| |||||||||||||
40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers.40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers.Posted Sep 17, 2009 12:58 UTC (Thu) by ber (subscriber, #2142)Parent article: A new open source foundation Note that it is reasonable to think that 40% of all stable Free Software is made by "commercial" developers. Commercial in the best sense that somebody is doing the work paid in the main profession. You could phrase that as "commercial Free Software developers" existing all over the place. Ideally the article would have pointed a finger at this attempt of Microsoft to re-define Free Software as something "un-commercial".
(Log in to post comments)
40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers. Posted Sep 18, 2009 8:39 UTC (Fri) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
'Commercial' is the proprietary software industry's term for proprietary software -- in contrast to (explicitly) free or open-source software, the people who make proprietary software want to claim that their work is the only 'commercial' stuff.
From their own announcement:
If 'commercial' can be swapped for 'proprietary', then it's likely that this means that the open source material can be subsumed into proprietary software. Additionally, if software developers can be trained to believe that sharing their source codes at Codeplex is contributing to the open source or free software movements, then there will be fewer developers learning about FSF-style hacking and free software culture. Like the recent calls for publicity and awareness-raising campaigns for desktop Linux, this looks like one more publicity campaign that proprietary software will win. :-(
40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers. Posted Sep 24, 2009 15:47 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
In fact, pretty much ALL software is proprietary. The exception being software written in the US before they joined Berne.
The distinction should be "open" and "commercial" (and maybe not even that!). Proprietary simply means "owned by" - a shop is open (it wouldn't be much use without it) but has a proprietor. As a simple example of what I mean, glibc is proprietary to the FSF. The fact they have released it under a Free licence doesn't mean they don't own it. And actually, it's Microsoft we have to thank for this new distorted meaning of the word "proprietary"!!!
Cheers,
40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers. Posted Oct 17, 2009 10:09 UTC (Sat) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link]
"The distinction should be "open" and "commercial" (and maybe not even that!)"
No the distinction is between open source and closed source. The other orthogonal distinction is commercial versus non-commercial. You can have the four combinations:
greets,
40% of all stable Free Software made by "commercial" developers. Posted Oct 19, 2009 13:31 UTC (Mon) by txwikinger (subscriber, #57821) [Link]
Well.. the distinction should be between free and non-free software (free as liberty!). It does not help to look at "open" source code if you can never use the learned because now the developer is "tainted" and might infringe copyright law.
|
|||||||||||||