Freeware or OpenSource?

[Bobalandi]

Which do you think is better, I am just thinking ahead about what I would do, and I thought you people may have a much better idea what the pros and cons are for each.

[crazygray1]

Unless I don't understand correctly, open source is the best because with freeware there is always the chance that there is malicious code in the program,while in open source you can see whether or not there is any.

[Bobalandi]

Sorry, I think I should have clarified, which do you think is better for distributing your OS? And why?

[crazygray1]

I'd go with open source if you really want it to be expanded. Like Linux.

[Bobalandi]

That's what I have been reading, OpenSource projects tend to have a community of people around them, which in turn results in more users and developers.

[crazygray1]

Exactlly
Thats what I'm looking for in my OS.

[lollynoob]

Personally, freeware seems the best option for a hobby OS; it gives you the option of later making the project open source, or some other license (whereas creating a project under an open source license leaves little leeway to close the source or change the license later). Along with this, the effort required to organize a community project seems almost detrimental to the project itself, unless the development team is large enough and/or well-managed enough to handle the community efficiently.

Over all, for hobby developers, or even just development teams made of one or two people, an open codebase just seems like an extra layer of mess between development and release.

[crazygray1]

Then why did it work for Linux?

[lollynoob]

I didn't say it wouldn't work, I just said it would make things a bit more difficult. It just seems to me that, for a person just starting in OS development, starting the project as freeware allows for more freedom than an open source license. Honestly, I'd rather hand-pick my development team (freeware) than get help from anyone who feels like it (open source).

Edit: Also, an open source license adds the whole hassle of ensuring the distribution of the source code; granted this is pretty easy if you're using the standard set of tools (CVS or SVN), and have a nice host like sourceforge, but again, this limits freedom (in the sense that distributing source code becomes a real pain if you don't use some sort of versioning tool, like many hobby developers).

[Alboin]

Honestly, I'd rather hand-pick my development team (freeware) than get help from anyone who feels like it (open source).

More often than not, however, you don't have the choice, especially when there is only one person willing to help.

Edit: IIRC, you often don't have to ensure that your source is distributed. With the GPL, for instance, you can just make your source available upon request.

[lollynoob]

Honestly, I'd rather hand-pick my development team (freeware) than get help from anyone who feels like it (open source).

More often than not, however, you don't have the choice, especially when there is only one person willing to help.

Yeah, this has been the case for me, although instead of one person, I don't have any (I'm the only person in my school who knows any sort of programming, let alone x86 assembly). So far, I've found it's not that big of a deal--I actually like handling everything myself. On that note, everything I've said so far is just what I prefer; it might not work for everyone. I just find things a lot simpler without a whole community focused on my work.

[crazygray1]

Eventually, if your project gets to big for you to handle by yourself it would be good to have a team to handle it with you. Whether it's friends or over the internet you decide.

[Bobalandi]

I kind of agree with lollynoob, because although the success of Linux and other open source projects are obvious, I see the problem with Open source is licensing, because as soon as you release the source, anyone can download, modify a bit, and re-release the project under their own name. Really, that is the only reason why I haven't completely embraced open source. Is there any logic to my madness or am I completely off?

[ucosty]

I kind of agree with lollynoob, because although the success of Linux and other open source projects are obvious, I see the problem with Open source is licensing, because as soon as you release the source, anyone can download, modify a bit, and re-release the project under their own name. Really, that is the only reason why I haven't completely embraced open source. Is there any logic to my madness or am I completely off?

Not a bit of it, really. Use an attribution license like BSD, or use a license that allows you to add a no forking clause. Not really that hard.

[lollynoob]

(Directed at crazygray) If a project becomes too large for the original developer to handle, what's saying this same developer can handle the project along with a whole team of unorganized people?

On somewhat of a tangent, another problem I find with open source projects is that eventually the project becomes decentralized and fragmented, like linux (not just the kernel itself, but linux as an operating system) has. Imagine the accomplishments that could be achieved if instead of hundreds of distributions, there was only one, with the developers from those hundreds of distributions participating in it's development? This could be accomplished with a closed-source project, as tighter restrictions could be created to disallow such fragmentation, and the development team could grow as it pleased, as opposed to growing as everyone pleased.

In short, it seems more beneficial to the project if the original goals of the developer take precedence over the goals of the community.

Edit: It seems what I'm against isn't so much open source, it's open development which seems to ruin things. A non-forking clause seems to be just what I was thinking of.