Is it worth it?

[freeOn]

Ok I would like the views of free source. I personally believe in it and think knowledge should be free.


In the software industry all it would take for them to make money off of it would be to change the code and market it for a company to make money. But the advantage is that it was your code. Your code could create a whole group of other companys.This would advance technology and allow it to grow.

I currently make C++ programs for myself and friends to use. Some I could easily make money off of but don't. Should hard work be made free? Why let it become free if corporations are going to steal it and charge it?

This I believe is the neverending battle and would like to hear where you stand. I know the word FREE always sounds better, it has nice appeal to it. But does'nt working for a bigger software corporation sound better, you would probably get better benifits and at least see some of that big money.

Is free source worth it ?

[Alcatraz]

I think free source is better. It's got a nicer sound to it, and it makes it easier to customize a program. But most people don't really need free source code, they don't give a damn about how it works just as long as it does work. It's these people, the big buyers, that make the secrecy a good thing for companies.

Maybe what companies could do is distribute the program without the source code for the typical masses. Then after a year or so on the market they'd release the source code. This would let the computer diehards have some fun. Other companies could then take the code and then substantially upgrade it. This way companies would actually have to do a good job to get their product sold, and the quality would improve at a faster pace.

What do you think?

[Therealmaster]

Originally posted by freeOn
Ok I would like the views of free source. I personally believe in it and think knowledge should be free.

Free would be nice, which is why i like the GNU GPL

Originally posted by freeOn
In the software industry all it would take for them to make money off of it would be to change the code and market it for a company to make money.

A GPL stops this in its tracks no block of code in a GPL can be sold for profit.

Originally posted by freeOn

I currently make C++ programs for myself and friends to use. Some I could easily make money off of but don't. Should hard work be made free? Why let it become free if corporations are going to steal it and charge it?

Very nice of you, but would you do that if you could make LOTS of money off it?

Originally posted by freeOn

This I believe is the neverending battle and would like to hear where you stand. I know the word FREE always sounds better, it has nice appeal to it. But does'nt working for a bigger software corporation sound better, you would probably get better benifits and at least see some of that big money.

Is free source worth it ?

Free does have a certain ring to it doesn't it?

But companies have to make money i do like alcatraz's idea of releasing code a year ( or few years) after its been sold, that would be nice, so we wouldn't have to pay extorsionate license fees, and compaies could still make a lot of money out of it.

[Dome]

I really dont know wich way to side on this one!!

[Dome]

I really dont know wich way to side on this one!!

Dont get me wrong, i love Open-Source, and i love anything that u can obtain for free.... and in a perfect world that would be da ****.

But we are not in a perfect world, if i code something that takes me FOREVER to do, and ive worked on it for a long time, put everything into it, and if i can sell it for lets say 60,000 or give it for free and have it open-source, id have to say id choose 60,000, in a material world i need that money to get more high-tech **** for my computer, pay for a house, a car, kids(pretending im older), and other things.

But from a consumers point of veiw free is nice......

I dont know if you guys are seein what im saying? and i can see some flames commin in about how "OPEN SOURCE ROCKS" i agree, but i also dissagree

[freeOn]

I think the only problem with that is that after awhile the consumer would know about it. They would wait for the modified versions of the original. And buy that.

I would think that it would depend on what I was programming. I think I would try to sell it but try to keep the rights and after like a year then put it on the net. lol, so that way I get my money and still allow it to be free source.


Can you explain what exactly is GNU or GPL ?

[Dome]

Sorry for the seccond post but i forgot to include something in there.

I think certain things should be open-source and certain things shouldnt, for instance.... and Operating System wich is essential in order to operate your computer should be free! Such as Linux.... but when it comes to "wants" such as Adobe Photoshop i agree that it should cost money, maybe not as much, but it should cost something. Not like i pay for it , hehe.... but thats just me.... i cant afford to buy Adobe Photoshop right now...

Ok thats all now i think.

[freeOn]

: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs.

Exactly !!!

DOes everyone agree with this ?

[Terr]

So all of our software would be written by programming hobbyists, because programmers can't get jobs that pay money because nobody can sell programs?

I think I'm more in favor of a change in the length of time that a software patent and such is in effect... I mean, stuff moves fast on the 'net. I would say, after a max of four years after the version is on the shelves, the source gets released. Maybe a minimum of one or two years.

This would be dependent on versions, so that means that Microsoft wouldn't have to release the code for ME when '98 is four years old, or something. But they *do* have to release (if they use that license) the '98 code.

[Dome]

Originally posted by freeOn


Exactly !!!

DOes everyone agree with this ?

Totaly agree, thats why Linux and other programs like that are good, the seccond a mistake is found it is fixed....

but then saying what i said again, where are these programers gonna get money to support themselves, they lose 70% of their profit if they make it open source but still have it out on the shelves for money, thats a big cut in income....