice doesn't quite beat MS office when it comes to features.
--- End quote ---
Doesn't have to. The GIMP beats XPaint on features. But some people still use XPaint.
It just has to be better software for the particular users needs/wants.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---How long did it take for The Gimp to develop CYMK support?
--- End quote ---
No idea.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Even now it's done by the addition of a plugin.
--- End quote ---
All the better. It's not a third party plugin, it's provided by default. The GIMP has native CMYK support, and I can disable it with the click of a checkbox. Excellent!
The fact that it's a plugin isn't a bad thing.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Inkscape looks very good but it's still in the early stages of development and doesn't yet quite match up to Corel draw.
--- End quote ---
Right.
Why are we talking about free_software_product versus non_free_software_product anyhow? This is GPL (general. public. LICENCE.) versus the world. I was more expecting some actual bad points about the GPL licence, not GPL software.
EDIT: And I was also hoping for GPL versus the BSD licence rather than GPL versus insult_to_humanity_and_development non-free licence (eg. MS EULA).
Aloone_Jonez:
As far as the licence is concerned it's not a majour factor in my choice of software. I look more at value for money, i.e. features (whether it'll do want I want) and how easy it is to learn before I even look at the licence - even more so if I were running a business and in which case I'd also consider support. I don't know why the fuck people get so hung up on licence as it's such a insignificant thing in the scheme of things.
piratePenguin:
Whenever I'm chosing software, non-free software is out of the question. Why? Because, I believe that non-free sofware is an insult_to_humanity_and_development. "I wrote X. I own X. You will give me Y in return for X. You are not allowd to modify X in any way. You must not distribute X in anyway.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version