You may do anything you want with your license. The only thing I would say the public has some kind of right IMHO is the opening of the source code after you don't intend to do anything else with it. This would solve many of the problems with Closed Source Software. The Problem is that many people talk about it but almost nobody does this.
Sure you can charge for Services (provided you can get the people to pay for the concept of your site). Here you don't charge for the Software but for your time, the electricity,...
Good luck in getting the Gaming Geeks to fix your Server when the Software Geeks refuse to do so because DRM/TC makes everything more difficult for Admins (like customized automated small programs a.k.a scripts).
I see a bigger problem in people hijacking the term for things like "free with spyware", "free with ads", "free for members (and membership costs something)",... than this small problem.
If it turns out that nothing but proprietary software does exactly what you want, does it well, and the license cost is fair, then hell, you should consider using it.
I agree with you completely (I use e.g. Opera because Firefox lacks Features I have grown used to; and no, please no Opera vs. Firefox Flamewar). However I must add that without the "threat" of Open Source Software Vendors would probably take much higher license costs especially where they have a de facto monopoly (e.g. niche markets). So even if there is no Open Source Software out there to fit your needs the possibility to write Open Source (more efficiently than you alone paying for Closed Source) if the Vendor pushes you too hard is a Good Thing (TM).
Provided the license does not contain anything that makes checking out the code via anoncvs illegal it is free software, not the best kind, but definitely free software.
The way I see it you have a point in calling GPL non-free for companies who want to link it to code they don't want to open.
However the way I see it for the rest of the world BSD is code that gets only improved by individuals in their free time and a few companies with something like a conscience and GPL code gets improved by everyone changing something in it which seem to be more people at the current situation.
This means GPL is better for the code quality and feature-set while BSD allows more people to use the code but leads to slower/less development.
Our University uses Java for everything in CS. Even Pseudo-Code for Scheduling or similar low-level Code that is totally non-OO non-Garbage-Collector level in all practical systems is written in Java because they don't want to teach other languages (as in course to learn this language) and think they have to use something everyone knows.
My Problem with Gimp is that it is one of the few programs that does not work with ratpoison (Windowmanager that basically maximizes all Windows and uses screen(as in the program screen)-like keys to jump between them) and similar window-managers. If all the small windows were in an MDI window this would not be a problem.
Tweaking Linux needs time but so does e.g. the re-setting of each and every option in Windows after a reinstallation because of the lack of a simple concept like config files.
And if they want to give their neighbours the plans for the house they can but when the second house shall not be exactly the same as the first one they will most likely come to you with your plans since you won't need that much time to change your plans as another architect would who does not know the plans at all.
The problem is that "it is done when it is done" is seldom used in commercial environments. This is IMHO the biggest reason for bad quality commercial software.
Often your company doesn't compete with other companies for which this software would be useful directly. Especially in the service industry many companies have maybe one or two competitor and many other companies doing the same thing somewhere else. Here all the relatively small companies can pool their development by open sourcing their software instead of each building their own software (or buying some not quite fitting off-the-shelf package).
How does adding unused functionality get the chip count down? Wouldn't it be better to have the unused functionality on a separate chip to let the user of the chip (the board manufacturer) decide wether to include it or not?
And I would guess this would reduce the available software by several orders of magnitude which in turn would reduce the usefulness of a computer (not to mention not being able to write your own programs, not even script one-liners).
Slashdot Mirror
You may do anything you want with your license. The only thing I would say the public has some kind of right IMHO is the opening of the source code after you don't intend to do anything else with it. This would solve many of the problems with Closed Source Software. The Problem is that many people talk about it but almost nobody does this.
Sure you can charge for Services (provided you can get the people to pay for the concept of your site). Here you don't charge for the Software but for your time, the electricity,...
Good luck in getting the Gaming Geeks to fix your Server when the Software Geeks refuse to do so because DRM/TC makes everything more difficult for Admins (like customized automated small programs a.k.a scripts).
I see a bigger problem in people hijacking the term for things like "free with spyware", "free with ads", "free for members (and membership costs something)",... than this small problem.
What do you gain by releasing no Source but giving your Software away for free anyway?
They are helping neither Free nor Propietary Software.
Provided the license does not contain anything that makes checking out the code via anoncvs illegal it is free software, not the best kind, but definitely free software.
The way I see it you have a point in calling GPL non-free for companies who want to link it to code they don't want to open.
However the way I see it for the rest of the world BSD is code that gets only improved by individuals in their free time and a few companies with something like a conscience and GPL code gets improved by everyone changing something in it which seem to be more people at the current situation.
This means GPL is better for the code quality and feature-set while BSD allows more people to use the code but leads to slower/less development.
Often 5.0 versions of commercial software are worse than 0.9.8 versions of free software. Just compare the features and stability to the optimum
Our University uses Java for everything in CS. Even Pseudo-Code for Scheduling or similar low-level Code that is totally non-OO non-Garbage-Collector level in all practical systems is written in Java because they don't want to teach other languages (as in course to learn this language) and think they have to use something everyone knows.
My Problem with Gimp is that it is one of the few programs that does not work with ratpoison (Windowmanager that basically maximizes all Windows and uses screen(as in the program screen)-like keys to jump between them) and similar window-managers. If all the small windows were in an MDI window this would not be a problem.
Tweaking Linux needs time but so does e.g. the re-setting of each and every option in Windows after a reinstallation because of the lack of a simple concept like config files.
And if they want to give their neighbours the plans for the house they can but when the second house shall not be exactly the same as the first one they will most likely come to you with your plans since you won't need that much time to change your plans as another architect would who does not know the plans at all.
And there is a lot of commercial software out there where development/support has been rolled back to 'not existance'.
The problem is that "it is done when it is done" is seldom used in commercial environments. This is IMHO the biggest reason for bad quality commercial software.
This does not mean that you (as a company) can't decide to open source the result of your paid programmer's work.
Often your company doesn't compete with other companies for which this software would be useful directly. Especially in the service industry many companies have maybe one or two competitor and many other companies doing the same thing somewhere else. Here all the relatively small companies can pool their development by open sourcing their software instead of each building their own software (or buying some not quite fitting off-the-shelf package).
Someone should kill rpm, it gives Linux a bad name.
And most people making these purchase decisions know about DRM from sites like /. and can advise against buying it.
How does adding unused functionality get the chip count down? Wouldn't it be better to have the unused functionality on a separate chip to let the user of the chip (the board manufacturer) decide wether to include it or not?
And I would guess this would reduce the available software by several orders of magnitude which in turn would reduce the usefulness of a computer (not to mention not being able to write your own programs, not even script one-liners).
More likely the death of the USA than the Death of the Open Source Movement if they continue creating equally stupid laws.