Originally posted by BlackStar
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Reasons Why You Don't Contribute To Open-Source Software
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BlackStar View PostNot to mention that there are some applications that just aren't commercially viable if open-sourced, like single-player games: would anyone have bought World of Goo if it was available under the GPL, for instance?
Not to put too fine a point on it, this is an important distinction, simply because it seems that FOSS doesn't do games very well, though it does do pretty good engines. If you think about the ideology behind FOSS, there is no reason why a company shouldn't sell a game using a GPL engine, so people can fix the engine in 10 years time when it breaks on 128bit CPUs...
Just my thoughts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RobbieAB View PostNot to put too fine a point on it, this is an important distinction, simply because it seems that FOSS doesn't do games very well, though it does do pretty good engines. If you think about the ideology behind FOSS, there is no reason why a company shouldn't sell a game using a GPL engine, so people can fix the engine in 10 years time when it breaks on 128bit CPUs...
Comment
-
@discordian:
Well, valid point indeed! Didn't expect that 'cause I never heared of that stance before. I guess there must be a new MIT license created where it says that "This is this and that's just what it is. Code may be used in any way but damaging the entegrity of the freedom of the SOURCE CODE pool, meaning that it may not falsely be relicensed under a FREE SOFTWARE license with a different nature in such that it prohibits relicensing the SOURCE CODE back to this very license." But IANAL of course...
Originally posted by BlackStar View Postlol
But no, that wasn't me (for once!)
-"These are not the droi- words that you were reading"
Comment
-
Originally posted by discordian View PostAnd I couldn't get back bugfixes/patches from GPL projects (unless the authors commit them back to me) thus GPL is a one-way street.
But here's what I don't get: You are explicitly choosing to license your "more liberal" licensed code so that it can be used by other licenses that are less liberal. Say you chose BSD - you've sat down and deliberately chosen to allow that code to be swallowed up by a proprietary company, or a GPL project. So then why complain afterwards? If you don't want that to happen, then you should have chosen a less liberal license to begin with. Like, say, the GPL. Or a proprietary one.
Comment
-
What Are My Motives?
"What are your main motives?"
1. An annoying, simple item that is "right up my alley" (I can do).
2. Donating time and effort back to the project, so that others may continue to enjoy the same high-quality software as I do.
3. A valuable experience to add into a resume.
4. Learning different concepts and methods, coding styles and acceptance.
5. Open projects have high standards; the ability to adjust and have your patches accepted makes a good programmer.
What is preventing me (right now) from contributing is I do not feel good enough; the sheer size of KDE (the one I want to contribute to) is intimidating. This movie keeps on coming to my mind whenever I think of the subject.
Comment
-
Originally posted by coats View PostAutoconf makes it difficult to maintain multiple simultaneous binary types. For a given source base, I want at least the following:- Optimized
- Debug
- Optimized profiling
and I want it to be the same source tree that drives all of them. Anything else is asking for referential integrity problems.
Comment
Comment