Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)


"Willem" <willem@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrndjeb54.anl.willem@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Joe wrote:
> ) Good. So, why use an, obviously, propriatary system that has no
3rd-party
> ) alternative at all?
>
> Probably because you asked for examples of closed-source software that
> make it difficult or impossible to switch.

It's an irrelevant example if there's nothing in extistance to switch to.

>
> ) So, it was a bit of a red-herring as example go.
>
> It was an example as examples go. You asked for examples. You got one.
> Now you bitch about it.

I wouldn't say 'bitch'. I'd say, "question its validity"

>
> ) I thought you were saying that closed source apps effectively locked you
in.
>
> I don't know what he was saying, but I'm saying that *some* closed source
> apps effectively lock you in.

And I'm asking for an example of one that locks you in. So far, no one has
given a clear example.

>
> ) Hmmm, seems naive to me - but I'm not an economist. This dogma just
doesn't
> ) sit well with me. Maybe it's because I'm looking at it from a small
> ) business point of view (where I can't convince financiers to fund a
> ) multi-million dollar app so that I can give it away for free in the hope
> ) that some business model can be found to make money later on).
>
> How does OSS equate to 'give it away for free' ?

It doesn't really. I recon that at least 90% of all OSS is given away for
free. So, most of the OSS that people encounter has been given away for
free. In fact on the Daily WTF recently there was an example of some badly
written open source which was not given away for free.

Anyway, I'm not really saying that OSS is better or worse quality-wise - the
openness or not of the source probably cannot be used alone as an estimate
of the quality of the software. What I'm arguing is that OSS (which is
often only considered because it is free cost), is not necessarily the best
option in the long run for most people.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
    ... Taking away legitimate rights, yes, that would be immoral. ... So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. ... So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >) you probably still have the option of moving to another system. ... you are using an open source system that becomes a major ... OSS is because you can dump it if it fails to work for you". ... > And what if you have closed source, and do not have that option? ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
    ... Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: ... So you are saying that commercial, closed source, software is immoral. ... So selling the software instead of giving it away is also immoral. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fix for wrong OOM killer trigger?
    ... > The problem is that you are saying that closed source is bad, ... Thank you for demonstrating exactly _why_ closed source software is bad. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Is Red Hat dead?
    ... > Are you saying that Redhat is crap? ... He's saying that OS/2 was one of the best OSs that was ever ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)