Slashdot Mirror
56.2% of Software Developers use Open Source
cfelde writes " 56.2% of software developers use open source components by ZDNet's ZDNet -- Evans Data has found a rising trend toward including open source modules in software development world. While 38.1% said they used OSS modules in their applications in Spring of 2001, in the most recent survey, 56.2% said they had."
It's a bit low if you take in mind that nearly every developer has a copy of Firefox or some other tool.
anyone who uses SDL/OpenGL/OpenAL/Java must use open source components. Same goes for .net, that is, after all, open.
I know there are stupid licencing laws with .net and jaav btw, so dont troll off about that.
Why UNIX?
Indeed, a complete license breakdown would be interesting. But to hazard some guesses... If you're using open source software, you're probably plugging in various libraries into your app for certain functionality. So most people (myself) included are using LGPL licensed libraries. Then there's zlib's license, which if nothing else is because of the sheer number of people who use, well, zlib. I don't know of too many libraries which use a BSD license, though there are a few which use MIT. There's also Apache, but not many take that either. And yes, there's also GPL, which due to it's happily infectious nature, is probably nto used that much. The breakdown for the top is probably LGPL on top, then zlib. After that, well, it's hard to say.
I use lots of open source projects at my work (GPL, bsd, etc). Whatever it takes to get the project done. I just make it extremely clear to my boss that we *cannot* sell the software with out giving all the source code to the customer. Its not really a problem since our business model is more along the lines of providing a service and the software I develop is used by us to make our process cheaper/faster.
I haven't had to modify any code yet (mostly I just plug it in/use the api's provided), but if I ever saw the need or had to improve a particulary piece of os software I would gladly offer the "enhancement/improvements" back to the community (provided it wasn't horribly specific to the work we perform in which case it would really only be of interest to competitors).
In my office at least, OSS tools are generally used because they don't require running out and getting licenses and are free. OSS popularity probably has less to do with supporting the open-source movement and more to do with the sheer convenience of downloading free programs that get the job done.
I would also imagine that Eclipse and its plugins have a bit to do with this.
There's a big difference between "encourages" and "allows".
.. erm .. community does. Often with very good, arguably better results. I bet there are many more users who would be effected by Apple's launchd than who jumped for joy about... wait, what was the last really important *forced* GPL re-contribution?
A license cannot encourage anything. A license is a legal agreement and only specifies what is allowed and not allowed. Any sort of conversational cruft is exceedingly unprofessional.
The BSD community encourages sharing just as much as the GPL
I generally release code I write under the BSD license. I think it's better to give freely. People just tend to trust you more when you upfront, and don't have any restrictions on something that's supposedly free, not to mention when your license is only half a page long and readable by mortals.
It's the contribution that counts to GPL-license-using developers and to some others. There is a section of society that prefers wide-spread adoption and de facto standardization to forcing contribution of new code. Even Stallman sometimes shares this viewpoint, as he said in his rationale behind the LGPL.
Most projects on sourceforge just use the GPL without thinking due to ignorance. This causes problems for corporate developers.
Uh, how do you know that this is a result of ignorance?
It could just be that they want their libraries to be GPL, and that they don't want people linking them into non-GPL products.
I see no reason that it should be obvious that libraries MUST be licensed LGPL. Licensing a library GPL confers an advantage to other GPL projects since they can use your library, and a disadvantage to non-GPL projects since they have to rewrite the whole thing themselves. To people with the FSF-mindset this is probably a good thing, since it encourages the liberation of software. Who knows, maybe one or two proprietary products end up getting GPLed just so they can use the library since their owners figure there isn't much downside to opening the code. With the LGPL they can just be lazy and link it in...
When you think about it, many proprietary projects out there could stand to be GPLed. The prominance of GPL code that these projects could otherwise use helps encourage proprietaryware to open up.
"The problem is that humans don't always operate in the best faith, another person could take your right to free speech, release some pamphlets, and preach the wonders of anti-democratic terrorist violence. As such, your allowing free speech may have helped kill thousands of innocent people. And you got no code in return for the favor."
Potential for abuse doesn't justify limiting freedom.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
Before you say that the above proves your point, keep in mind that a potential submitter doesn't know in advance what my general philosophy/policy on contributions is, so it can't possibly act as a deterrent.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows. The BSD license allows free-loaders to use (and profit) from the unpaid labor of others without giving anything back.If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Over the years, I've gotten only a handful of very small patches and they've either been of pretty poor quality or fixed some bug in completely the wrong way (most likely because they don't understand the codebase well enough to know what the right way is). So, having been alerted to the bug, I ignore their patch and fix it independently so the code remains 100% mine.
:
And that's why, when quality developers see that there is NO contributor to your project, even though there are several bug reports, they think one of the following
- this guy does not need any contribution
- this guy does not take any contribution
So, it snowballs into the fact that you get no valuable contribution.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
I see thousands. In fact, you don't see that what you are saying, is that most quality developers are already head developers of their app. There are thousands of alive projects on Freshmeat, and 1 project alive means at least 1 developer. With your logic, if he does not get contributions, that means he is the best on his code.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
And I explained why, that's your attitude.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows.
No, the main purpose of the GPL is explained on the FSF and GNU sites. It's just to have free code and keep it free. The GPL DOES NOT force you to make anything.
I agree with what you say about BSD licence though. It sure is not a fair play licence, it was not meant to be.