What should be free

[Javasnob]

I work at a company deeply rooted in Microsoft technology, and the topic of open source vs proprietary came up between my boss, a coworker, and myself yesterday. We had differing views on software freedom, and I was wondering what you all thought. What software should be free as in freedom? What software should be closed and paid for?

[stubbe]

In the user view, all software should be free (as in freedom) so we can work, play and entertained free (as in free beer )

In the company view, well, alot of companies did opensourced some of their softwares, mainly to support their main product. So in this case, they can grab the newer technology resulted from the community development and implement it to their next software release. I think the good example for this is QT? Alot of commercial softwares use free libraries. In the field I know, XSI and realflow uses python, Max uses OpenGL, etc.

Old softwares, should be opensourced. Rather than dissapearing into darkness and pile of dusts, and the company don't sell it anymore. The best example is Id Software's games (doom and quake) which continuously evolving and even started to born some other games aswell (such as Alien Arena and absolution). This way their name lives on.

those are just my opinions tho.

[techieMoe]

I don't really categorize software into what "should be free" and what "shouldn't be free." To me, it either is or it isn't, and neither one is inherently right or wrong. If a developer wants to provide their software for free (either no charge or open-source), great! If not, I see nothing wrong with charging a reasonable amount for software that's useful.

[fingal]

I don't know, but I trust open source software more than the other model. Worth mentioning that it's actually okay to charge for open source stuff if you want to ... I believe Stallman charged for Emacs in the early days.

I don't think the world will ever see total software freedom, but it's a kinder and - I would argue - more fun way to approach things.

This is just the viewpoint of someone who isn't a developer ... but as an end user I'm often amazed by the sheer quality of FOSS.

[drkdick]

Worth mentioning that it's actually okay to charge for open source stuff if you want to ...

This is a very important point, open source is not the same as free (as in free of charge). When you buy an open source product, you pay for the know-how and for the service. This is an approach that is appealing since it rewards innovative and technically skilled persons and teams while at the same time leaves the door open for improvements and customizations and doesn't lock anybody into a single solution or a single company.

Needless to say, opinions on this matter can sometimes (but not always) be predicted by how much background a person has in computers, engineering and software development contra business and marketing. It boils down to a question of who should be allowed to make decisions about technology and thereby influence the future of IT.

The whole idea of closed/proprietary "pay-per-view" software is a relatively new phenomenon and is ironically the brain-child of people in the industry with stronger marketing skills than technical ones (I'm sure we can all think up at least one example).

Of course, this is only one view and many would disagree

[Roxoff]

Here's my twopenneth...

It's more important for software to be right than free. It should do what it was intended to do. Then it's worth paying for.

In an open source world, you can pay for your software in other ways - by testing it or even by developing it.

[techieMoe]

Needless to say, opinions on this matter can sometimes (but not always) be predicted by how much background a person has in computers, engineering and software development contra business and marketing.

True. My opinions derive from my background as a computer enthusiast and career software developer. I see the merit to charging for a closed-source product as much as the merits for charging "support" on an open-source product. I don't believe the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

There are some applications (such as firmware for nuclear devices) that I wouldn't want my government to divulge to the public. That's an exaggerated example, of course.

The whole idea of closed/proprietary "pay-per-view" software is a relatively new phenomenon and is ironically the brain-child of people in the industry with stronger marketing skills than technical ones (I'm sure we can all think up at least one example).

Can you point us to some documentation on that?

[bidi]

I think all software should be free (freedom). No where on the GPL, BSD and MIT licenses does it say you can charge to distribute the software. Actually, the GPL has explicit text that allows you to charge whatever you want for any modifications you make, but you need to make the source with your distribution.

In my opinion, companies usually don't want to offer their software as free software (as described by FSF) because they always think they just came across the best piece of code known to man, which in most cases is actually the opposite. Many companies have already realized that free software is a great platform, the first on that comes to mind is Sun.

[techieMoe]

I think all software should be free (freedom). No where on the GPL, BSD and MIT licenses does it say you can charge to distribute the software. Actually, the GPL has explicit text that allows you to charge whatever you want for any modifications you make, but you need to make the source with your distribution.

Just to further play devil's advocate here, the only truly *free* market for software is to allow developers to choose how to release their software, whether that be open-source or proprietary. Mandating "freedom" as one group sees it can be seen as just limiting "freedom" for others.

My biggest beef with the Free Software Foundation and RM Stallman isn't that they advocate "freedom", but that they advocate their version of freedom, with which I do not entirely agree.

[stubbe]

Here's my twopenneth...

It's more important for software to be right than free. It should do what it was intended to do. Then it's worth paying for.

that really hits the spot

either free or commercial, if the software buggy and crash all the time who would want to use it?

also one of the risk of opensource without any supervision would resulting a undirected software which goes out from its development path and the true vision of the creator. For example? The irony is, I think emacs. Luckily it turns out good