> Open Source doesn't mean it's free!!!! Yes, you might have to pay > someone with the know-how to change the code if you aren't able to, but > at least that's an option!!! You can't get that option with closed > source (like VFP)!!!! The way M$ killed off VFP: that's an easy > reason > to see why Open Source could be a better route to travel: at least > you'd have the source so that someone else (able to manipulate it) > could > change it for whatever need---but probably not for free, but still, it > *could* be done. Not so, with M$. Once they're done with the product, > that's it, no matter who could change whatever after that point.
I have mixed feelings about open source. Insofar as the license really does provide users with all the wonderful options that its hard-core advocates emphasize, it's great. But depending on the precise license, it's a double-edged sword for users who also happen to be developers. GNU GPL in a manner of speaking "locks you in" to its license virally, whereas others, like the MIT, Perl artistic, and others, do not. LGPL redefined derivative works to allow for a certain amount of "mixed" code--that is, part OS, part proprietary. This is not bad if you drink the GNU koolaid and wish also to subject developers who build atop your code to the restrictions it places on commercialization and intellectual property protection. As a consequence I avoid GNU GPL'd code as much as possible unless I know for sure I won't be changing it or accidentally slipping into its loosey-goosey definition of "derived works", or I'm OK with releasing whatever I changed according to the GPL. Some of my personal projects fall into this category. But in a larger context the Open Source movement is not just about software licensing, it's a political platform that opposes intellectual property, or in any case the protection of it via the US and other patent systems. This is part of its founder's (Richard Stallman's) larger political opposition to private property. He's a big-time Lefty, with a rather elaborate and complex view of the world which he eloquently defends here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html. This is fine as far as it goes, but don't think for a moment that GPL isn't framed from a political viewpoint that is hostile to free enterprise and private property. It is very hostile to both. If either of these matter to you, be cautious with GPL's code. It's generally OK to use it as long as you don't change it or build something arguably derivative of it. I value open source software and people who are willing/able to produce open source software for the benefit of mankind, as it were, altruistically. I have learned a lot of what I know auto-didactically, and the availability of lots of free software has been invaluable to me along those lines. So I'm not opposed to it per se or just because I happen to believe in and support private property and the idea of software patents. Like anything else, it has its place, and provides a useful function regardless of its ideological basis. Besides, I do think patents can get ridiculous, and so even here the "check and balance" of the OS movement is probably not a bad thing, whatever I think of its leaders' motives. I know it's *possible* to eke out a living as an open source developer but you need to be something of an acetic to do it for any length of time. That's why all the really successful "open source" software has the concept of "dual license" -- one version is free in the GNU-viral sense, the other is not, and you pay dearly for it. MySQL and Trolltech's Qt libraries are cases in point. Postgres, BTW, is not GNU, and is perfectly safe for proprietary software, which is one reason among many why I prefer it over other OS alternatives when I must use an RDBMS and it must be cross platform. Lately I've been into Erlang, which is OS, and it comes with its own DBMS called (pun intended) Mnesia, which I enjoy a lot. Erlang's OS license is also commercial friendly, and I'm currently building commercial back end systems in Erlang as part of the startup I joined. I'm glad Eriksson released Erlang as OS in 1998 and doubly glad their license is commercial friendly. All I'm really pointing out here is that among OS licenses, one must exercise discernment, to ensure you don't become license-locked--which can be no less restricting of your options *as a software developer* as vendor-lock-in is to general purpose users. In general not having a vendor at all poses its own difficulties in the real world, and can be just as frustrating as being locked into just one. By the way, considering that FoxPro is not OS, but OS is at least on the topic of software, I have as a courtesy labeled this thread as [NF]. Hope nobody minds. :) - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
