Benefits of using open source GPL software
-
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
As for me carrying my bad impression of MS forward - I have quite the opposite opinion of MS than you do.
I agree. But I think that it is the opposite of what you think that it is. I have a lot of faith in MS. You feel like you have a lot of faith in them, but your responses to things suggest the opposite. I think that you don't trust them at all, but use that to not trust others. I think I trust MS dramatically more than you do, regardless of your anecdotal success with support. I've never needed MS support for their OSes, ever. Not once. So once could say that my anecdotal success with them is dramatically better than yours.
I'm not sure where you're getting that I don't trust MS? I do trust them. Fully. I feel that they want to have a stable, secure, functional OS for it's users.
What makes you think I don't believe this? and while you're at it - why do you think you trust them more than I do?
-
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
As for me carrying my bad impression of MS forward - I have quite the opposite opinion of MS than you do.
I agree. But I think that it is the opposite of what you think that it is. I have a lot of faith in MS. You feel like you have a lot of faith in them, but your responses to things suggest the opposite. I think that you don't trust them at all, but use that to not trust others. I think I trust MS dramatically more than you do, regardless of your anecdotal success with support. I've never needed MS support for their OSes, ever. Not once. So once could say that my anecdotal success with them is dramatically better than yours.
Sure, of course you didn't need their support, likely because either you have never ran into a problem that you couldn't fix yourself, or because you had access to others that you felt were able to assist you in solutions faster and most cost effectively than MS could. Most SMBs don't have either of these. As stated in my example, if the guy with the Exchange problem would have called NTG, he would have likely paid many more times what he did. Would NTG have solved his problem? Of course they would have (at least we like to think so, there was no SLA/contract saying they had to, sooooo....).
If I can fix the problem myself, that's not an MS support issue. They are there to support Windows, not me. If they support me, which it is up to them to do, that's not in their scope and is a different issue. I thought that we were talking about support of the OS - fixing the product when it breaks. Not fixing me when I don't know how to do a task.
-
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
Doesn't matter until you try to release it, that's basically true. But it's still there affecting your options to release.
-
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
For those that care - you might notice that I very specifically said "open source GPL software." I didn't say open source software - I knew that Scott would crucify me on that. I was specific to GPL (and other free for use/modify) licenses. This part was/is critical to the discussion.
I'm not sure that this clarified anything. LOL
GPL is open source. There is no point to stating "open source GPL" as that is redundant, unless you mean to include anything that is open source. So basically this only makes sense with the assumption that a comma is missing.
You didn't say open source software, but you implied it. Then you said you were specific to GPL... and others. So not specific.
I think you've made it more confusing rather than less. Are you talking GPL or open source? Those are the two visible options.
I am talking only about software that is 100% free to use/modify/distribute. nothing more, nothing less. If there are any kinds of licensing that prevents it from being 100% free use to or to modify or to distribute, then it's not included.
I.E. as I understand it, TrueCrypt was not free on at least one of these fronts, because of the licensing it was under.
Correct, TC wasn't but turned into one of these. So while it "wasn't open" it was closed in such a way that it automatically became open.. which is almost the same as having been open.
But so your description is just "open source", don't include GPL then. because you mean to include BSD, MIT, Apache, AGPL, etc.
-
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?
-
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?
well I think it really boils down to what redistribution is. If you consider internal use, IMHO you do not redistribute (also souce is usually available inside the same company, at least at my scale). If you give to a third party, then yes you are redistributing.
BTW a remarcable example of user usage without redistribution is web apps: this is why FSF created the AGPL.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?
well I think it really boils down to what redistribution is. If you consider internal use, IMHO you do not redistribute (also souce is usually available inside the same company, at least at my scale). If you give to a third party, then yes you are redistributing.
BTW a remarcable example of user usage without redistribution is web apps: this is why FSF created the AGPL.
Ah good point. I was just kind of considering redistribution anything that wasn't just yourself. Your example makes sense though.
-
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?
Running code and distributing binaries are not the same. Like I can host a website running on Apache and not be forced to provide a download of Apache and Linux code. Only if I let people download the binary of Apache must I provide the code to it.
-
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@scottalanmiller said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
@Dashrender said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Other than being free to use, what value does this give the people using it?
Open source does NOT mean free to use. It means free to support, inspect and modify. Often it is free to use, but that is not implied by the term open source nor by the GPL license.
OH? the GPL license doesn't mean that anything licensed under GPL has to be given away free?
Source code, that's all. Not a fully built and functioning version.
And you only have to give away the source if someone gets the binary legitimately. If you use GPL software internally, you need never give even the source away.
This doesn't even make sense. Is it GPL if you use it internally? I suppose you could license it under GPL, but why would you bother?
Of course it is GPL if you use it internally. You bother so that you are ready to release. Or, 99.9999% of the time, you do it because you have no choice because you used GPL code.
again, doesn't matter if you don't release it, as you already said.
It does for GPL. If you used any other GPL code and modified it in any way, you are required to provide that to the upstream provider.
No you don't. You have to provide source only if you redistribute it. not if you use it. Also you can charge for source if you redistribute software. You cannot charge for the source if you sell appliances (HW) based on open source code.
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
- I've done it a lot of code inspection to help myself understand where I was wrong. Something I can't do when I stuck with closed source. Here I must buy support.
- opensource is really audited by a larger audience
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it. How would your users use it without it being distributed though?
Distributed publicly Is what I'm sure they mean. That would make sense. But if you write additional code for personal/company use, I see no reason why you would need to give that the original GPL folks.
-
@stacksofplates said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Ah I thought it was even if you just modify it.
If you distribute you have to provide access even if you don't modify it.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in Benefits of using open source GPL software:
Back to main OP questions, GPL/BSD and so are useful because:
- you get more support form community. something quite difficult with closed source . In the latter case it is mostly empirical evidence, with opensource you can look at the code. Alao you can still buy enterprise support with opensource.
Basically open source maintains every benefit of closed source PLUS lots of its own benefits.
