Both sides are trying to kill to say there idea is better. Old saying is important its a ill wind that brings no good.
Closed source and Open source are two sides of exactly the same coin. Problem is neither can exist well without the other. Just like Ying and Yang they can get out of balance with each other.
Advantage of closed source is that programs can be sold as programs to recover development costs.
Disadvantage of closed source when programs become not supported any more they are not repairable.
Advantages of open source programs source code is accessible so program is maintainable into the future.
Disadvantage to harder to recover development costs due to giving away source code. You cannot give people taste of application so they will buy it as simply.
They are mirrors. Some companies like ID that make like the likes of Quake and so on have taken a halfway point. Application closed source for so long then released open source when no longer supporting application. This provides the advantage of both systems to end users and developer.
As with all things this is a repeat of history. The history repeat is books. Before the first printing press there was no required central storage of books. After the printing press it become law if you where publishing a book that it go to a central archive.
Both software and books are both protected by copyright. There is no reason why software cannot have the same rules applied. So the law becomes you wish to release closed source you have to give source code to a central repository for safe keeping until such time the application become unsupported then the source code gets released to everyone.
This forces maintainer ship and improvements on software markers.
Problem with closed source is nothing more than a repeat of lack of regulation like what effected books before the invention of archives. Without archives when books videos went public domain they might no longer exist for the public to have access to them.
Same problem is happening with software it is vaporising leaving people without ways of recovering there documents. 70 years like most book copyrights are is not really required. People need access to the software when it goes no longer maintained to access there data.
I want to know what right closed source companies have to take away a person right to access there own data on more modern day machine. Answer is really none. Yet we let them get away with this. This is the miss balance that needs to be-corrected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So basically, you are saying if someone invents and patents a word processor in 1970, no other people can make a program that processes words?
Because that's what software patents means.
I agree that closed source programs and open source can exist at the same time and can do so in harmony, and that is because they target different people. You don't change because it costs no money, you change because of the freedom it gives to you.
The problem right now is that some people are shifting from closed to open as they realize what they really want, be it in the Operating System or application areas. And this is perceived as a threat by the closed source company, an aggresive act.
Patents are a different issue. They are a double side sword. You could just as simply use them to force an application type not be produced closed source because only people with open source can license the patent.
Also to license a patent could also require you to give an application away for free.
Closed source companies are idiots here they have forgot that is double sided as well. I will cover patents in more detail at another time.
Its only an aggressive to a closed source company because they have forgotten the other side of the coin.
Companies that use both sides like ID have really not been effected by the threat of open source. They need to develop new features so they stay head of the open source. Keep on making profit.
Also open source lets them find developers who know there code base and are good at there job to employee to work on the closed source sections.
There are many advantages to playing both sides of the coin.
Just like to pure open source closed spec formats are aggressive because they lock out users from accessing there data. They are forgetting there might be a temporary need for that.
There is a balance between want pure open source people want and pure closed source people want that protects end users.
Currently pure closed and pure open in there arguments forget the end users. How can end user forever get what they need effectively? Playing 1 side of the coin does not grant that.
Supply companies have to be able to make a profit and not do long term harm.
Is this blog available in English?
I want to know what right closed source companies have to take away a person right to access there own data on more modern day machine. Answer is really none.
Ridiculously loaded Question.
If it was opensource, the question would be :
Why do I have to hire a F/OSS Developer and pay him/her ~ $50/hr to get old open source code working on my new machine?
Open source only helps developers, it does nothing for users.
Please note that with the closed source alternative you would have had to pay 50 dollars or more anyway, and also once one person has done the task they can chose to share the cost or add it to the distribution...!
Oiaohm, I am sure you have never ever developed anything, deployed and really used in an enterprise of any size and kind.
Post a Comment