OSDev.org

I guess that, in all conscience, if anyone disapproves of GNU and/or the GPL then they shouldn't use any of their software. That's going to make life a little difficult for most, however much money they have to spend.

Funny to see this same subject always getting disputed over and over again

Personnally, I think it's a good thing that GNU exists; I'm happy to be able to cross-compile GCC to target my OS instead of having to (1) pay a year's time of wages to Microsoft, Borland or <insert name of commercial compiler maker> or (2) spend a year's time of work in writing a compiler myself, which would have been worse anyways (compiler dev is difficult). But still, I wonder if it only has benefits. They sure provide quality software free of charge, but maybe the availability of free software inhibits progress: why would-I try to develop a <insert software type> if the GNU can do it better than I do ? I sure could instead consider contributing to GNU's implementation, but what if I want to do things completely differently ? And even if I managed to implement it better than they do, people would just generally prefer the GNU's implementation just because it's the GNU's, and an eventual progress would have been stopped.

This reminds me of a philosophy book, where Wittgenstein said that Plato's philosophy, although brilliant, could become dangerous if it became majoritary; I think one could say the same thing about the GNU's software...

AbstractYouShudNow wrote: pay a year's time of wages to Microsoft, Borland or <insert name of commercial compiler maker> or

Where do you live? Are wages really that low there? I've paid hard earned cash for a LISP compiler, a Modula-2 compiler, and I once got a K&R C compiler that came along with a HP/UX workstation I bought second hand. Neither of them came near a weeks wages for a European programmer.

Edit: I've seen compilers for for LISP and C at around 4000$US for a single developer licence. That's about the same cost (*) as 40 hours of a developers time. In the big picture, the cost of a compiler licence doesn't stick out.

http://www.lispworks.com/buy/prices-2c.html
http://software.intel.com/en-us/buy-or-renew

*) Cost, not wages.

AbstractYouShudNow wrote:I'm happy to be able to cross-compile GCC to target my OS instead of having to (1) pay a year's time of wages to Microsoft, Borland or <insert name of commercial compiler maker> or (2) spend a year's time of work in writing a compiler myself, which would have been worse anyways (compiler dev is difficult).

If GCC did not exist, there would be reasonable priced commercial compilers available. Not the best example... but you got the idea.

@bwat: I know, but I like overestimating things, it makes people react
I just meant that I prefer having a compiler free of charge. And by the way, are these compilers as adapted for osdev as GCC is ?

What has been happening lately is that companies have been contributing to open source projects themselves, you didn't see that much 15 years ago. Examples: Linux, Android, LLVM, Open Office. The reason have often been that people have brought the open source tradition into the company because they they have experience with it and can quickly work with it in order to get results. The other reason is that large companies like Microsoft are so big and powerful that open source is the only way to compete without having the larger company trying to destroy what they created. We know that Microsoft is patent trolling Android pretty much and the burden is left to similar large companies like Samsung. We pay for that circus in the end.

My point is that there isn't that clear distinction between free software and commercial software anymore. You probably pay for the LLVM compiler through your iPhone and also through your taxes that pays for all these university projects that are open source.

AbstractYouShudNow wrote:@bwat: I know, but I like overestimating things, it makes people react
I just meant that I prefer having a compiler free of charge. And by the way, are these compilers as adapted for osdev as GCC is ?

I've used 3 compilers for commercial OS development. Two of these were commercial compilers (diab and Metrowerks), and the other was GCC,
I've also used commercial compilers to rebuild Unix kernels.

OSwhatever wrote: My point is that there isn't that clear distinction between free software and commercial software anymore.

There is always a cost as you rightly point out. Nothing is free. For a commercial organisation, there will be the question of support. That's never free. Now some zealot is going to give me different definitions of free.

Interesting licence: https://github.com/landondyer/kasm/blob/master/LICENSE

I simply found that after reading the manifesto, it made perfect sense.
If I owned a software company, I would sell my software, not licenses to it. I'd still make money, through content, support, and even through donations.
Software should be like a work of art, available to everyone to look at.

Perhaps people have it all backwards. I mean, once the software has been developed, there's no reason not to give it away - it already exists. Instead, you should 'buy' software when it doesn't exist by funding its development.

Primis wrote:I simply found that after reading the manifesto, it made perfect sense.
If I owned a software company, I would sell my software, not licenses to it. I'd still make money, through content, support, and even through donations.

Software cannot really be sold. However, licences are sold, and copyright is sold (assigned/transferred). You can't sell your copyright more than once (without buying it back again of course!). Do you mean transferring copyright when you say "sell my software"?

Primis wrote: Software should be like a work of art, available to everyone to look at.

Why? There's nothing about art that means it is available to everyone. There's plenty of art you don't get to see. Plenty of private collectors aren't showing you their collections. I had to pay money to see art in a museum today.

sortie wrote:Perhaps people have it all backwards. I mean, once the software has been developed, there's no reason not to give it away - it already exists.

"no reason" you say? You lack imagination. I can think of at least one good reason: I want a return on my investment - no pay, no play.
You're free to do what you want with software you write (a right given to you by the copyright laws) but others may have reasons to behave differently.

sortie wrote: Instead, you should 'buy' software when it doesn't exist by funding its development.

If you fund the development upfront you're taking on a risk. By buying a licence you're buying the right to use something you've probably had a chance to evaluate beforehand which is a lot less risky. People and companies want to licence software as it's so much cheaper.

Software cannot really be sold. However, licences are sold, and copyright is sold (assigned/transferred). You can't sell your copyright more than once (without buying it back again of course!). Do you mean transferring copyright when you say "sell my software"?

Unless you're a large firm who reaches millions of people, chances are you develop a lot of 'in house' software for companies to use. In fact, a recent study shows that 80% of waged programming is done to fix/create/modify software that is never commercialized.

So when I say 'sell my program' I mean it literally.

Large companies (even small ones) love custom software that only they use for their operations. That's where millions of man-hours worth of programming go, and that's where code can be sold without being free.

On the other had, if you were to work for a hardware company, and you're writing a driver for a peice of equiptment, that should be open source. If someone is buying your hardware, they should be able to use it on whatever system they want. I personally have a keyboard with an intergrated smart card reader that had a closed source linux driver, but hasnt worked since 1.x. Upon contacting the company about upgrading, they informed me that 'since we no longer sell the product, we no longer support it'. A second query as to releasing the source code for others to modify (such as myself) was met with rejection.

Software should be free. I should be able to use my hardware without running linux 1.x

Primis wrote:

Software cannot really be sold. However, licences are sold, and copyright is sold (assigned/transferred). You can't sell your copyright more than once (without buying it back again of course!). Do you mean transferring copyright when you say "sell my software"?

Unless you're a large firm who reaches millions of people, chances are you develop a lot of 'in house' software for companies to use. In fact, a recent study shows that 80% of waged programming is done to fix/create/modify software that is never commercialized.

I don't see the relevance of what you wrote. Can you maybe elaborate on your point?

Primis wrote: So when I say 'sell my program' I mean it literally.

I never thought you meant it figuratively, I just didn't know what you meant. Now, if you're not selling a licence and you're not transferring copyright, then what are you doing?

bwat wrote: I don't see the relevance of what you wrote. Can you maybe elaborate on your point?

Software companies sell software licenses to consumers, but sell software itself to companies who need their own program (accounting, payroll, etc)
I'm saying that I would still sell software, but for programs designed for the mass market (as opposed to specialty software) I'd release under a free license.

So I AM selling the copyright for the program in one situation, but in another, I'm selling a copy licensed under... lets say GPLv3.
If I sell the software for $20 / copy, people are free to redistribute and modify the program.
But I'm only offering support on copies that I sell. I might even accept a bugfix from a dedicated user to make the program better.

You see, While I'm writing commercial software for the masses under GPL, I still have an income source as a programmer-for-hire for companies who will pay to have software developed for them.

It is hard to believe that "all software should be free" really works. Now that we have the enemy, proprietary software, it is easy for few high-profile free software projects to stick out. They are good and charitable alternatives against something not-so-good. It is clear that competition will lead to better software and now free software projects mainly compete with proprietary software. If this competition disappeared, it would confuse things.

It seems that the vast majority of users here prefer free software. I like both, free software and proprietary software, but I want to make sure proprietary software is not considered as an evil. I really like users, e.g. bwat and Solar, who is defying GPL. They balance the debate and I agree most of the points made so far.

Also, I do not think free software funding models, e.g. support services, are going to work in a larger scale. I like small companies writing software, selling it as proprietary, and being able to make a living from it. Healthy competition with other small companies would result in low prices and innovations we have not seen so far. I think this is ethical and far from being evil.