Patents Vs. Opensource

[osknockout 0]

I've seen a lot of copyleft and copyright articlesand seen the somewhat recent SCO vs. (basically) Unix/Linuxissues, and I was wondering which is the better of the two,if applicable.Governments offer patents to encourage creativity andprotect intellectual property (truly) and the open source movementoffers a solid base to build upon and the decrypted way to the computerworld, but up to what limit can we say "GNU!" or "Protect Creativity".Personally, I like both ideas, because I actually could learn with open source,contribute, and for things that I want to be shown as "mine" and for my ownuse, I would use proprietary, besides, let that newbie struggle and build off thecode that's there, the rest of us did. No comp. student should have to go lookingin the internet to create a trig. prgm, and as Linus Torvalds said once when discussing on a Minix forum, "...look in the f***ing manual!" (translation)

[Xedos 0]

Can someone define ''open source'' and ''GNU'' in a dictionary? I know what they are but its just like.. I don't. Its all confuzzling about the software type. I would prefer to have all the software on my computer freely released under the GNU PL. Sadly that will never happen. I blame it all no Bill Gates and his company, and company.

[osknockout 0]

Can someone define ''open source'' and ''GNU'' in a dictionary?

Osknockout's Guide to the World, 1st Edition
---------------------------------------------------
Open source (oh-pen sores) - developed code which is freely available to
the public. Open source is an ancient idea extremely developed in the 1980's.

GNU - "GNU's Not Unix!" - an organization started by Richard Stallman with
a license of the same name, an open source license popularized by the
gcc and linux distributions. The gcc began as a project by Stallman and was
part of the real basis for the prestige of the GNU project.
---------------------------------------------------

I would prefer to have all the software on my computer freely released under the GNU PL

No you wouldn't. GNU doesn't allow you to make profit from software... without
profit from software, you wouldn't have GNU in the first place... can't have an
org. without its cause.

I blame it all no Bill Gates and his company, and company.

He did what anyone would in such a situation... well up till the 1990's.
There anyone with a lick of sense would have stopped and said,
"Hey, I like this Linux idea! Let's quit our OS thing and support this!"

[miladinoski 1]

I love the idea of free software! Free software is a matter of freedom and not price. In the history of software only few have shown to be great and still not be free software that is. But, do you want to try really hard and employ several hundred employees just to make a great product (which will rarely come out as one), or hire the whole hacker and OSS community to help you build, translate and add new features to your product?

 

I would certainly use the second approach.

 

[....]

 

He did what anyone would in such a situation... well up till the 1990's.

There anyone with a lick of sense would have stopped and said,

"Hey, I like this Linux idea! Let's quit our OS thing and support this!"

Absolutely true. Too bad you (or I) weren't and aren't B. Gates

[africa 0]

I also support free software.Well it helps a lot of people and develops the community even faster. Anyways people can always find to make money from the free software and it is not necessarily limited to patentship.You will also notice that Open source is very effecient as the code is improved by hundreds of millions of other coders. Look at Linux and even Firefox. Its more stable than the Microsoff crap.ANother point i think i should stress is that Open Source is not necessarily free software though most of it is.Open source means the source code is provided when you get the product so you can even edit as copmared to the guys who do not provide all the deatils about their product.So yeah...open source rocks and is the future!

[networker 0]

I'd say it's all a very complex thing.On the one sideyou have Microsoft,who are basically in the position toover charge at will and then you have theopen source. It's great that things are free I mean look at the messageboard,forum software.Many websites are built on these.Software that really isn't that difficult to build,andyet they are all free. Imagine if one mega construction company offered tobuild all houses for free? It would cripple other constructioncompanies and skilled workers. Sure it's great theres Microsoft and it's great theres open source,butit seems they are two uncompromising extremes really.If you put the time into building something,it should be protected at least to a degree.Then again.the world is never perfect.

[chakri 0]

I am pro patents because there is a lot of effort that goes into creating something. However I strongly beleive that a person should not be allowed to sue unless an entire idea has been stolen. For instance, I feel it might be ok if google sues another company which makes another website exactly like google (looks feel and font) and usage. however, I dont think google should be able to sue if any search engine used an optimization technique being used by google. Same with pictures. I think companies like getty images should not be allowed to use strong arm tactics to milk money even from non profit organizations. However they should have the right to sue if a big news corporation like CNN uses thier pics without permission.

Edited January 29, 2009 by chakri (see edit history)

[Xalor 0]

I don't mind them going head to head, it provides some competition for both ends. Open Source does not technically mean non-profit. They can make money from ads, especially from heavy trafficked sites, like Mozilla, and other ones. Extensions provide more forms of profit for Open Source. I don't care that Microsoft has patents and Linux doesn't. Microsoft has a right to use their program and OS as they wish. They do not have to give us the code, unlike Open Source, Microsoft has something more well material, but practical, to make a profit. They wish to survive and this is their career choice, and they make money. Open Source may be good, but then again, some patented products make up an appeal, because we feel that payment is the only way to get something that is worth more, and is deserving more credit for its worth. Take Microsoft's OS, they survive, and aren't defeated by Linux because that we as the consumer feel that when we pay for Vista, we are getting our money's worth. While Linux on the other hand, isn't being paid by us, but even if its free, we can't complain, and we can't even ask for more.

[Digitalidad 0]

It's great to get open source software 'cos it's free, but if it's for an important operation you have to evaluate:1. The support you can get for deploying it in your company and daily operation - maybe there's none or you have to pay anyway. Sometimes there are no manuals and sometimes they're sold and they're not very complete. In the end the cost of deploying the SW could be even higher than the cost of using commercial SW.2. When you upgrade your SW, if you made changes to the version you had installed, you'll have to check if the new version is compatible with your modifications, and maybe you'll have to re-write them with no 3rd party support.3. If something goes wrong with the info you get, there's no one to blame but you!!! You can't demand from anybody a solution for a bug or errors. 4. Commercial SW has more money behind for development and "could" be better.Just my experience

[rvalkass 5]

1. The support you can get for deploying it in your company and daily operation - maybe there's none or you have to pay anyway. Sometimes there are no manuals and sometimes they're sold and they're not very complete. In the end the cost of deploying the SW could be even higher than the cost of using commercial SW.

There is usually a large amount of instant free support from people using the software and the developers themselves - you don't get that from Microsoft! Also, a lot of open-source software is now backed with paid support for those companies that really need it. Take a look at Canonical, offering paid support for Ubuntu.

2. When you upgrade your SW, if you made changes to the version you had installed, you'll have to check if the new version is compatible with your modifications, and maybe you'll have to re-write them with no 3rd party support.

At least you have the ability to modify the software if you want to. Again, something you don't get with paid software. Plus, if you want reliability and stability then don't edit the software yourself - leave it to the developers.

3. If something goes wrong with the info you get, there's no one to blame but you!!! You can't demand from anybody a solution for a bug or errors.

There are hundreds of bugs in commercial software, yet most companies don't even have a way to report them, let alone "demand a solution". With open source software you can report the bugs, provide help to the developers, talk directly to the people fixing the problem. And you don't even have to pay for the new upgraded version of the software!

4. Commercial SW has more money behind for development and "could" be better.

Open source software has the entire world looking at its code. Problems are found quickly, solutions worked out quickly between people. Like they say: two heads are better than one. With commercial software, you are at the mercy of the decision of a closed set of developers and their particular decisions, with no real way to add your input.

[Digitalidad 0]

Well, I must say that you can be right too. There are a lot of cases, a lot of different softwares and companies and you have to ponder everything. You can come across a SW as good as you say or across one as bad as I mentioned. It's important to know whom you're dealing with, that's why I posted that way. I think it's important to know what problems you can find ahead. In my case we decided to use a Microsoft ERP because it was supposed to be more of a "sure bet", but it has some bugs that MS hasn't solved, as you say. Also, now I'm trying the VTiger opensource CRM and find it has some bad bugs (altough it's version 5) and it's a bit difficult to find good help, but I'm just starting.On the other hand, companies like Red Hat have had very good finances last years, which makes you think. As I said, we have to analyze each case.