On 21/11/09 10:56, developer_miko wrote: > Hi folks, > > first, I'm a big open source fan. I only run open source software on my > computers. I even don't have binary drivers from manufacturers (that's > why i stopped playing fgfs). The only properitery software i run is on > my mobile phone. > > But ... > I think it's a good idea to add a value to open source, provide support > and sell it. If you follow the GPL there's nothing worse about it. Open > Source Software sometimes lag of a few features and additional > tools/addons can make open source software much better. Especially > FlightGear which has hard competitors can profit by getting sold in the > professional market. In my opinion everything which is allowed by the > GPL is okay. It's very restricted. > > And positive effect on open source developers: > They can develop the interesting core components which are the main part > and the others can do the crappy boring migrateing shit ;-). > > I think this is a big advantage. There's great/best open source software > like Linux, Emacs, gcc, latex and so on. But there's a lack of best end > user open source Software. Do you know why? Because not very much want > to spend time to make software usability well because just the core > components are the interesting and brain eating part. > > Best regards > Miko > "lack of best end user open source Software"? I've often heard said, but never backed up by examples. I'm obviously missing something as I've been using Linux as my only OS since the mid-90's, having built and tested from the first kernel back in 1991. The only problem I had early on was with StarOffice, when I submitted my expenses spreadsheet, my manager said the fonts were huge. Then one day I started using the daughter's Windows box to do expenses and was surprised when I was told that month's (OOo) was already submitted and was OK. Emulating closed source formats will inevitably take a long time, if ever, to get just right. As for FlightGear, you have no doubt read here of people who were used to MS FlightSim complaining of aeroplanes running off the runway during the take-off run - i.e just like the real aeroplane would do if corrective action isn't taken or as happens with a proper FA certified flightsim. No one is forced to use GPL software, they can write their own, so there is little point in complaining about restrictions, for real restrictions look at proprietary software and tell me which one has you bound and gagged. The thinking adopted by those complaining can be summarised:- I can freely download the software, so why should I not be free to do with it as I please. The GPL says they can't and that's that, it won't change so that the unpaid efforts of many contributors suddenly fall under the ownership of whoever grabs it, changes it and sells a binary blob for their own monetary gain. The developers aren't being helped or acknowledged and it's most generous that they insist on sharing, else steer clear of GPL software. Making it under a license that mandates that any changes must be passed on to be used by the developers themselves as well as other users is fair. I can't start a project from scratch to be closed source, so I'll try to make use of GPL software, add changes/extensions with which I will make a proprietary product - just won't wash - as Microsoft has recently discovered. "Many men tried and many men died" - believing a binary blob would hide their misdeed. Regards Sid. > > Ed Greenberg schrieb: >> Jim Erwin wrote: >>> there will always be people trying to make money off of Open Source >>> code. even if their contribution is minimal or zero. i'm surprised >>> they even bother to ask permission. >>> >>> i'm confused, tho. i thought the License Agreement requires that one >>> must distribute the EXACT source code used to compile the binaries? in >>> most cases the customer does not even know what 'source code' IS. they >>> buy it; it works; the end. >>> >>> i think it's unethical to use FlightGear as part of ANY commercial >>> product. also, when (if) the customer finds out he paid for something >>> that should be free, will that matter? it would to me. >>> >>> Jim >>> >> There is nothing wrong with adding value to open source and charging a >> fee for the result of your time, expertise, risk and effort. >> >> "The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without >> the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required >> by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a >> limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too >> large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to >> release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we >> have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In >> ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for >> limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them. >> >> "The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without >> the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required >> by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a >> limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too >> large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to >> release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we >> have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user's freedom. In >> ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for >> limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them." >> -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html >> >> What you're not supposed to do is to take away people's opportunity to >> reproduce and understand your work. >> >> "Free software is about free speech, not free beer." --ibid >> >> Consider Linux. I am using my new Android phone. It's built around the >> Linux 2.6 kernel and assorted other open-source software. Surely Google >> and Motorola deserve to profit from rolling those resources into a full >> out-of-box usable product. And I'm glad to pay for it. I'm also glad to >> be able to know what is going on under the hood. >> >> Best, >> </edg> >> >>
-- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
