According to GNU.ORG * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. I believe developers should be allowed to sell their software for whatever price they see fit. I also think that other developers should be able to add-on to the software and release it to the public(as an add-on credited to that specific developer). Now that I'm using Linux distros.. I understand how powerful this freedom really is and how important it is to improving software. What are your opinions on this matter?
I think they should be able to sell their software at any price they want, it was them who made it after all. I don't think other people should be able to edit the core software and sell it on as their own. Other people should be able to make add-ons for programs and release them to the public (unless they break the law in some way)
That's why I love the Linux world. Everything is free for you to use and modify according to your needs
I agree, as soon as you start using Linux you will find out about the greatness in free/open source softwares. Ofcourse you can do this when your on Win too. But the community is so much bigger for Linux. One of the great things about is that anybody can start to make a project and if someone likes his idea they can help him. And if the original creater abandons the project anyone can pick it up and continue
No matter what the software is it most likely took a good amount of hard work to get it to where it is at. A program is the work of one or many individuals and the comsumption of one's time and time as well all know it is set at a minimum per hour standard in the united states. If software was forced to be distributed and menipulated at ones desire we would see a mass decline on software research and production. Most software is produced by corporations in which pay their employees good wages to produce the software that will later be sold to the public. Corporations commonly spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars investing in the production of their software. Why should they let people have it for free? I believe if software is going to be manipulated then a license should be obtained from the software company before doing so, likely for a very high cost to the individual. -Software should always come at some sort of cost, however, the free software is commonly infested with virus's, spyware, and adware; Which in many cases people would rather pay for the software. If software became free the rise of virus and adware would become apparent.
I agree. If a company puts out a large amount of money into software development, and development is limited to only the hired team, then they should keep it hidden some way. Some software is also very sensitive and may be easily broken by an outside developer due to lack of understand of how it really works. However, I think open source is a good thing. --- My theory for open source ---- If code that is added on by other programmers is quality assured, by the owner; anyone who downloads the add-on will be informed weather they are taking a risk(by the quality assurance stamp). If someone downloads a package that has been quality assured, they are putting their trust in the owners not just the individual developer. If they download code that is NOT quality assured they are putting their trust in a random developer, and there may be a chance of the code being corrupt. But I have to ask this one question....how can someone make open source spy ware and not get found out? * Users should be informed which code is 100% safe(as long as the owner is trustworthy, but that goes with non-open source too) * Users would have the freedom of downloading/buying code, quality assured or not. * Developers could create plugins/add-ons to the software and release them to the public. However they should not be allowed to sell them unless under some form of agreement by the by the originals owners. ----------------------- And of course, we should always find as many ways as possible to make money from our open source projects.
I do think open source is a good thing for some software. Although if I were to make a piece of software I don't know if I would make it open source or not, i'd rather people don't mess with my code unless I know who they are, I get touchy about that sometimes.
I understand, I'm the same way. Some programmers do things differently than you and its your software. I think the best way to solve this problem is 1. Set stricter quality assurance standards. 2. Set out your own rules that the programmer MUST follow if he wants his code used. 3. Get use to people's dumb way of coding. The only problem with this one is, you want your code to be better than anyone else's and you often don't someone with funny coding techniques working on your code. I think the best way is setting strict rules. But, if you want to make a program by yourself and you don't want anyone else touching it than it might be best for non-open source it. See, I'm not totally against any thing that is not open sourced. I just think that open source is a better way. Each should be used for an appropriate reason. Find out WHY you need to use it and remember: "He who asks a question is a fool for a minute; he who does not remains a fool forever." I think you learn the most, and find out the best techniques, when you have an open mind toward different methods and new ways of doing things. Don't accept all of these ways, just the best ones. developing is a skill, a technique, not a religion.