Comments on: Idealist, Not Cheapskate http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/04/22/idealist-not-cheapskate/ Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:56:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1 By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/04/22/idealist-not-cheapskate/comment-page-1/#comment-1547 Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:17:23 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=601#comment-1547 Matt - you’re right, but I was being slapdash as usual and couldn’t really be bothered intro-ing with the whole libre/gratis thing…

Don - cheers for the link, again slapdashedness prevented me from actually bothering to find out what developers etc. might have already written about this.

Prospective new name for this site: Slapdash Response?!

]]> By: Donny http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/04/22/idealist-not-cheapskate/comment-page-1/#comment-1546 Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:21:47 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=601#comment-1546 Sure you’ve probably had a look at this, but it does deal with the kudos that developers thrive on, when contributing to the open source community.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
I think the reason developers do what they do for free is that they get a big buzz seing people use their wares. Also they probably would like to be the author of a vital piece of code which lasts the test of time. Look at the list of names when you boot up Linux. University of Swansea Computer Department. I bet they feel quite good about that!
The big difference between commercial developers and open source ones is that the former pretend that their software is complete when a release date is set and the marketing department swings into action. The latter don’t really care about timings, just making sure it works better each build.

]]> By: Matt http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/04/22/idealist-not-cheapskate/comment-page-1/#comment-1545 Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:14:42 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=601#comment-1545 There’s a there’s a distinction between open source and free software that’s failing to be made here. Open Source does not necessarily mean free (as in freedom) and I think it’s Free Software - ie. software issued under a GNU General Public License - that Jack is (or should be :) really talking about here (The GIMP for example).

I think Jim’s criticism shows a pretty narrow view of free software. It’s not about being a cheapskate and not showing your appreciation by contributing to the programming community. It’s about having the freedom to do what you like with it once you’ve downloaded it (and this includes just enjoying the sofware with out giving back, monetarily or otherwise). If you’re a software developer and you’re not happy about that, then don’t release it under the GNU GPL. Simple as that.

]]>