Miscellaneous > Applications
Why not open source old stuff?
preacher:
I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
preacher:
--- Quote ---Originally posted by ThePreacher:
[QB]I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
I believe that I use the same definition for proprietary hardware.
--- End quote ---
flap:
quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:
I explained proprietary as it was explained to me. I don't know how others define it. They see proprietary as software that is free. That is not how I see it. I guess it comes down to differing definitions.
I have no problems with proprietary software by their definition. By the definition that I know, I have deep problems with it.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
--- End quote ---
No, proprietary software is software that isn't free. Why would you have a problem with software that runs only on one platform? If software is non-free then the fact that it only runs on one platform is a good thing, if anything, as it reduces the number of people who are likely to use it. Proprietary (i.e. non-free) software that runs on many platforms is no better than proprietary software that runs on a single platform.
And I'd be interested to see any links to definitions of proprietary software that define it as having the meaning you give.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
preacher:
The reason I use that meaning for software is because that is the meaning for hardware, and I assumed it was the same. Why is non free software bad?
Can you explain that to me. I don't see how Quake 3 arena is bad because I had to pay for it and I don't have it's source code. I don't see how Adobe Photoshop is bad because I had to pay for it and I don't have it's source code. These are companies we are talking about and they deserve to make money.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
flap:
Well I could give you my take on why free software is a good thing and why proprietary software is bad, but most of what I'd say is much the same as what you can read at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html , http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html and the link in my sig.
quote:These are companies we are talking about and they deserve to make money.
--- End quote ---
...and, as I've already said (in fact, as was the original reason I posted), software doesn't have to be proprietary for there to be money made from it. And remember, the issue is about freedom, not cost and whether or not you're charged for the software.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version