3 ms·

> I mostly use commercial software, You probably meant "proprietary software". Please say so. Much free software is also commercial. A famous example is Red

> I mostly use commercial software, You probably meant "proprietary software". Please say so. Much free software is also commercial. A famous example is RedHat. A less famous, but much more common example is custom software: written for a fee, it is definitely commercial. And it's Free too much of the time: customers often have access to the source code, and the right to do whatever they want with it. "Free" and "commercial" are not mutually exclusive.

pjmlp 10y ago
Proprietary software, there. Happy? > Free" and "commercial" are not mutually exclusive. Red-Hat earns money in enterprise consulting and support, they withdrew from the desktop market because in what concerns the desktop, games and mobile markets, they are indeed mutually exclusive. Which happen to be the markets I care about.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Much free software is also commercial." Almost all commercial software is proprietary. So much that free is barely a blip on the radar. It's reasonable default much like a person can say they ate a lobster without specifying it was red rather than the ultra-rare blue or gold varieties. Everyone will assume the default of red unless specified otherwise.
- Retra 10y ago
  It makes a huge difference when you're trying to sell blue and gold lobsters to people.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    That's why the vendors of luxury goods state the difference. The rest don't have to, though.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  My OS (macOS), laptop, router, gaming console, watch, camera, computer, phone, tablet, TV, set-top box, GPS unit and more run commercial software. They all include "free software" somewhere in the stack. Whether it's the Linux kernel, uclibc, busybox, libpng/libjpeg/libtiff or Webkit, it's there. It's much more prevalent than people think, partly because it is rarely discussed or acknowledged. If we look at web applications, you can be assured that the vast majority of them use free software somewhere in the stack. It's usually the case that the majority of dependencies in such products are "free".
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "If we look at web applications, you can be assured that the vast majority of them use free software somewhere in the stack." There's a difference between them being proprietary software and using some free components somewhere. You about to suggest Windows ecosystem is open or free because they used some open-source code in Windows somewhere? Or IBM's mainframes are open because they can run Linux VM's? Or the Facebook platform itself is open since they use and contribute so much FOSS? They're all still proprietary with the motivations, methods, and limitations that come with it. They can use whatever available components they want to build proprietary software. It's still the dominant model, though. That's why I'm constantly running into systems I have no source for, can't modify, and can't extend to deal with their horrible UX. They're all closed to me even if some OSS or FOSS is inside.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Your OS has a tiny layer of FOSS, which was partly part of NeXTSTEP and what Apple needs for UNIX compatibility. Everything that makes OS X special is proprietary.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Exactly. The core that was open-source, but not FOSS per FSF, is a system almost no Mac user will directly use or develop apps for. The experience Mac users get is almost totally proprietary by Apple. It's not only theirs in copyright: they patent every aspect they can to sue anyone doing something similar. Samsung will happily attest to that. Mac OS is about as non-FOSS as it gets. Right up there with Windows on proprietary components, lock-in, and patent suits by owner. At least they're doing a nice, open-source project with LLVM. I'll give them credit where it's due.
- uiri 10y ago
  Perhaps you and the post you are replying to are talking past each other. There are at least[1] five worlds of software development: Shrinkwrap/Web/Mobile, Internal, Embedded, Games, Throwaway. All are largely commercial - throwaway software perhaps less so than the others. Embedded software is often non-free due to restrictions on loading a modified version of the software onto an embedded system. Games are rarely free. Shrinkwrap/Web/Mobile software is also rarely free but very frequently it is built on top of free software components - either permissively licensed ones or via the Web such that the vendor does not actually "distribute" the software. Internal and throwaway software is almost always free - the users and developers are either one and the same, or both are part of the same organization. I would not go so far as to say that almost all commercial software is proprietary, but it is true that a lot of it is. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/05/06/five-worlds/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/05/06/five-worlds/ It is posible that Spolsky's post is non-exhaustive
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    You're basically agreeing with me outside the internal/throwaway categorization. Your post adds some good details and categories. It's almost all proprietary. Some are supporting a bit more openness or modification allowed than before but always a cut-off point where I loose rights to benefit their wallets. There's a tiny percentage of companies working with truly open and free stuff pervasively but a good chance average public will never have heard of them with notable exception being Firefox. And that one's revenue for development and maintenance depends on several, proprietary platforms that themselves make money selling off users via surveillance. Bright, big picture, eh? :) "Internal and throwaway software is almost always free - the users and developers are either one and the same, or both are part of the same organization." This one is proprietary, shared source by default. In practice, it may have the advantages of FOSS for users within the company. It depends on the politics of the company, what 3rd party stuff it integrated with what licensing terms, and so on. Medium-to-large companies like IBM also treat stuff in one unit as owned by that unit even charging other units for using it often with a discount or certain allotment for free usage. Quite the opposite of FOSS. Now, if hobbyists or companies share their internal or throwaway code, they have to put a specific license on it. They might throw it on Sourceforge or Github but I still have no right to it without a license. This is why we encourage an open-source default on submissions to code sharing sites w/ user able to change it to another if they choose. So, status of throwaways and internal software still varies. And that's without getting to the fact that patent suits can hit you if a license doesn't factor in patents. It's why I don't fully trust BSD licenses as ensuring anyone can use it when it is something covered by patents.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > Almost all commercial software is proprietary. Not quite. Almost all software people use is proprietary. Almost all software developers write is Free. This is not contradictory. People mostly use massively distributed software, made by a relatively tiny number of people. Developers generally work on custom software, that has zero or one customer. If we care about how much money can be gained with Free Software, one should look at the production, and see that custom software is a fine way to make a living. If on the other hand we care about freeing people from proprietary software, you want to look at the consumption, and see that there is much too much proprietary software around.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "This is not contradictory. People mostly use massively distributed software, made by a relatively tiny number of people. Developers generally work on custom software, that has zero or one customer." It's not free until it's unencumbered by copyright or patents. I don't trust that in the least in the U.S.. Maybe in some other places. Here, anything you produce and use might get you in trouble. That doesn't feel Free. ;)
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      If it's only encumbered by the copyright and patents of the user (which is the case much of the time, because all rights are often waived), then it's free. Surely you wouldn't sue yourself over your own claims?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "If it's only encumbered by the copyright and patents of the user (which is the case much of the time, because all rights are often waived), then it's free." You can't guarantee that in the us. We're not even legally allowed to show someone a work with a copyright claim. We can't even reproduce a patented thing whether we knew it existed or not. Copyright and patent trolls increasingly sue businesses to the tune of billions of dollars. The risk is there so long as the system works the way it does.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

pjmlp 10y ago

Proprietary software, there. Happy? > Free" and "commercial" are not mutually exclusive. Red-Hat earns money in enterprise consulting and support, they withdrew from the desktop market because in what concerns the desktop, games and mobile markets, they are indeed mutually exclusive. Which happen to be the markets I care about.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Much free software is also commercial." Almost all commercial software is proprietary. So much that free is barely a blip on the radar. It's reasonable default much like a person can say they ate a lobster without specifying it was red rather than the ultra-rare blue or gold varieties. Everyone will assume the default of red unless specified otherwise.

Retra 10y ago
It makes a huge difference when you're trying to sell blue and gold lobsters to people.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  That's why the vendors of luxury goods state the difference. The rest don't have to, though.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
My OS (macOS), laptop, router, gaming console, watch, camera, computer, phone, tablet, TV, set-top box, GPS unit and more run commercial software. They all include "free software" somewhere in the stack. Whether it's the Linux kernel, uclibc, busybox, libpng/libjpeg/libtiff or Webkit, it's there. It's much more prevalent than people think, partly because it is rarely discussed or acknowledged. If we look at web applications, you can be assured that the vast majority of them use free software somewhere in the stack. It's usually the case that the majority of dependencies in such products are "free".
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "If we look at web applications, you can be assured that the vast majority of them use free software somewhere in the stack." There's a difference between them being proprietary software and using some free components somewhere. You about to suggest Windows ecosystem is open or free because they used some open-source code in Windows somewhere? Or IBM's mainframes are open because they can run Linux VM's? Or the Facebook platform itself is open since they use and contribute so much FOSS? They're all still proprietary with the motivations, methods, and limitations that come with it. They can use whatever available components they want to build proprietary software. It's still the dominant model, though. That's why I'm constantly running into systems I have no source for, can't modify, and can't extend to deal with their horrible UX. They're all closed to me even if some OSS or FOSS is inside.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Your OS has a tiny layer of FOSS, which was partly part of NeXTSTEP and what Apple needs for UNIX compatibility. Everything that makes OS X special is proprietary.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Exactly. The core that was open-source, but not FOSS per FSF, is a system almost no Mac user will directly use or develop apps for. The experience Mac users get is almost totally proprietary by Apple. It's not only theirs in copyright: they patent every aspect they can to sue anyone doing something similar. Samsung will happily attest to that. Mac OS is about as non-FOSS as it gets. Right up there with Windows on proprietary components, lock-in, and patent suits by owner. At least they're doing a nice, open-source project with LLVM. I'll give them credit where it's due.
uiri 10y ago
Perhaps you and the post you are replying to are talking past each other. There are at least[1] five worlds of software development: Shrinkwrap/Web/Mobile, Internal, Embedded, Games, Throwaway. All are largely commercial - throwaway software perhaps less so than the others. Embedded software is often non-free due to restrictions on loading a modified version of the software onto an embedded system. Games are rarely free. Shrinkwrap/Web/Mobile software is also rarely free but very frequently it is built on top of free software components - either permissively licensed ones or via the Web such that the vendor does not actually "distribute" the software. Internal and throwaway software is almost always free - the users and developers are either one and the same, or both are part of the same organization. I would not go so far as to say that almost all commercial software is proprietary, but it is true that a lot of it is. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/05/06/five-worlds/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/05/06/five-worlds/ It is posible that Spolsky's post is non-exhaustive
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  You're basically agreeing with me outside the internal/throwaway categorization. Your post adds some good details and categories. It's almost all proprietary. Some are supporting a bit more openness or modification allowed than before but always a cut-off point where I loose rights to benefit their wallets. There's a tiny percentage of companies working with truly open and free stuff pervasively but a good chance average public will never have heard of them with notable exception being Firefox. And that one's revenue for development and maintenance depends on several, proprietary platforms that themselves make money selling off users via surveillance. Bright, big picture, eh? :) "Internal and throwaway software is almost always free - the users and developers are either one and the same, or both are part of the same organization." This one is proprietary, shared source by default. In practice, it may have the advantages of FOSS for users within the company. It depends on the politics of the company, what 3rd party stuff it integrated with what licensing terms, and so on. Medium-to-large companies like IBM also treat stuff in one unit as owned by that unit even charging other units for using it often with a discount or certain allotment for free usage. Quite the opposite of FOSS. Now, if hobbyists or companies share their internal or throwaway code, they have to put a specific license on it. They might throw it on Sourceforge or Github but I still have no right to it without a license. This is why we encourage an open-source default on submissions to code sharing sites w/ user able to change it to another if they choose. So, status of throwaways and internal software still varies. And that's without getting to the fact that patent suits can hit you if a license doesn't factor in patents. It's why I don't fully trust BSD licenses as ensuring anyone can use it when it is something covered by patents.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> Almost all commercial software is proprietary. Not quite. Almost all software people use is proprietary. Almost all software developers write is Free. This is not contradictory. People mostly use massively distributed software, made by a relatively tiny number of people. Developers generally work on custom software, that has zero or one customer. If we care about how much money can be gained with Free Software, one should look at the production, and see that custom software is a fine way to make a living. If on the other hand we care about freeing people from proprietary software, you want to look at the consumption, and see that there is much too much proprietary software around.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "This is not contradictory. People mostly use massively distributed software, made by a relatively tiny number of people. Developers generally work on custom software, that has zero or one customer." It's not free until it's unencumbered by copyright or patents. I don't trust that in the least in the U.S.. Maybe in some other places. Here, anything you produce and use might get you in trouble. That doesn't feel Free. ;)
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    If it's only encumbered by the copyright and patents of the user (which is the case much of the time, because all rights are often waived), then it's free. Surely you wouldn't sue yourself over your own claims?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      "If it's only encumbered by the copyright and patents of the user (which is the case much of the time, because all rights are often waived), then it's free." You can't guarantee that in the us. We're not even legally allowed to show someone a work with a copyright claim. We can't even reproduce a patented thing whether we knew it existed or not. Copyright and patent trolls increasingly sue businesses to the tune of billions of dollars. The risk is there so long as the system works the way it does.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]