3 ms·

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, Inte

by uiri 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
  Software doesn't have to be freely available to be free. Software is free when the user is free. This also counts if there is only one user.

by uiri 9y ago

nickpsecurity 9y 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 9y ago
Software doesn't have to be freely available to be free. Software is free when the user is free. This also counts if there is only one user.