Open Source Apps?

[Guest fraser]

Why isn't anyone using open source for all the free apps out there? There are many really useful tools that have stopped being developed because the authors have moved on to other things. With open source, others can pick up the work.

If people coded their apps in this way, others would benefit from their techniques, improving the community as a whole. Open source is the future of most software...it avoids the ever-growing piracy issue completely, as well as providing trust in the code you are running. Many governments are in the process of mandating that all new computer systems must be OSS, because of the clear advantages.

Here is a quote from opensource.org on some of the benfits (for those not familiar with OSS)

The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.

We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.

Or, is Open Source against the EULA of the MS compiler?

Edit: I meant to put this in the Main forum, could a mod move it for me? :roll:

[Guest MECX]

I think people are scared that if they release the source of there freeware someone will alter it and make cash out of there hardwork.

i agree tho it would be nice to see some code on here for us people learning V C++ it would be a great help :)

[Guest fraser]

I think people are scared that if they release the source of there freeware someone will alter it and make cash out of there hardwork.  

Then you would have a nice big lawsuit on your hands, because the licence would prohibit that. Usually the OSS licence (there are many to choose from) states that any derived work must also be open source. So, if someone were to commercialise your application, you could take their new code and distribute it yourself for free!! The point of OSS is that anyone can contribute to the code, and then incorporate those changes elsewhere. If you are releasing your application as freeware, then OSS is undoubtably the way to go.

The only exception to this is if a company bundles the OSS software as a discreet and unchanged package (as a part of a larger whole), at which point they must acknowledge the authors as well as provide access to your source. You get 100% of the credit. Nice on the old CV.

Listen, OSS is the future of software development. It's no accident that the internet is built on open-source. The only server applications running on the internet that aren't OSS are Microsoft ones, e.g. IIS web server, and the only reason they manage it is because they have their name to sell it. All other major webservers, mailservers, ssh, ftp are all built on open source. The element of trust and speed of development make it very worthwhile. Can't be bothered to add a feature that others want? Let them do it for you!

[Guest MECX]

oh i didnt know it was a licience thing just that you gave your source code out.

So for example linux is an open source program--people like suse and redhat who sell the program have to give part of there cash to everyone who contributed to it---or do they just have to acnowledge them?

i wish i had a program to start the ball rolling :?

anyone?

:)

[Guest fraser]

oh i didnt know it was a licience thing just that you gave your source code out.

Yup, and you get to choose the license. You can have one to allow complete freedom, or you can restrict things that you want. There are many pre-defined licences available to choose from, e.g. GNU, BSD, each with their own rules.

So for example linux is an open source program--people like suse and redhat who sell the program have to give part of there cash to everyone who contributed to it---or do they just have to acnowledge them?

Sort of. RedHat etc don't actually sell linux, you can always download it for free from their websites. They essentially charge for two things, a box set if you are too dumb to download and burn an iso file (though you do get printed manuals as well), and more importantly, a support contract.

The support contract buys you automatic updates and someone to ask for help if you need it. A lot of users don't bother (you can get free updates by filling in a questionaire on RedHat every few months), but those that do make them money. This is essentially in exchange for RedHats work on compiling the applications into an easy-to-use (well, easyier) framework. You don't need to know about compiling apps if you use one of the popular distributions, as you can get pre-compiled apps already.

Of course, the big money is in the server systems, aimed at enterprise companies. The 24/7 support of them is very profitable, hence Microsofts interest in the market (Windows Server).

Your own license could restrict commercial use of the software without your permission. Open Source doesn't mean that you waive any rights.

i wish i had a program to start the ball rolling

Well, that's the thing...if there were OSS apps out there, you could pick one out and have a look through it. I'm an experienced programmer myself, but I have no Windows compiling experience at all (done most of the scripting langs though). I'd quite like to muck around on the Smartphone myself, but I simply don't have the time to work out all of the API's required to created a windowed application on the phone. I'd much rather pick up code that was already done and improve it, to get my feet wet. It's the easiest way to learn a new language, short of going on a proper training course.

The way OSS works is that each version is on it's own code branch. If you want to add a feature, you create your own branch from the main branch. Then, once you are finished, the author (if they want) can incorporate the changes. If they don't want to incorporate then, you can branch off into a separate project, merging any updates back and forth between the branches. That's essentially the difference between XVid and DivX codecs, they branched off some time ago. XviD is a palindome of DivX.

It's a very evolutionary way to develop software, if done right. Mutations, if successful, become dominant. Just like real evolution!

There are a thousand reasons why OSS is better. If you follow IT news, you'll notice that entire countries are switching to OSS for governmental IT infrastructure. It'll be the norm in 5-10 years time.

[Guest MECX]

interesting stuff. Im currently working on an infrared module project for controlling consumer IR products (TV's, Audio equipment etc) for my degree--having a hard time getting to grips with the V C++ tho.

Since the whole thing uses hardware as well, making the code open source wouldet be much use unless i start giving away the hardware as well.

I mean i could charge for the hardware or sumthin i suppose---but what would happen if i wanted to get the software signed at some point will orange sign OSS code?

[Guest fraser]

Since the whole thing uses hardware as well, making the code open source wouldet be much use unless i start giving away the hardware as well.  

I mean i could charge for the hardware or sumthin i suppose

He he. That's exactly how you can make money with OSS! You sell the hardware and give away the software. No piracy issues either.

What I'd do in that situation is to publish the schematics for the circuit (with some sort of copyright notice of course*) but offer to sell the pre-built circuit as well, for those without the skills. Again, it's kind of open-source electronics, others can suggest improvements to the circuit etc. So, the hobbyists are happy and get to tinker and improve, while Joe Blogg public user who doesn't care buys it out of conveinence.

* The notice would license the circuit for non-commercial use, and any commercial use would go through you first (you could say the same with the software license). A company might see the idea, try it out, then give you a call about distribution. If anyone else makes a similar thing, get one, break it open and check the circuit. If it's similar, you got a lucrative law suit on your hands!! :wink:

but what would happen if i wanted to get the software signed at some point will orange sign OSS code?

Don't see any reason why they wouldn't sign it. Actually, OSS is in Oranges interests as well. One of the ideas behind signing is to not permit rogue (or mallicious) code knackering peoples phones. With OSS, any user can check for this, not just Orange, so they should be more confident that it's clean. It should also be less buggy, anyone who works in Software Dev should be able to tell you the benefits of code reviewing, which you get for free here. We had to force people into reviews in my last job! :wink:

[Guest fraser]

By the way, meant to say, interesting project!! You probably know that there have been many requests for this kind of thing in the past!

[Guest motbe]

To say that Open Source is the future of software is really relying on something that you don't truly know. The internet was never built on open source software. The internet's been around for many years (some people only thing it existed when the web became the big thing. Most of the systems running on the net used proprietary closed source systems. Only in the past ten years or so has linux really become a big thing. Linux is the only well known OS that's open source used on the net. I know of others out there, but of the big Operating Systems, none are open but linux.

Yes, some countries are mandating that they will start using open source, but I don't think this is necessarily a global trend.

The hard thing with open source is that people do like to get paid for their time. Giving away my software with the source included isn't exactly paying me anything. And, allowing people to make donations doesn't pay any bills either. I've only made $50 or so from donations over a three year period. That won't buy much.

Open source software CAN be great. The issue is that time spent programming is MY time. Most open source development is going on by Joe Schmo programmer, and he's usually got a day job, and spends his spare moments hacking away at something. Granted, the project he's working on is cool, but it's not paying his bills.

Red hat did pursue making money from Open Source Software. their distro is free, but service is not. Now, that's a smart way to make money via open source. But, from what I've read, they've never even pulled a profit until recently. And except for the enterprise market, they're backing out. That doesn't say much for making money to pay the bills with open source.

Now, I'm definitely not pro-microsoft. I love linux, and I'd prefer to use it. But, don't go spouting off the benefits of Open Source without considering the full picture. The economy doesn't necessarily grow by giving away things. Time = money in alot of things. And 0 money doesn't equal 8, 12, 16, etc hours in anyone's book.

I've been happy to use a few spare moments here and there to write my own free software (which many said they would gladly buy). I even have released the source to things that were GPL'd which I ported. But I'm not going all out and giving away my source. Not when there are company's selling the samples from GapiDraw as their own screensavers, and others that are simply charging sky high rates for work that took them 2 hours to do. My code would get picked up, modded a bit, and then resold. (even if it's GPL'd). The GPL might hold up in certain countries, but I know that it wouldn't hold water in other less copyright-protective countries.

So, I'd just say, consider the whole picture with open source. there are plusses and minuses. Don't just see it, say "hey, it's great, and the world's a better place for it", think about it, and how it relates to your life, the economy, and etc.

[Guest fraser]

The internet was never built on open source software. The internet's been around for many years. Most of the systems running on the net used proprietary closed source systems.

Nope, it was built on open systems. Firstly, note this:

OSS != Linux

Now, Linux is OSS, but OSS is not Linux. A fundamental point that seems lost here. OSS predates Linux by a long time, Linux only brought exposure and a large amount of organisation to the method.

some people only thing it existed when the web became the big thing

I used it pre-WWW days myself. I even remember seeing NCSA Mosaic for the first time, on the Janet UK network.

Only in the past ten years or so has linux really become a big thing. Linux is the only well known OS that's open source used on the net. I know of others out there, but of the big Operating Systems, none are open but linux.

Who cares about Linux? That's not the debate here! It's not the only OSS OS on the net, far from it. It's only really recently that Windows boxes have been hooked up to the net. Prior to that it was mostly Unix, running open standards. That's why it took off so well. All Linux is is a i386 port of Unix. Which was possible because many components of Unix were already OSS.

We aren't talking about Desktop OS'es, they are irrelevant to this discussion. The backbone of the internet and all it's essential services such as DNS, DHCP, POP, IMAP, WWW are all built on open standards and open server software. They would have never received the universal level of deployment if they were proprietry. Or, are you trying to suggest that MS Exchange is the most popular mail protocol? :wink:

Yes, some countries are mandating that they will start using open source, but I don't think this is necessarily a global trend.

I'd disagree with that. There is a definite global trend out there. Governments know that allowing a foreign vendor to produce the software that will handle their security is an especially bad idea. Even moreso considering the amount of industrial espionage and political "tinkering" (polite way to put it) done by the USA. Do you think China is happy using MS products that could have any number of dial-home hidden subsystems? Even the US government itself is realising the risk of having information on national security on untrusted systems.

As computing becomes more and more prevanlent to our day to day lives, secure & trusted computing is essential. Oh yeah, the computers and the internet have just started out by the way, there are lots of cool things yet to come. The WWW will look really basic & old-school in 5-10 years time. We will become more and more dependant on these systems as time goes by. This climbate is ideal for OSS.

Open source software CAN be great. The issue is that time spent programming is MY time. Most open source development is going on by Joe Schmo programmer, and he's usually got a day job, and spends his spare moments hacking away at something. Granted, the project he's working on is cool, but it's not paying his bills.

I never said it would. My original post was about why none of the free software on the Smartphone is OSS. The IR tool that MECX mentioned isn't going to feed his family, and I think he knows that. I just suggested a simple way to make money off it with minimal investment. Sure, you could ramp up and make a commercial product, but that didn't seem to be his intention, plus it would take considerable work to get it to market with that approach.

Besides, you give an example of a solitary programmer working on an OSS project. That kind of misses the point!! What tends to happen is that someone creates a tool to do a specific task. Once they are done, they can do two things...either save it to disk and archive it, or release the source on the net. Then, someone else googles for a similar problem, and uses the first tool as a starting point. The tool grows as more and more people become involved.

But, from what I've read, they've never even pulled a profit until recently. And except for the enterprise market, they're backing out. That doesn't say much for making money to pay the bills with open source.  

No, it says that Redhat Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet, like most other distributions. My model always is "could your gran install it"? My gran could probably install Windows XP, but she'd get nowhere with Linux. Until that issue is sorted out, the only people willing to use it are those technically capable of setting it up in the first place. These same people are unlikely to be giving you money, as they don't need expensive support. They have usenet and google instead. Desktop Linux will be back, some day probably.

Now, I'm definitely not pro-microsoft. I love linux, and I'd prefer to use it. But, don't go spouting off the benefits of Open Source without considering the full picture.

Yikes, the age old zealotry problem. First, I'm not pro-microsoft myself. Nor am I anti-microsoft either. Why is it assumed that you worship one or the other? Computers are tools to get the job done, whatever that job may be.

The discussion on why there are no SmartPhone OSS projects out there has absolutely nothing to do with Linux. It only came up in this discussion of how an OSS project can make money and protect their intellectal property being stolen and exploided by others. There are many successful OSS projects on Microsoft platforms. The build model of the OS doesn't have to match the software you use.

I even have released the source to things that were GPL'd which I ported.

I should bloody well hope so!! That's the rule!! :wink: Now, if those apps hadn't been GPL'd already, would you have written them from scratch?

It seems to me that the Smartphone community is leeching from OSS. We fell great taking many GNU/GPL etc projects and porting them to the Smartphone. But, we are taking and giving nothing back at all.

Not when there are company's selling the samples from GapiDraw as their own screensavers, and others that are simply charging sky high rates for work that took them 2 hours to do.

So? There are people out there selling pet rocks, sonic rodent repelants, and gazillion other things that don't work, that are silly or a just plain ripoffs from other things. A fool and his money are easilly parted. It's the way of the world, and has been for a very long time. If someone is willing to pay for something they can get (legally) for free, then it's their loss, not mine. But I wouldn't base any of my own business decissions/models on it!

My code would get picked up, modded a bit, and then resold. (even if it's GPL'd). The GPL might hold up in certain countries, but I know that it wouldn't hold water in other less copyright-protective countries.  

Again, so what? What are you going to do about it? And what would you do if those same countries gave away your binaries? Nothing, with open or closed source, it makes no difference, you still lose out due to their disregard of your intelectial property. With piracy becoming more and more popular, trying to make money from binary distribution is becoming harder and harder. Commercial products come and go, upgrades come and charge your etc. But all the OSS software made is still there, and always will be. Once there exists OSS apps for most purposes that are either as good as or better than their commecial counterparts, making money out of software is going to be very difficult. Of course, the service side of IT will always be there...people will always need highly customised apps written for them, but life as commercial developer is going to get harder and harder, except the interactive entertainment market of course. That's going to be huge.

Remember, one of the first things taught in software development is "do not reinvent the wheel". Now, IT is unlike most other industries. My e-mail client isn't going to be worn down and knacked like my car is doing everyday. Once there is a plethora of software out there, you'll need to find something new or unique to sell a product. Otherwise, folk will just happily continue with the stuff they are currently using. Times are very interesting for the IT community.

In many ways, this comes down to politics...socalism verses capitalism. Socialism is where everyone clubs in to help each other, capitalism is where everyone is looking out for themself. OSS is very socialist, in fact Microsoft tried to turn folk against it by compairing Linux to Communism. They must have missed the point when Emanuel Goldstein turned from a communist to a terrorist. But, that's way off topic. I'm kinda in the middle myself, sure I want to get my millions, mansion & yaught, but I'd like to give something back while I'm at it.

think about it, and how it relates to your life, the economy, and etc.

I am. A lot. I wasn't kidding about my millions and yaught. I want them. But, you have to work within the world you live in, and I believe that OSS is clearly the future for many areas of IT.

[Guest motbe]

I was writing a big reply to your with my own quotes.. But.. I don't quite have the time..

You did come across as a zealot for OSS. And some of your comments in my reply seemed that way too.. I'm no zealot for linux or microsoft. and As you said, computers are tools..

My one comment is tthat remember that Open Standards != open source. The internet runs on Open Standards so we can all communicate together. Otherwise, quite a bit of the software that facilitates those standards is closed.

The OSS community will still be around for years to come.. It's been around for a long time.. And as well, closed source will be around for a long time too. That's a fact. There are plusses and minusses to both..

Oh, and yes, if any of the apps I ported was closed source, I'd still write them from scratch.. Alot of software again is over priced, and so I'd rather spend a couple hours coding then spend $100 on something that's not worth it.. I can usually get something that's more customized to my needs, and better suits me...

[Guest MECX]

just to say this is one of the most interesting threads ive read on Modaco.

Will look into making my code OSS coz ill probs not have the time to develop it my self after this project is over.

[Guest moo_ski_doo]

Will look into making my code OSS coz ill probs not have the time to develop it my self after this project is over.

I've got nothing against making stuff open source but thought I should point something out in case you don't already know / haven't considered it.

Making Uni projects open source might not be the best idea because, however unlikely it might sound, if someone else gets hold of your code and claims it's their own, your project might not be accepted by the Uni and you could be in serious trouble for plagiarism. Obviously it wouldn't be your fault but it's your responsibility to make sure that no-one else gets hold of your code, so you'd be blamed for it anyway. Also, from back when I did Uni projects, I know that our Uni claimed intellectual copyright over the project which means you can't make it open source. I don't know if your Uni operates in the same way but chances are it does. I'd at least wait 'til after finishing my degree and getting my results before doing this.

Anyway, you might want to disregard everything I've said and that's fair enough, but thought I should at least mention it just in case :)

-Mark.

[Guest fraser]

Interesting points, but I suppose the same risks (except the plagarism) also occur in most full time jobs. Many contracts of employment place anything you create (during your time with them) in the companies ownership, even if you did it on your own free time and own your equipment!! Of course, this would be very bad PR for a company to clamp down on a users own projects, as well as increadibly bad for employee moralle, so it rarely is done.

[Guest MECX]

I've got nothing against making stuff open source but thought I should point something out in case you don't already know / haven't considered it.

Making Uni projects open source might not be the best idea because, however unlikely it might sound, if someone else gets hold of your code and claims it's their own, your project might not be accepted by the Uni and you could be in serious trouble for plagiarism. Obviously it wouldn't be your fault but it's your responsibility to make sure that no-one else gets hold of your code, so you'd be blamed for it anyway. Also, from back when I did Uni projects, I know that our Uni claimed intellectual copyright over the project which means you can't make it open source. I don't know if your Uni operates in the same way but chances are it does. I'd at least wait 'til after finishing my degree and getting my results before doing this.

Anyway, you might want to disregard everything I've said and that's fair enough, but thought I should at least mention it just in case :)

-Mark.

Damn good points and cheers for the info----Ill check with my boss guy but your right its probs best to hold off untill ive got my marks etc ----the uni projects are availiable in the student library so i might as wlel make it OSS after that anyway.

Again thanks for the info man :shock: