Exploitation of Free Software community
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Libervis Aug 07, 2006 5:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:A move to closed source is part of the business plan for some open-source companies, Cox said. Companies and developers can issue a rough version of the software in open source, he said. Once the software becomes prominent, the originators can make it closed source and provide extra features at a cost. In other words, *exploiting* the Free Software community to develop and test the first versions and then shutting the door on them by making it all proprietary, is part of some companies business models. This article also features a little bit of FUD propagation as well: Quoting:Traditional open-source licenses require developers to give software improvements and fixes back to the open-source community for free. No they don't. That's a lie someone told them and they were ignorant enough to believe it. What "traditional" Free Software licenses require is for them to give the community participants certain rights, no matter if the code will be provided by them for free or for a price. Ironically though, it is usually the Free Software community who provides alot of these fixes and improvements. Also, it is the software company who benefits from the community, not just the community. This article also features quotes by some prominent FOSS company representatives which seem to be all too fine with the idea of proprietarization of Free Software. I guess the overly "pragmatic" mentality of "open source" is everywhere. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 07, 2006 5:36 PM EDT |
Same old shortsighted greed. |
| jimf Aug 07, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
The ignorance displayed here is truly amazing. |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2006 6:22 PM EDT |
Quoted: Quoting: Traditional open-source licenses require developers to give software improvements and fixes back to the open-source community for free. While not true of the BSD style licenses, it is true of the GPL. The GPL permits second-third-and so on redistribution of source with full rights. You certainly are permitted to charge for your program, but you have not power to stop the person you charged from distributing (with full rights) everything free of charge. You have no power to prevent it, so, effectively, for the GPL, the statement is true. |
| dcparris Aug 07, 2006 6:26 PM EDT |
I found the article bizarre. It seemed to suggest that 'Open Source' is heading back toward a closed paradigm, but that government agencies should then negotiate to have that non-libre code treated as libre for them. It's enough to make a preacher ask, wit (what in tarnation)? |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2006 6:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:I found the article bizarre. It seemed to suggest that 'Open Source' is heading back toward a closed paradigm, Never mind that that's impossible because the minute something becomes closed, it sees to be free (which is what Open Source is). |
| jimf Aug 07, 2006 6:39 PM EDT |
> It's enough to make a preacher ask, wit (what in tarnation)? Ya don't have to be a preacher to be asking that :D |
| dcparris Aug 07, 2006 9:34 PM EDT |
>Ya don't have to be a preacher to be asking that :D I really was tempted to ask, 'wt*'. I have to bite my tongue sometimes. ;-) |
| SamShazaam Aug 08, 2006 5:06 AM EDT |
XFree86 tried this and look where it got them. I can't think of any one who has done this successfully. As the article said, this can be a public relations nightmare. |
| dcparris Aug 08, 2006 7:31 AM EDT |
I know I don't have any intentions of pretending to respect those who seek to exploit the community. I think it's great when people reach out to us, but using us and then dumping us is just plumb crude. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!