Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

An industry-wide compromise

Author:isaac
Posted:9/15/2000; 8:48:55 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21375 (In response to 21345)
Prev/Next:21374 / 21376

I've not doubted that there are more similarities between proprietary and "open source" software development than the OSS camp would have many believe.

Open source software (what RMS calls "free" I believe) can be commercial, or available at no cost, right? Proprietary software can be commercial, or also available at no cost also. The code distinction is not between 'open source' and commercial, it's between open source and proprietary. The price distinction is between commercial and free.

And none of this is "bad", nor should it be criticised by any camp. A developer should have the right to produce open or proprietary code, and commercial or free code. Who is to say that either method or pricing plan is "better"? There are great examples of each form (open free, open commercial, proprietery and free, proprietery and commercial).

I also agree very much that viewing source code is a great way to learn (it worked for me).

When users demanded the source code, and we had to say no, they often punished us, so the hype hurt.

Why did you have to say "no"?

Many argue that patents stifle competition, and slow the progress of all. Many would expect those against software patents to also be against proprietary software, arguing that open software speeds progress.

I see it all as an industry-wide compromise. Proprietary software and software patents encourage strong investment in software. But on the other hand, open software, and a lack of patents speed progress. With only one or the other, I don't think the industry would be the same.

Thoughts?

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:43 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.