Ethics of Software Ownership

[CrayZee]

So I come from a computery, mathy-type of background/education/training. I could ask elsewhere but I'd like to hear opinions of others on the ethics of software ownership.

Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_stallman) is an important figure in the software world regardless of how "wacky leftist" he may seem. However, his essay Why Software Should Be Free (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html) seems very full of personal bias (i.e., confirmation bias of behavior of individuals around him).

I know that the intellectual property debate is quite a hot topic these days...but since I'm likely headed back into software, I've been thinking about the nature of copyrights and software patents.

Unlike what some people seem to think (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/08/0547234), computer science is a mathematical discipline. And while just a modicum of mathematical skill and understanding is necessary for computer engineering, software development is inherently a mathematical application. Thus a set of computer algorithms is just a set of mathematical processes doing specific things.

So should a mathematical process be patentable? I'm beginning to lean on the side of "no, it shouldn't." BUT, I believe people should be able to copyright and own the particular instances of the software they produce, if they so choose. In other words, software should be treated more like literary work and that it's perfectly fine for individuals to make boatloads of money from it.

Stallman's perpective is that of a typical, competent programmer. (Yes, I too personally have an irrational hate of the beast from Redmond.) The closed source aspect of proprietary software is annoying at times, but it's really just a local inefficiency sort of thing. I don't believe closed source is unethical.

Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[Phil153]

Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws. Smart, inventive people should have protection against being preyed upon by opportunists and thieves. One is rare, and the other is extremely common.

Whether or not patents hurt or help knowledge and technology is an interesting question. I don't have an opinion but I'd like to hear the discussion.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
Software isn't math. It's a craft. You get a bunch of features you'd like to implement that solve some real world problem, then use a set of tools to build them. Maybe if you're writing compilers you could call it math-like, but if regular software is math then writing a non-fiction book is math too.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I'm struggling with mostly, I think. It would be good to know that my logic is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]

As for IP, I'm a believer that a man deserves the fruits of his labor, and I don't see any way to do that without IP laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too.

[GoodCallYouWin]

http://watchthis.zakyoung.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=566&Item id=13

This lecture, by one of the inventor of GNU technology, explains why software patents are the devil and why coypwrites are good to preserve the fruits of their labour. Patents on software suck.

[kerowo]

I've been a developer for 10 years or so in corporate America and there is very little math involved in any of the software I've written or supported and what math there was was figured out by someone else before the specs got to me. That's not to say there isn't math in any software or that high level comp sci isn't math heavy, just that what most day to day developers are doing isn't very math.

I don't care for the whole "information should be free" camp because most of the people I see shouting for it use it to rationalize pirating songs or expensive software they don't want to buy. If it was easily determined what was under patent and wasn't I would have less problem with a software patents, stealth patents kept just to sue someone later on feel slimey. Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? It seems likely that some patents can be coded around in a different way but would end up getting compiled to the same code, although on second thought that would have to be a pretty minor change for that to happen.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Also, does anyone know if the patent is on the source code or object code? "

Neither, it extends to the technology; so if you patent say a method of say compression, you can prevent anyone from using that that method of invention. It is not neccessary to INVENT this technology, you simply have to patent it; if someone else was using this technology before, too bad so sad.

[Ohgod]

Isn't 'prior art' supposed to invalidate a patent though? Although given how screwed up the laws on software patents seem to be, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't...

[m_the0ry]

There is a constantly expanding library of software under the GNU license, functionally equivalent or superior to any proprietary source software you can name. The only reason this software hasn't made its way onto your PC or into your workplace is because someone somewhere has patented a file format or industry standard algorithm that forces licensing on programmers, no matter how ambitious, prodigious or generous they are. These programmers write this software for free. They do this because there is still a demand for experts on the implementation of the software, this demand offers monetary compensation, and because they love to program.

Patents are intended to stimulate invention. Software patents do the exact opposite. This is the only argument needed against software patents.

[Phil153]

I agree with you about software patents. But not copyrights.

GNU licenses are communistic [censored] which harm software development immensely, and if I was Bill Gates I'd pay a team of programmers to implement all the current GNU programs and release them as free, open source.

I'm actually surprised you're for GNU licensing.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Wow! You're against the GNU project? Who would possibly oppose people giving stuff away for free, that they made, instead of charging people for it? Communism is government control of the means to production; this is individuals choosing to donate the product of their labour so anyone can use it. That's like saying "good will is communism" when actually it's charity...

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
Isn't 'prior art' supposed to invalidate a patent though? "

Yeah, it's supposed to, but unfortunately it doesn't. It's pretty tough to prove prior art, and it takes a lengthy legal battle that independent software developers can't afford, so most of the time they simply just allow the software companies that abuse these patents to get away with it. In the case of the GNU project a lot of their stuff is well known and publicized, so they're protected but for an independent developer not so much luck.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow! You're against the GNU project? Who would possibly oppose people giving stuff away for free, that they made, instead of charging people for it? Communism is government control of the means to production; this is individuals choosing to donate the product of their labour so anyone can use it. That's like saying "good will is communism" when actually it's charity...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for giving code away for free. Any license that puts something in the public domain while restricting commercial activity is fine with me.

GNU licensing is retarded. To use that code, any code that touches it must be also be licensed as GNU. You are explicitly allowed to sell GNU code provided you release the source under a GNU licence. This means that unscrupulous vendors can use GNU code to build their own products and profit off other people's work while doing nothing themselves. This is happening right now with some GNU licensed applications, and there's nothing to original coders can do about it.

It also makes for some hairy licensing problems. For example, you can't link GNU code with open source non-GNU code without also GNU licensing the free code.

GNU is really a viral licensing scheme dreamed up by some 70s loser that seeks to infect the whole world with the GNU license. It inhibits both free and paid software development because of the copyleft requirements.

Also note that the same code would likely exist without GNU - you could easily license under FreeBSD or public domain which doesn't have these ridiculous restrictions but allows you to stop people making money off your work for nothing.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you about software patents. But not copyrights.

GNU licenses are communistic [censored] which harm software development immensely, and if I was Bill Gates I'd pay a team of programmers to implement all the current GNU programs and release them as free, open source.

I'm actually surprised you're for GNU licensing.

[/ QUOTE ]


GNU or copyleft software def does not hinder the development of software, in fact, my argument is that it does teh exact opposite. By releasing teh source code, and letting anyone tinker with it, you are unleashing throngs of hobbyists...people who actually care about the product...to find holes, and bugs, and to improve upon the existing software, unfortunately the only downside imo is the fact that there arent too many standard methods of distribution (other than sourceforge), and compatibility is more an exercise of creativity than standardization (which may or may not be a good thing). Its the exact opposite of commie BS. No one is forcing anyone to give away their software, it is a choice that these people make because they want a better end product. Nothing that MS or any proprietary company puts out, as far as stuff for the desktop, can not be topped by an equivalent open source product.

[Phil153]

guids,

How is GNU licensing better than FreeBSD or similar licenses that don't have these viral copyright schemes?

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
guids,

How is GNU licensing better than FreeBSD or similar licenses that don't have these viral copyright schemes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was better than things like BSD, just better than closed source.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
How is GNU licensing better than FreeBSD or similar licenses that don't have these viral copyright schemes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's better because it prohibits the exact thing you are complaining about:

[ QUOTE ]
you could easily license under FreeBSD or public domain which doesn't have these ridiculous restrictions but allows you to stop people making money off your work for nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

FreeBSD licensing allows someone to take your code, modify it (perhaps), make it proprietary, and then sell it.

The GPL license doesn't allow that bolded part.

So, if you are arguing that FreeBSD is better than GPL, then you are arguing that people should be able to make someone else's open source software proprietary and then profit from it.

[Phil153]

Hmm, I thought FreeBSD had commercial restrictions. Apparently not. I must have been thinking of something else.

BTW, GNU has exactly the problem I described. There are open source GNU licensed programs being sold with virtually no modifications by unscrupulous operators.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
So should a mathematical process be patentable? I'm beginning to lean on the side of "no, it shouldn't." BUT, I believe people should be able to copyright and own the particular instances of the software they produce, if they so choose. In other words, software should be treated more like literary work and that it's perfectly fine for individuals to make boatloads of money from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Software is an implementation of an idea, so it should be able to be copyrighted, but not patented. It will be a great day for software innovation when all software patents are dissolved, and no more allowed.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'll look around to see if I can find an article I read on patents in general and software patents specifically. The gist is that patents were created to encourage people to share ideas, primarily, and profit from their innovation, secondarily. We are now in the information age where ideas have a very short lifespan. Patent laws haven't kept up, and slow down innovation by thwarting the progress of those ideas, and instead allow people to sit pretty on their new "cash cow".

I'll post the article if/when I find it.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I thought FreeBSD had commercial restrictions. Apparently not. I must have been thinking of something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so. What were you thinking of?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, GNU has exactly the problem I described. There are open source GNU licensed programs being sold with virtually no modifications by unscrupulous operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

All open source licenses that I know of will have the same "problem". It would take an even more restrictive license than GPL to try to solve it. But, I don't think it's a big problem. People make money off of distributing open source software that they didn't write. I don't know the #s, but I don't think they are getting rich off of this.

People also sell email addresses (e.g. gmail/hotmail) on eBay for hundreds of dollars by making people think they are buying some merchandise. Caveat Emptor. It's not a problem with eBay, it's not a problem with the merchandise/software licensing. It's a problem with unscrupulous people taking advantage of naive consumers.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing that MS or any proprietary company puts out, as far as stuff for the desktop, can not be topped by an equivalent open source product.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain wrong. There is no comparable open source Quicken, or a client that supports shared calanders half as well as Outlook does.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing that MS or any proprietary company puts out, as far as stuff for the desktop, can not be topped by an equivalent open source product.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain wrong. There is no comparable open source Quicken, or a client that supports shared calanders half as well as Outlook does.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.infoworld.com/archives/t.jsp?N=s&V=64787


http://www.appgen.com/

http://www.turbocash-usa.com/

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no comparable open source Quicken,

[/ QUOTE ]

I use gnuCash (http://www.gnucash.org/)

[ QUOTE ]
or a client that supports shared calanders half as well as Outlook does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zimbra (http://www.zimbra.com/) looks really nice -- but last I checked, the full groupware version has license costs.

I've used Evolution (http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/) and it was good. I use gmail & google Calendar now, though.

EDIT: There's also: http://opengroupware.org/

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Patents are intended to stimulate invention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patents were, are, and always will be intended to stifle competition. They favor large businesses over small by increasing costs - filing for patents, researching to make sure what you are working on isn't already patented, watching out for those who infringe on your patents.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
BTW, GNU has exactly the problem I described. There are open source GNU licensed programs being sold with virtually no modifications by unscrupulous operators. "

That's not a problem. Do you see why?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing that MS or any proprietary company puts out, as far as stuff for the desktop, can not be topped by an equivalent open source product.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just plain wrong. There is no comparable open source Quicken, or a client that supports shared calanders half as well as Outlook does.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.infoworld.com/archives/t.jsp?N=s&V=64787


http://www.appgen.com/

http://www.turbocash-usa.com/

[/ QUOTE ]

The infoworld article, or page of links, apologizes for the quality of the software they link to more often than not.

Appgen looks like a small consulting company and not like an open source project, at least not on the pages I looked at.

Turbo cash or GNU cash I don't know about recently, but what I heard about them a few releases ago they did not match the features in Quicken. Just because an open solution exists in that application space doesn't mean it is better than a proprietary solution.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because an open solution exists in that application space doesn't mean it is better than a proprietary solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, depending on how you measure "better". But, I guarantee you that being open will always allow a well-supported application to evolve more quickly and eventually become a more superior application. Closed source applications will always thrive in niche markets where not a lot of open source developers are located. However, in any application space where open source developers are plentiful, open source development will out perform closed source development applications. The key, however, which is pertinent to the OP, is that the open source developers not be thwarted by software patents wielded by mega corporations such as Microsoft that care far more about their profits than about software innovation.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because an open solution exists in that application space doesn't mean it is better than a proprietary solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, depending on how you measure "better". But, I guarantee you that being open will always allow a well-supported application to evolve more quickly and eventually become a more superior application. Closed source applications will always thrive in niche markets where not a lot of open source developers are located. However, in any application space where open source developers are plentiful, open source development will out perform closed source development applications. The key, however, which is pertinent to the OP, is that the open source developers not be thwarted by software patents wielded by mega corporations such as Microsoft that care far more about their profits than about software innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't include whether an app is open or not in measure of it's goodness for a start.

You say that open source is going to rule the world, well why hasn't it?
Why is the only common open source software that is widely used Apache? Why haven't open source applications taken over from the propiatary ones? Why aren't there any good open source games? Where is all the open source windows apps? Open source has been around quite a while now and it seems most projects are either small niche projects or self destruct into lots of forks and then die. What is going to be the next Emacs or Linux? And how long until something of that quality is going to be easy to get, install, and use on a popular operating system?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that open source is going to rule the world, well why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody gets paid to make sure that the stuff actually works, so we're reliant on people who want to work on certain things. Audacity is a fun pet project for Dominic. I don't know anyone who has a similar penchant for a really neat calendar.
[ QUOTE ]
Why is the only common open source software that is widely used Apache?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it works, is fast, and a web server isn't so complex that companies are worried about being able to point a finger at someone when it breaks.
[ QUOTE ]
Why haven't open source applications taken over from the propiatary ones?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partly because companies need to point a finger, and can't deal with needing to fix things themselves if they break. Another is that they really aren't as good on the whole, because we're back to business applications being a lot less fun for people to work on.
[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't there any good open source games?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of fun open source games, but the production costs that go into something like WoW are prohibitive for something that is free.
[ QUOTE ]
Where is all the open source windows apps?

[/ QUOTE ]
There will be more in the future. The open source Office clones necessarily sucked nuts because of absurd file formats. OpenXML is plenty retarded, but at least it'll be possible to write applications that can handle it. Notepad++ is one of the best editors that I've ever used, and that's open source.
[ QUOTE ]
Open source has been around quite a while now and it seems most projects are either small niche projects or self destruct into lots of forks and then die. What is going to be the next Emacs or Linux?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing, as those will just morph into new things. Emacs suffered the same fate as Office and got overly bloated. Gimp is pretty solid, but one primary detraction is that it doesn't share an identical interface to Photoshop. Close isn't good enough for the typical graphic designer who was trained in some technical school to use one product that's been around forever. Photoshop is still a nicer application, too, as the reward for bettering Gimp is miniscule.
[ QUOTE ]
And how long until something of that quality is going to be easy to get, install, and use on a popular operating system?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd look at the Mac first, as the BSD base makes it unnecessary to rewrite most of the "important" code. You just slap a new UI on it and you're up and running. Now, if more than 100 people in the world were any good with Objective C it might be even faster (imo that's the best and quickest way to write good mac applications).

[GoodCallYouWin]

There is no question free software will take over, especailly in corporations and governments, who actually pay for licenses instead of just downloading stuff like the rest of us. Why would someone pay $200 a license for something they can get for free?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no question free software will take over, especailly in corporations and governments, who actually pay for licenses instead of just downloading stuff like the rest of us. Why would someone pay $200 a license for something they can get for free?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they have to point a finger if things break.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because an open solution exists in that application space doesn't mean it is better than a proprietary solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, depending on how you measure "better". But, I guarantee you that being open will always allow a well-supported application to evolve more quickly and eventually become a more superior application. Closed source applications will always thrive in niche markets where not a lot of open source developers are located. However, in any application space where open source developers are plentiful, open source development will out perform closed source development applications. The key, however, which is pertinent to the OP, is that the open source developers not be thwarted by software patents wielded by mega corporations such as Microsoft that care far more about their profits than about software innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't include whether an app is open or not in measure of it's goodness for a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about whether or not the data stored in the app uses open standards and is able to be migrated to a different application or platform in the future?

[ QUOTE ]
You say that open source is going to rule the world, well why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the only common open source software that is widely used Apache?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not.

[ QUOTE ]
Why haven't open source applications taken over from the propiatary ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots have.

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't there any good open source games?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is all the open source windows apps?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
Open source has been around quite a while now and it seems most projects are either small niche projects or self destruct into lots of forks and then die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, most. And most proprietary software suffers the same fate. The beauty with open source software is that someone can come along and pick up where the old developers left off.

[ QUOTE ]
What is going to be the next Emacs or Linux?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know just enough to ask stupid questions, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
And how long until something of that quality is going to be easy to get, install, and use on a popular operating system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Installing software on recent Linux desktops is easier than installing software on Windows.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no question free software will take over, especailly in corporations and governments, who actually pay for licenses instead of just downloading stuff like the rest of us. Why would someone pay $200 a license for something they can get for free?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they have to point a finger if things break.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that open source software will take over the majority of the software application market. Closed-source will be relegated to in-house & niche markets.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the whole purpose of patents to induce innovation? Well, that's what Jefferson thought. Software patents seem so counterproductive to longterm innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I came across this article:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8445673704.html

Dr. Anthony Picardi, IDC's senior vice president of global software research:

[ QUOTE ]
"The real impact of open source is to sustain innovations in mature software markets, thus extending the useful life of software assets and saving customers money."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not just some off-the-wall-anti-capitalism-leftist-commie speaking, either. You can pay $3,500 for the full report if you want to see all the details. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I think there are several reasons why open source development tends to lend itself to better innovation. We can discuss that if you want? Not sure if that's what you wanted to talk about in your thread or not.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are several reasons why open source development tends to lend itself to better innovation. We can discuss that if you want? Not sure if that's what you wanted to talk about in your thread or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course innovation will be better. You have as much time as you want to work on something, you aren't penalized for thinking outside the box, and you're free to incorporate other open-sourced techniques into your own code.

Proprietary systems are limited in all 3 areas.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow! You're against the GNU project? Who would possibly oppose people giving stuff away for free, that they made, instead of charging people for it? Communism is government control of the means to production; this is individuals choosing to donate the product of their labour so anyone can use it. That's like saying "good will is communism" when actually it's charity...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for giving code away for free. Any license that puts something in the public domain while restricting commercial activity is fine with me.

GNU licensing is retarded. To use that code, any code that touches it must be also be licensed as GNU. You are explicitly allowed to sell GNU code provided you release the source under a GNU licence. This means that unscrupulous vendors can use GNU code to build their own products and profit off other people's work while doing nothing themselves. This is happening right now with some GNU licensed applications, and there's nothing to original coders can do about it.

It also makes for some hairy licensing problems. For example, you can't link GNU code with open source non-GNU code without also GNU licensing the free code.

GNU is really a viral licensing scheme dreamed up by some 70s loser that seeks to infect the whole world with the GNU license. It inhibits both free and paid software development because of the copyleft requirements.

Also note that the same code would likely exist without GNU - you could easily license under FreeBSD or public domain which doesn't have these ridiculous restrictions but allows you to stop people making money off your work for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a very specific reason the GNU/GPL license does this and it has to do with legal loopholes. If code is released in a true 'public domain' fashion then someone can copy and paste it, implement it in a slightly different way, patent/copyright said implementation and repeat the process for as many implementations (and as general of implementations) as conceivably possible. Essentially this would render the code no longer available for public use. In other words, it protects the code from the 'carpet-bombing copyright' scheme that is oh-so-common in corporate software development.

I agree that forcing the GNU GPL on the end programmer is a nasty side effect but it is absolutely necessary to protect the viability of the concept of 'open source' - at least as long as software patent/copyright exists as it does today.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that open source is going to rule the world, well why hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really trying not to sound rude here but this just exposes your unmitigated ignorance on this subject.

The short answer to your question is this. Microsoft, Adobe, and the other software corporations have managed to bamboozle the PTO into protecting their FILE FORMATS. These file formats are 'updated' (.doc '95, .doc XP, .doc 2000... there is zero innovation between these formats) to keep them persistently under the protective copyright umbrella. As a result any interoperability with these FILE FORMATS is illegal without a license. If you want to read PDF's, .doc files, watch mpeg files or play games on adobe flash player, you must purchase a license or be sued into oblivion. Open source cannot purchase a license for every end user; where would that money come from?

There are open source alternatives to all of these file formats. They are completely interoperable. There is absolutely no reason for the corporation with a majority market share to encourage interoperability, thus they copyright every file format they can and fight tooth and nail to keep it 'members only'. This is an anticompetitive practice that should be illegal but it is not. This is the answer to your original question.

You tell me how you convert a 95% market share to 49% overnight and then I'll agree that open source is falling short of its potential.






All applicants are to submit their resume in Office 2000 Word document format.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"This is an anticompetitive practice that should be illegal but it is not."

I disagree; it's not that this needs to be made illegal, it's that the bad law that allows this to be done (software patents) needs to be repealed. This is just one area of many where government regulation harms innovation and competition.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that open source is going to rule the world, well why hasn't it?

I am really trying not to sound rude here but this just exposes your unmitigated ignorance on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pah Lease. Just because I haven't drank the FOSS kool-aid doesn't mean I don't know anything about the software industry.

[ QUOTE ]
Open source cannot purchase a license for every end user; where would that money come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets right back to IP ownership. Those companies produced those file formats why should they be forced to give them away? Why should they be forced to open them up? Yes, it would let other people write software towards them, and it might even be better, maybe even good enough to put them out of business. So why would they want to do that again?

[ QUOTE ]
There are open source alternatives to all of these file formats.

[/ QUOTE ]
But are they any good? I've used Open Office on Windows and it wasn't that good. This wasn't trying to work with Office docs either.

[ QUOTE ]
You tell me how you convert a 95% market share to 49% overnight and then I'll agree that open source is falling short of its potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

By making a better product, LDO

I may have given the wrong impression in earlier posts that I don't like FOSS, that isn't entirely correct. I think there is some great software under their umbrella. However, I don't think it is the end all be all of software development. If you want to give away your work that's fine, but there are some zeolots in the movement that would have everyone give away their work and that doesn't sit right with me.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But are they any good? I've used Open Office on Windows and it wasn't that good. This wasn't trying to work with Office docs either.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did you last try Open Office? Perhaps you should give it another shot?

Of course, if your point is that open Office doesn't behave like Word, that bis cool. Maybe you should try to understand how Word has trained you like a monkey, in non rational, counter-intuitive, behavior! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It will take a little while to get off the addiction and become significantly more productive intuitively.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But are they any good? I've used Open Office on Windows and it wasn't that good. This wasn't trying to work with Office docs either.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did you last try Open Office? Perhaps you should give it another shot?

Of course, if your point is that open Office doesn't behave like Word, that bis cool. Maybe you should try to understand how Word has trained you like a monkey, in non rational, counter-intuitive, behavior! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It will take a little while to get off the addiction and become significantly more productive intuitively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the speed improve by 200% in the past few months?

The choice is not between paying $500 for something and getting it free. Either can be had for free (piracy), so the choice is between "slow and doesn't work right" and "marginally less slow but works fine with every file I may ever need to open."

[2OuterJitsu]

Why are copyrights better than patents with regard to software? Patents expire in 20 years; copyrights the life of the author + 50. (I wasn't even aware you could patent software.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
the choice is between "slow and doesn't work right" and "marginally less slow but works fine with every file I may ever need to open."


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the criteria for your choice. Maybe we have to look at many things. Word is definitely slower on my computers (I have a few) than open office, or alternatively, word steal CPU cycles from other programs that I may have running.

Anyway I have used Open Office since it first non-beta release. It has saved me thousands (!!!) of dollars, as an individual, not as a corporation, in upgrade fees, and I have always be able to comply with any request for documents in Word format, and have been able to read/modify/etc word documents formats. It has saved me enough money to buy two or three extra computers... LOL I feel you are a sucker for MinnieMouse corporation or do not understand that there are different ways to do things, and an adjustment today, may pay handsomely over the next few decades. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way I can use Open Office on other operating systems, besides windows. Something MinnieMouse Corp doesn't allow for its products because they could not stand the competition.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are copyrights better than patents with regard to software? Patents expire in 20 years; copyrights the life of the author + 50. (I wasn't even aware you could patent software.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Copyrights apply to the implementation of the idea. Patents apply to the idea (actually, an "invention", which in software is pretty much the same thing). Most software ideas ("inventions") can be reverse engineered and implemented in various ways. This is good for innovation, since people can combine multiple ideas to create new & better products.

more info (http://www.obsidian.co.za/blog/anton-de-wet/software-patents-versus-copyrights-the-lesser-of-two-evils)
http://inventors.about.com/od/patenttrademarkcopyright/a/Intellectual_Pr.htm
http://inventors.about.com/od/firststeps/a/inventing101.htm

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to give away your work that's fine, but there are some zeolots in the movement that would have everyone give away their work and that doesn't sit right with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't put words in my mouth. There is no replacement for support, server integration, and these are actual services that create jobs and capital. The point is that the 'write lots of code, copyright it all, and charge licensing fees' business model is both unethical, defective by design, and anticompetitive.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the choice is between "slow and doesn't work right" and "marginally less slow but works fine with every file I may ever need to open."


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the criteria for your choice. Maybe we have to look at many things. Word is definitely slower on my computers (I have a few) than open office, or alternatively, word steal CPU cycles from other programs that I may have running.

Anyway I have used Open Office since it first non-beta release. It has saved me thousands (!!!) of dollars, as an individual, not as a corporation, in upgrade fees, and I have always be able to comply with any request for documents in Word format, and have been able to read/modify/etc word documents formats. It has saved me enough money to buy two or three extra computers... LOL I feel you are a sucker for MinnieMouse corporation or do not understand that there are different ways to do things, and an adjustment today, may pay handsomely over the next few decades. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

By the way I can use Open Office on other operating systems, besides windows. Something MinnieMouse Corp doesn't allow for its products because they could not stand the competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind destroying file formatting info it's great.

Microsoft is either going to take over or kill themselves with their new move (on the corporate side) to sharepoint for everything. Once they convince everyone to put their files into SQL server, and basically access them via the web through sharepoint, they'll have people locked in. That's like 10 years down the line as far as it being pervasive, but the government and big contractors for them are already starting to move in that direction.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft is either going to take over or kill themselves with their new move (on the corporate side) to sharepoint for everything. Once they convince everyone to put their files into SQL server, and basically access them via the web through sharepoint, they'll have people locked in. That's like 10 years down the line as far as it being pervasive, but the government and big contractors for them are already starting to move in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you link to some references about this, please?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft is either going to take over or kill themselves with their new move (on the corporate side) to sharepoint for everything. Once they convince everyone to put their files into SQL server, and basically access them via the web through sharepoint, they'll have people locked in. That's like 10 years down the line as far as it being pervasive, but the government and big contractors for them are already starting to move in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you link to some references about this, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

10 years is my guess (unless the whole idea dies before then), not a fact. The DoD moving a ton of stuff into sharepoint farms is a fact.

Read the sharepoint team blogs, and the main sharepoint page. "Feel Lucky" and you'll get enough info to see what it is (if that's the question).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't mind destroying file formatting info it's great.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. I have no interest in destroying any file formatting.

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft is either going to take over or kill themselves with their new move (on the corporate side) to sharepoint for everything. Once they convince everyone to put their files into SQL server, and basically access them via the web through sharepoint, they'll have people locked in. That's like 10 years down the line as far as it being pervasive, but the government and big contractors for them are already starting to move in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how much you undertsand about the technology. There are many alternative SQL servers. MinnieMouse SQL server is not the top SQL server under any criteria.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't mind destroying file formatting info it's great.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what you are suggesting here. I have no interest in destroying any file formatting.

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft is either going to take over or kill themselves with their new move (on the corporate side) to sharepoint for everything. Once they convince everyone to put their files into SQL server, and basically access them via the web through sharepoint, they'll have people locked in. That's like 10 years down the line as far as it being pervasive, but the government and big contractors for them are already starting to move in that direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how much you undertsand about the technology. There are many alternative SQL servers. MinnieMouse SQL server is not the top SQL server under any criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

SharePoint only runs on sql server. SharePoint is what they're using/pushing and so on. That's the key, not SQL server. As long as they can get over the 2GB BLOB issue somehow (or code around it by splitting bigger files) they'll be able to turn "windows networking" into something completely new, better, and more proprietary.

Either they'll end up "taking over", or they'll completely die out because of it.

I'm sure you understand a whole lot about the underlying technologies. I'm also sure that you have never run into an issue with opening up a word document, editing/saving it, sending it back, and having the file be ruined for the original user. This would happen in 90+% of cases in corporate environments, though.

It doesn't matter if you have a word clone that is a million times better than word. If you work for the government, chances are you'll end up using Word, because it works better with sharepoint and the 400 people who work in your department that came out of devry that can basically use 3 programs above the retard level.

And sharepoint isn't even the best thing that does what it does, it's just a competent solution that a lot of people will end up using via their jobs.

All of that said - I use a mac for my personal stuff. I run exactly one windows machine of 6 that I have here. I'm not saying that it's 100% going to happen, I'm saying that that's the MS trend, and it will either be a huge win or a huge loss for them.

Altair BASIC wasn't the best basic, either.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you work for the government, chances are you'll end up using Word,

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting comment. I thought that over the last few years a number of government authorities (both other nations and some states and/or local government in the US) have decidedly chosen a non Word alternative because of its non-interoperability which effectively derailed MinnieMouse efforts to lock in its customers.

[Phil153]

The free software advocates are being ridiculous. Windows, Apple, Office, Photoshop, Quickbooks, PokerTracker, PAHUD and so on simply provide more of what people want in a more intuitive way. That's why people use them.

The free, open source competitors to these products are unfriendly to the user, unreliable, time consuming to set up, missing essential features, and so on. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T GET USED. There are a few notable exceptions, one being firefox (which ironically, is built on the vast codebase of Netscape, a commercial product, whose source was released when the company went under.)

Open source, unpaid software works great for things like low level libraries and generic tools, but it when it comes to specific implementations and user needs it generally sucks balls, hard. One reason is that the collaborative nature of open source makes it very hard to set intelligent standards and solid goals. On the other hand, this is something that for profit, top down software development does very well.

The other problem with open source is that most people don't want to put the hard, grueling yards in to do things like making a good user interface, iron out niggling bugs and implement the very difficult and tedious features that gives the end user a flawless experience.

BTW, I hope those who mention OpenOffice realize that it's based on the 10 million line Sun codebase of StarOffice, a proprietary solution from a while back, and that most of the work is done not by volunteers but paid Sun staff.

[ QUOTE ]
OpenOffice.org developer Ken Foskey said the biggest problem with the project is a lack of developers and a code base that is "just too big."

"It's 10 million lines of code and takes serious commitment just to compile the thing," Foskey said. "I'm interested in [having] more community developers [involved]," he said, adding they shouldn't "just say, 'I want to work on OpenOffice' but focus on a particular part of the project."

Sun is still the largest contributor to the project, with some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell, with about 10 contributors, and there are only four active community developers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you work for the government, chances are you'll end up using Word, because it works better with sharepoint and the 400 people who work in your department that came out of devry that can basically use 3 programs above the retard level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Words hurt man.

I can use Word, Excel, Outlook, AND Power Point at least at 3rd grade level.

I think you are correct about sharepoint. I've been at places that use it and that don't and it kicks the crap out of shared network folders or home grown web based document repositories. The only wiki based product I've used for any length of time was instiki and it ate itself and my data, so I don't know how this compares with a well run wiki, but it is pretty seamless. Granted it requires a fairly expensive back end, but MS' target audience already uses their servers anyway and this lets them sell them one more SQLServer license.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Open source, unpaid software works great for things like low level libraries and generic tools, but it when it comes to specific implementations and user needs it generally sucks balls, hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Open source development methods create superior products to closed source development methods. Any knowledgeable person knows this. Closed source applications are superior to open source applications because of the amount of man-hours that have been put into those competing products. What we are seeing, however, is that when a company can form a business model around open source development, they will have a strategic advantage over their closed source competitors -- not to mention a much better product.

It's already happening in many sectors -- and will continue to thrive as more companies realize that they won't be able to compete with open source competitors. Apache, MySQL, Mozilla, RedHat, Ubuntu, Sun Java. So, if you don't have enough evidence yet... just wait.

[kerowo]

Kip, you are assuming the people suggesting FOSS isn't up to par yet are newbs who don't know anything and you are wrong.

Apache - Clearly the best of the OSS apps.
Mozilla - Very good, but it wasn't built from the ground up open source was it?
MySQL - O RLY? You're saying MySQL is enterprise ready? Better than Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server 2007? I think you are a little ahead of the curve with that opinion.
Any Linux Distro - When it's as easy to set up, configure and use as OS X (which while based on an OSS kernel is not open source) then you can trumpet them. They aren't there yet.
Sun Java - Wasn't that open sourced to try and compete with MS? It doesn't take much of an argument to say if it is superior to .Net it isn't a hands down winner and they are probably so close that trying to find a "winner" is pointless.

There are spaces where FOSS software is alright and can thrive, but to say it is superior in every instance right now is clearly wrong. To say it will be superior in every instance in the future is meaningless.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
MySQL - O RLY? You're saying MySQL is enterprise ready? Better than Oracle, DB2, and SQL Server 2007? I think you are a little ahead of the curve with that opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Google (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=75), Yahoo! (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=3), NASA (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=121) (2) (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=110), Micromuse (IBM) (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=294), YouTube (http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=280), and many others (http://www.mysql.com/customers/) share my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
There are spaces where FOSS software is alright and can thrive, but to say it is superior in every instance right now is clearly wrong. To say it will be superior in every instance in the future is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying open source development methods (http://opensource.org/) are superior to closed source methods. This is pretty clear.

Mature open source software with a sufficient development base will be better than it's closed source competitor. This is or soon will be pretty clear.

Closed source software will still thrive in niche markets and in in-house development (obviously).

The point of the OP, and we are getting side-tracked, is that these points are contingent upon software not being able to be patented. When it is, open source development is not allowed to thrive, and therefore not allowed to produce innovative applications.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Open source development methods create superior products to closed source development methods.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof of this? The example of a few successful billion dollar companies who've open sourced their previously closed source software isn't proof that open source development is superior.

I think we're talking about two separate issues here too. One is that open sourced commercial products are better developed than closed source ones. I'd say that's debatable except in a few very specific fields.

Two is that unpaid open source communities can effectively develop tools, that people actual want to use, that rival commercial closed source products. I'd say that's a slam dunk no.

[kerowo]

I think a closed shop that follows a rigorous process is going to be more productive than a loose association of developers who aren't following such a process. As the scale of the project gets larger this difference will be more pronounced. Cowboy programming by superstars can get a lot done but it doesn't scale.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"MySQL - O RLY? You're saying MySQL is enterprise ready? "

lol? MySQL is used world wide and it's basically the best database solution... combined with php this powers the interwebz...

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm saying open source development methods (http://opensource.org/) are superior to closed source methods. This is pretty clear.

Mature open source software with a sufficient development base will be better than it's closed source competitor. This is or soon will be pretty clear.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like in the long term that open source is superior to closed source, given a sufficient development base.

[ QUOTE ]

Closed source software will still thrive in niche markets and in in-house development (obviously).


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, absolutely. Niche closed source software will always be of utility and around. The "evolution of software," in terms of the best currently available solution in most markets, goes from closed source to open source as demand rises. (I'm only talking about the best general software solution.)

This seems pretty obvious. Entrepreneurs with access to capital more efficiently allocate development resources in the beginning. It may take a long time for open source solutions to catch up to their proprietary counterparts.

Litigation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) certainly play a role in whether or not corporations should adopt an open source solution. This slows the development process.

I'm sure there's also a lot to say about "too many dev forks" and distracting politics in open source projects.

[ QUOTE ]

The point of the OP, and we are getting side-tracked, is that these points are contingent upon software not being able to be patented. When it is, open source development is not allowed to thrive, and therefore not allowed to produce innovative applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I mind a little bit of a tangent, but that sums up my points nicely. FOSS and proprietary should be allowed to compete on more equal grounds. If the proprietary solutions are superior, then so be it. That's the point of competition.

Stallman's position is too extreme. It's oppressive to command software houses by law to open up their source; so much for the freedom rhetoric. Stallman is arguing for a local maxima from a developer's perspective inferring that it's best for society as a whole.

I've only read the tail end of the discussion, so I'll get back to this thread in the next few days.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
"MySQL - O RLY? You're saying MySQL is enterprise ready? "

lol? MySQL is used world wide and it's basically the best database solution... combined with php this powers the interwebz...

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. None of the telcom companies I've worked for or the insurance company I've worked for use it. All the googling I've done shows "other" RDMS had 10% market share in 2005 and about the same in 2006. Compared 44% for Oracle, 21% for IBM and 18% for Microsoft.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Google search says : Results 1 - 100 of about 154,000,000 for MySQL

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Google search says : Results 1 - 100 of about 154,000,000 for MySQL

[/ QUOTE ]

So .Net is almost 6 times better than java because it gets results of 1.4 billion to java's paltry 257 million? That's a pretty silly way to measure market share.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I'm not so sure, when the topic of discussion is internet technology, a web search is probably a decent measure. ".net" of course would be a biased search term, just as if we compared dot com to the steel industry, because com and net are the suffixes to hundreds of millions or billions of websites.

[kerowo]

I don't know. I don't know that mind share always translates to market share or that results is synonymous with popularity or market share. A google for cobol doesn't come back with many hits relative to java or .net yet if there are more lines of production code in either of those languages than cobol it hasn't been that way for long.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a closed shop that follows a rigorous process is going to be more productive than a loose association of developers who aren't following such a process.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Closed shops don't always follow a rigorous process.
2) Open source development sometimes does.
3) This has nothing to do with the process being "open source" or "closed source".

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"MySQL - O RLY? You're saying MySQL is enterprise ready? "

lol? MySQL is used world wide and it's basically the best database solution... combined with php this powers the interwebz...

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. None of the telcom companies I've worked for or the insurance company I've worked for use it. All the googling I've done shows "other" RDMS had 10% market share in 2005 and about the same in 2006. Compared 44% for Oracle, 21% for IBM and 18% for Microsoft.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/

You will have to keep in mind that most studies measure market share by $$ spent on the product. This obviously skews the results as relates to free, open source applications.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been a developer for 10 years or so in corporate America and there is very little math involved in any of the software I've written or supported and what math there was was figured out by someone else before the specs got to me. That's not to say there isn't math in any software or that high level comp sci isn't math heavy, just that what most day to day developers are doing isn't very math.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I should have said logical-mathematical instead. If you are writing a physics engine in a video game, that's more math intensive. If you are writing a user interface, then that's more closely related to psychology.

So yeah, you can partition things out. But I guess my point is that most ideas can be reversed engineered and that people should be allowed to do so. Some patents are absolutely absurd (e.g., Amazon's 1-Click "technology").

Even Bill Gates said in the 80's (?) that software patents are dangerous and that "obvious ideas" would be patented. But now you don't hear him saying that because the patent system works to his favor. While expanding the techno-portfolio with things like console game platforms, Microsoft is currently, and largely, in the software protection racket.

Microsoft realizes that it's futile to only protect in the long term because of attempts to open up a little bit w/ things like Silverlight; or they are attempting lock-in for a web platform.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think proprietary closed-source software is inherently wrong, but patents are. I haven't thought about this for too long, but software patents are likely anti-competitive and hurts consumers and small fry, independent dev teams.

My view of the utility of open source is like the "food pyramid." The most generic needs can, and likely will be, met at the bottom by open source. The higher you go up the pyramid, the more niche. This is where service and support come to play to meet particular business needs. So while off-the-shelf software will always be around, much of software is, or will, become more service oriented.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
My view of the utility of open source is like the "food pyramid." The most generic needs can, and likely will be, met at the bottom by open source. The higher you go up the pyramid, the more niche. This is where service and support come to play to meet particular business needs. So while off-the-shelf software will always be around, much of software is, or will, become more service oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be including this already, but just to specify directly: software customization plays a big part of this, too. Companies pay open source developers to customize the product, or add features that they need. This is good, because the paying company gets to control the direction the product is taken (even if just for the short-term), and everyone else gets to benefit from those changes, too.

The only people who don't like this are the companies who are in the business of maximizing the revenue earned while giving as little innovative software development as possible (e.g. Microsoft). Ironically, while being massively inefficient, they still manage to earn a killing -- 6 years, billions of dollars, thousands of programmers => Vista? Unbelievable. Yet they will still pay for it in no time due to their OEM racket. Can you imagine what Linux developers could have accomplished with those resources?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
much of software is, or will, become more service oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really only at the top of the food pyramid that this is the case? Red Hat supplies a distribution of linux that is based on open source and an equivalent distribution can be installed for free in minutes. Red Hat is a private corporation, it has been in business for decades, and it sells its software at retail outlets across the globe. This is because the operating system - like all operating systems and most software in general - require some degree of support or supply some service (i.e., regular online updates). Red Hat has proven this to be an effective revenue source for software business models.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
much of software is, or will, become more service oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really only at the top of the food pyramid that this is the case? Red Hat supplies a distribution of linux that is based on open source and an equivalent distribution can be installed for free in minutes. Red Hat is a private corporation, it has been in business for decades, and it sells its software at retail outlets across the globe. This is because the operating system - like all operating systems and most software in general - require some degree of support or supply some service (i.e., regular online updates). Red Hat has proven this to be an effective revenue source for software business models.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the food pyramid analogy is bad. Service and support can certainly exist at all levels and software projects are always a moving target. The analogy probably works better for business customers wanting custom development and support. Consumers have little control over the direction of open source projects; maybe only in aggregate but certainly not individually.

Another common pattern in technology is that business needs are met first, then consumer. I'm unsure what the Red Hat model is for revenue at the consumer level, but it seems a lot easier to make more money w/ business in mind. Once you have a good business install base, then consumers are more willing to move over it seems...or the business-funded needs satisfy some of the consumer needs.