I'm curious about peoples underlying philosophy. Please comment on why you support a certain philosophy.
Printable View
I'm curious about peoples underlying philosophy. Please comment on why you support a certain philosophy.
I support both GNU (GPL and LGPL) and Open Source, but since you didn't allow multiple selections I voted GNU because that's the licence I use when developing my own projects.
I am strongly against patenting of software, for it leads to individuals or organisations gaining monopoly positions and eventually preventing anyone else from competing with them.
That said, I write code because I like the elegance of it, the logic and efficiency aspects appeal to me. GNU is conducive to the continued improvement of the code itself. The emphasis is not on making money.
In my opinion, programmers who (like politicians) are in it for the money and nothing else should not be allowed to do the job.
$0.02
The reason I did not include multiple choices is because the fundamental philosophy is different between all 3 selections. This is not a license question but a philosophical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
GNU, for example, is a philosophy of anarchist communism.
Open source attempts to distance itself from GNU, and it does to a very small extent. While open source favors public development, it does not necessary state private ownership is wrong.
Proprietary - Fundamentally believes GNU philosophy is wrong. It also have a very uneasy coexistence with open source.
I'm personally subscribe to proprietary philosophies; however, I also disagree with the current state of the patent system. I believe it to be fundamentally wrong because it allows overly broad patents to be filed, and so it is patenting ideas instead of processes.
I wouldn't mind proprietary so much if companies like Apple and Microsoft didn't use it in a way to cripple the opposition. I think I remember Apple trying to patent the multi-touch interface, and I remember thinking to myself, saying "really? Is this what it has come to?"
All proprietary is useful for mainly is to cripple the opposition. Fair enough if it is a new idea - the person has a right to patent their work and make sure no-one else tries to copy it, etc. but when companies like Apple come along and start slapping on patents so they can sue anyone who even thinks of trying to make their product even resemble a portion of their designs/products (vaguely), then it really is a sad day.
Open Source... I feel like it is a licensing that doesn't know what it wants to do with itself. On the one hand it tries to encourage more collaboration with its open philosophy, but on the other hand, it doesn't mind if you copyright your own work (I think this is true, please correct me if it is wrong)
GNU GPL is fantastic for collaborations and allowing others to put new ideas into your project (via they edit your code or they take a fork of your work, with your source code bundled with their project, of course), but it is a pain for anyone making a quick buck.
They all have their purposes, but if I had to choose one, it would be GNU GPL, since it supports copyleft, which allows others to make modifications and derivatives of my work, which would be nice to see in a sort-of influencing way. :)
While I support GPL, it should not be the only choice for every situation. E.g. If you are trying to create a new standard, then you would be better off using LGPL or BSD/MIT-style license for your code. This would allow it to get in the hands of everyone as quickly as possible with the least amount of restrictions. For the standard code license, it's hard to go past GPL. The tit-for-tat nature of the license allows everyone to benefit, while preventing people from taking your work and closing it off for no cost (as BSD allows). It appears to be a prime example of reciprocal altruism.
Because the current state of the software patent system sucks, I can understand why some companies are filing for patents on a large scale; however, I don't think it excuses some of their actions. I think the system is in clear need of reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by kregg
I'm personally curious if people feel 'ownership' is ethically wrong. For example, do you believe it's wrong to sell software?
No, but if I had the choice, I'd rather give the software away with source code and see what the community does with it.
There are many people on this forum who wouldn't have a job if not for the fact that software is sold and not given away.
If an artist drew something beautiful, we would not demand that they give it to us for free. We do not expect teachers to give us their knowledge without any compensation. Why should it be different for software?
Fair point, but it might differ for hobbyists.
Because there are kind people out there?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
There are many people out in the world who make their money from giving away software. They get the income from providing services around the software. They also get the benefit of community involvement in the development of the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
But that isn't always feasible.
I don't believe it's wrong to sell (licences to use) software, but I prefer the business model of selling services centred around that software — for example, customising a product to fit into an existing business process rather than simply selling boxed software.
Richard Stallman and I have been arguing software philosophy for a week through email. GNU considers proprietary software to be morally wrong, and I have been at complete disagreement with the notion. So I was just curious where the average software programmer stood on philosophical standpoints.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I see an eventual war on the horizon between open source, proprietary, and GNU philosophies. I personally favor a balance between open source and proprietary because GNU seems to be too extreme.
I'm well and truly with Mr Stallman on this point.
(But that might just be from fawning obsequiousness.)
I make my living doing proprietary software. It does pay the bills.
Same here, it doesn't mean I agree with it's philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryMazzone
You see, I'm a massive hypocrite, and I simply don't care who knows it.