Your Opinion about OpenSource..

[RobinVossen]

Well, I have been troubled for a sort while..
What is OpenSource exactly.
I know its mend as Freedom not as Free Beer.
But, well if my company makes Software eg. Openoffice.org (I know its from Sun but lets say I made it )
I can charge people for using it right? But they get the Source Code when they buy it right? And they are allowed to share it with anyone they like?
So what is the bloody point of charging for it then at the First place?
Friends of mine and the people at my work are saying I am a Communist since I like OpenSource software. I dont really care about that. But is that true?
Also Id like to know what you people say about people paying for the Support and the Hardware instead of only for the software.
Since I have sold people Security Points for there network (Firewall + IDS in a MiniITX).
And I charged them for the Hardware and the Support so that was about 100$ more then they'd pay for it when they build it there selfs. Is that how the GPL system works? Am I doing something right in the eyes of the free software foundation? (And ofc Richard Stallman )

Anywho, id like to know your opinions about GPL and OpenSoftware.

Well I hope that we can discuss this, I think its a great Topic

[Vergil83]

Well people can pay for any reason they like. Support is probably at the top of this list. Support can take many forms. I could be installing the software, fixing it, keeping it update, adding new features. SInce the source is out there anyone can give you support, more competition. Few companies make money on selling software (MS, game companies, Adobe?). Most make money on support.

[techieMoe]

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that all software you're referring to below was released under the GNU GPL license, and answer accordingly.

But, well if my company makes Software eg. Openoffice.org (I know its from Sun but lets say I made it )
I can charge people for using it right?

Yes.

But they get the Source Code when they buy it right? And they are allowed to share it with anyone they like?

Yes and yes.

So what is the bloody point of charging for it then at the First place?

As mentioned before, support. That's how Redhat makes their money. Sure, the OS and software will run for anyone who wants to download it, but that doesn't mean that pointy-haired boss #3,485 wants to have to become a Linux expert to run his office. He wants a number to call to "fix" things, and offer training. Those things cost money.

Friends of mine and the people at my work are saying I am a Communist since I like OpenSource software. I dont really care about that. But is that true?

No. In Communism, power and property is held by the government. If anything, Open-Source software is the exact opposite of Communism. The rights to redistribute and modify source code and programs are explicitly guaranteed to everyone, not any one party (such as the government).

In the movie Revolution OS, Eric S. Raymond and Richard Stallman attempt to clarify this misconception. I remember a section where Raymond recounts talking to the (then Communist) Russian government about using some of their free software. At the end of the discussion, they decided that "free software" was just too "free" to work with their government.

Also Id like to know what you people say about people paying for the Support and the Hardware instead of only for the software.
Since I have sold people Security Points for there network (Firewall + IDS in a MiniITX).
And I charged them for the Hardware and the Support so that was about 100$ more then they'd pay for it when they build it there selfs. Is that how the GPL system works? Am I doing something right in the eyes of the free software foundation? (And ofc Richard Stallman )

In my opinion, you shouldn't so much worry about offending the self-appointed Free Software "Gods" such as Richard Stallman, and worry only about whether what you're doing is legal and ethical for you personally.

I see nothing wrong with offering a product (computer) or a service (support for that computer) at a premium cost over what the physical components cost individually. That's just plain business. There's nothing evil or revolutionary about it. You have something others want, and you want to make money off it. End of story.

[bigtomrodney]

No. In Communism, power and property is held by the government.

Just to nit pick, but actually it's held by the people. The Communism in China and the USSR was not actually Communism at all, which is where all of this confusion comes from.The McCarthyist definition and the Marxist definition don't tally at all.

[oz]

Ah... it's already becoming a political thread so I'll just stay clear of it after this post.

[thesimplecreator]

a political thread about communism thats rare

[techieMoe]

Just to nit pick, but actually it's held by the people. The Communism in China and the USSR was not actually Communism at all, which is where all of this confusion comes from.The McCarthyist definition and the Marxist definition don't tally at all.

Duly noted. It's easy to confuse the practical application and the the written theory, since China and the USSR both refer (or in the case of the USSR, referred) to their practice as "Communism."

I don't want to debate the merits of such practices, only offer a contrast between what is commonly known in modern day as Communism and the liberties granted by the GNU GPL.

[carlosponti]

i don't think there is a way to compare it to government really. open source is its own thing. think about if you were to compare it to anarchy sure there its free and the community supports the model however there is almost always a central form to control and regulate how things are integrated into the code base. in any comparison you will find some amount of caveats that completely bust the comparison.

the reason i brought up the comparison with anarchy is that there was once a forum person that like to get into long debates on the benefits of anarchy and this thread reminded me of one of those conversations.

[RobinVossen]

Ok, I have to say I am very clean on GPL now ^^
Thanks, Ill watch that RevolutionOS once..
What about the BSD License?
Since I dont really get that one :S

[techieMoe]

What about the BSD License?
Since I dont really get that one :S

The BSD license is a little different. Both the GNU GPL and BSD Licenses are "open-source." The main difference that I'm aware of is that the BSD license has less restrictions.

If you write code and release it under the BSD license, your code is out there. Anyone can use it for any purpose, including putting it in a proprietary "closed-source" application. The only requirement is that they give you credit somewhere in the program for your contribution.

This is not possible for GPL-released code. If someone wants to use your code to write a program of their own, and they want to release that program out to the world (rather than using it internally, like at a company), then they must release their changes to your code under the GPL license.