4 ms·

So, you release software for free but do not provide sources for fear of being ripped off. I understand the reasoning, but I must say your fears are unfounded.

by CrLf 16y ago

So, you release software for free but do not provide sources for fear of being ripped off. I understand the reasoning, but I must say your fears are unfounded. The thousands of open source applications out there are the proof of that. There are a number of cases of GPL violations, and BSD licensed software being used in closed source applications without any attribution, but these are not the majority, and it doesn't seem to impact whatever recognition the original authors receive. If you write anything worth ripping off in such a manner, you will most certainly receive recognition for it. However, in this day and age I can say that free software without sources raises a flag with me. I won't use any of it because it usually means the author has something to hide, either the suckage of the code or something worse.

ComputerGuru 16y ago
>I won't use any of it because it usually means the author has something to hide And you, good sir, are the very epitome of what I was referring to. Thanks for proving my point. If I were charging money you wouldn't say this, but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to even more than I'm willing to give for free. I'm not going to bother repeating why I do this, read my other points. But, yes, people have found my software worthy of being ripped off in this fashion.
- notyourwork 16y ago
  I read through this thread a few times before saying anything. No I am not trying to pry your teeth but you seemed to act altruistic yet failed to mention that your site makes the donation action very seamless and evident. What I am saying is that your statements make it out to be like you do this for free and have no interest in receiving monetary compensation for your efforts yet the donation button is awfully evident on your site's page.
- CrLf 16y ago
  I do not think I'm entitled to more that you are willing to give for free. However, I'm entitled to suspect your software may include malware, spyware and/or adware and thus choose not to use it. It has nothing to do with releasing the source per-se. It has everything to do with the fact that experience shows that there are only two goals for producing software: money or reputation. And free software without sources rarely fits the latter. I'm not saying that's your case, but I'm saying this is my default stance.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    > And free software without sources rarely fits the latter. Do you have any evidence for that statement? I've seen a lot of freeware over the last twenty-plus years, and rarely have I heard of anything malicious.
- Confusion 16y ago
  If I were charging money you wouldn't say this [..] Because then there would be a contract between you and him, preventing you from doing harm. [..] but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to I didn't gather that from he said at all. He (implicitly) said he doesn't trust you and won't use your software unless he is able to read the code for himself or obtains a contract that protects him from wrongdoing. Those are two ways of obtaining guarantees. You nor your software provide such guarantees and as such he will not use your software. That is not a complaint, but merely an informative statement.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    > or obtains a contract that protects him from wrongdoing. I don't believe I've ever seen a EULA that promises anything like that.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  It's game theory. If you charge money for something, it gives you an incentive to avoid doing sneaky things that will destroy that money stream in the future, like embedding spyware in your app. But if you don't, people wonder what the hell's in it for you. And they figure that since you're not making money off customers, you must have some spyware or adware deal to make it elsewhere. Game theory's probably the most depressing and cynical academic subject that I've ever studied, but it does do a remarkably good job at describing people's actual behavior.
  - ComputerGuru 16y ago
    Hey, thanks for that! I think that's the thread of logic/perception that I was missing in my confused analysis of all this.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Sorry... "If I were charging money you wouldn't say this, but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to even more than I'm willing to give for free." I know a lot of paid, closed source software has had little nasties in it over the years (and that's why I only use open source software). And if someone isn't getting an income from their software, the incentive to include everything from nag-screens to spyware only increases.
- whatusername 16y ago
  There is an awful lot of "free software" that is free because of the crap/malicious code bundled in. At least if I'm paying someone money -- they have an incentive not to screw me over. Or if it is open-source then I can hope that someone might have seen the cdoe... But Free/Closed-Source often means something dodgy. // Please don't think I'm implying anything about you... EasyBCD looks quite interesting and I'll be checking it out on the next system I build.. But I've helped enough relatives with their computers to know that "free" software often means trouble.

by CrLf 16y ago

ComputerGuru 16y ago

>I won't use any of it because it usually means the author has something to hide And you, good sir, are the very epitome of what I was referring to. Thanks for proving my point. If I were charging money you wouldn't say this, but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to even more than I'm willing to give for free. I'm not going to bother repeating why I do this, read my other points. But, yes, people have found my software worthy of being ripped off in this fashion.

notyourwork 16y ago
I read through this thread a few times before saying anything. No I am not trying to pry your teeth but you seemed to act altruistic yet failed to mention that your site makes the donation action very seamless and evident. What I am saying is that your statements make it out to be like you do this for free and have no interest in receiving monetary compensation for your efforts yet the donation button is awfully evident on your site's page.
CrLf 16y ago
I do not think I'm entitled to more that you are willing to give for free. However, I'm entitled to suspect your software may include malware, spyware and/or adware and thus choose not to use it. It has nothing to do with releasing the source per-se. It has everything to do with the fact that experience shows that there are only two goals for producing software: money or reputation. And free software without sources rarely fits the latter. I'm not saying that's your case, but I'm saying this is my default stance.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  > And free software without sources rarely fits the latter. Do you have any evidence for that statement? I've seen a lot of freeware over the last twenty-plus years, and rarely have I heard of anything malicious.
Confusion 16y ago
If I were charging money you wouldn't say this [..] Because then there would be a contract between you and him, preventing you from doing harm. [..] but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to I didn't gather that from he said at all. He (implicitly) said he doesn't trust you and won't use your software unless he is able to read the code for himself or obtains a contract that protects him from wrongdoing. Those are two ways of obtaining guarantees. You nor your software provide such guarantees and as such he will not use your software. That is not a complaint, but merely an informative statement.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  > or obtains a contract that protects him from wrongdoing. I don't believe I've ever seen a EULA that promises anything like that.
nostrademons 16y ago
It's game theory. If you charge money for something, it gives you an incentive to avoid doing sneaky things that will destroy that money stream in the future, like embedding spyware in your app. But if you don't, people wonder what the hell's in it for you. And they figure that since you're not making money off customers, you must have some spyware or adware deal to make it elsewhere. Game theory's probably the most depressing and cynical academic subject that I've ever studied, but it does do a remarkably good job at describing people's actual behavior.
- ComputerGuru 16y ago
  Hey, thanks for that! I think that's the thread of logic/perception that I was missing in my confused analysis of all this.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Sorry... "If I were charging money you wouldn't say this, but since I'm not you seem to believe you're entitled to even more than I'm willing to give for free." I know a lot of paid, closed source software has had little nasties in it over the years (and that's why I only use open source software). And if someone isn't getting an income from their software, the incentive to include everything from nag-screens to spyware only increases.
whatusername 16y ago
There is an awful lot of "free software" that is free because of the crap/malicious code bundled in. At least if I'm paying someone money -- they have an incentive not to screw me over. Or if it is open-source then I can hope that someone might have seen the cdoe... But Free/Closed-Source often means something dodgy. // Please don't think I'm implying anything about you... EasyBCD looks quite interesting and I'll be checking it out on the next system I build.. But I've helped enough relatives with their computers to know that "free" software often means trouble.