- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
'Open source' is not 'free software'
|
|
|
Comments (9)
i should add that the dominance of android on mobile phones is not an Open Source win. all of android development happens inside google. handset producers use android because it's free, but the majority of them do not benefit from the open source license that most of the code comes with, because google does not actually permit handset makers to make arbitrary changes.
android that includes google play, and other google apps which is what the majority of handset makers distribute is neither Free Software, nor Open Source! the only beneficiary of the open source license is google itself.
please tell me, how is that an Open Source win?
neither Open Source, nor Free Software have won. we still have a long way to go.
greetings, eMBee.
android that includes google play, and other google apps which is what the majority of handset makers distribute is neither Free Software, nor Open Source! the only beneficiary of the open source license is google itself.
please tell me, how is that an Open Source win?
neither Open Source, nor Free Software have won. we still have a long way to go.
greetings, eMBee.
Since open source software is free in all the ways that matter to me, I didn't even bother to read the article.
> i am not saving money by using Open Source. sure most of it comes for free, but it also incurs a support cost (either internally, or to an external provider (like redhat))
And that's different from using closed source, how, exactly?
And that's different from using closed source, how, exactly?
@bernhardswiss: in this particular aspect it isn't.
the difference is in the independence you get from the vendor. they are not able to hold you hostage.
take redhat for example. sure, they charge you good money for their support (and that's where they make the majority of theur revenue) and like any vendor they could raise prices at any time, or decide that your account is to small and no longer service you.
so what do you do?
with closed source you are stuck. pay up or loose business.
with Open Source (and Free Software) you go look for an alternative support service.
greetings, eMBee.
the difference is in the independence you get from the vendor. they are not able to hold you hostage.
take redhat for example. sure, they charge you good money for their support (and that's where they make the majority of theur revenue) and like any vendor they could raise prices at any time, or decide that your account is to small and no longer service you.
so what do you do?
with closed source you are stuck. pay up or loose business.
with Open Source (and Free Software) you go look for an alternative support service.
greetings, eMBee.
@jdixon: the article does make a good argument in the end though. that all this Open Source rhetoric dilutes the Free Software arguments.
it also makes an interesting claim that if Free Software won, then we would not have these freedom issues with phones and cloud services.
i recommend you read the last few paragraphs and consider that conclusion. (i sheepishly admit that i wrote my first comment before reading the article to the end :-)
greetings, martin.
it also makes an interesting claim that if Free Software won, then we would not have these freedom issues with phones and cloud services.
i recommend you read the last few paragraphs and consider that conclusion. (i sheepishly admit that i wrote my first comment before reading the article to the end :-)
greetings, martin.
> the article does make a good argument in the end though. that all this Open Source rhetoric dilutes the Free Software arguments.
And exactly how does this make a difference in the freedom open source gives me?
And exactly how does this make a difference in the freedom open source gives me?
I'll throw a spanner into the works: FreeBSD.
Is it "free"? Maybe.
Is it "open"? Maybe.
The deciding factor is whether or not you're using FreeBSD, or some product built on FreeBSD. If the former, then yes, it's "free" and "open" and the Four Freedoms of Free Software apply. But if the latter, chances are it's now neither "free" nor "open," and you no longer have any of the Four Freedoms.
Is it "free"? Maybe.
Is it "open"? Maybe.
The deciding factor is whether or not you're using FreeBSD, or some product built on FreeBSD. If the former, then yes, it's "free" and "open" and the Four Freedoms of Free Software apply. But if the latter, chances are it's now neither "free" nor "open," and you no longer have any of the Four Freedoms.
@mbaehrlxer:
I whole heartily agree with the ideas that you wrote. However, I think the author of the article would too.
Just adding the unneeded comment... again distracting myself from the political chaos around me today...
I whole heartily agree with the ideas that you wrote. However, I think the author of the article would too.
Just adding the unneeded comment... again distracting myself from the political chaos around me today...
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
the supply chain efficiency is just a ruse to get people to open up to the concept. it's a marketing tactic. once hooked, people do understand that this is really about Freedom. i actually believe that there is nothing efficient about Open Source.
i am not saving money by using Open Source. sure most of it comes for free, but it also incurs a support cost (either internally, or to an external provider (like redhat))
supply for Open Source is not any more efficient. i still have to wait for the producers to make new releases.
it doesn't get me free labour. when releasing my own product as Open Source, i don't automatically get people to work on it for free. and when i do get free labour, then i have to pay for it by supporting those people, return the favor with features they need so they can make their contributions, etc.
no, what i really get out of Open Source, is the same what i get out of Free Software: INDEPENDENCE!
if the owner of the project stops to support it, i can hire someone else to take over, or do it myself.
if there is a security issue, and the producer is to slow to fix it, i can fix it myself.
these things do not make my business more efficient, but they do make it more independent. it's all about freedom, and not at all about efficiency.
greetings, eMBee.