[darkich]

Кроче... не знаю как вы...
тема явно провакационная и для меня уже скучная - я её уже обсуждал тысячу раз на тысяча формах...
тут сколько людей столько и мнений. Есть славо богу совобода выбора...
нечего тут обсужадать... слишком это обширно... если говорить о перпективах то надо брать разные сферы деятельности сравнивать что есть сейчас, что планируется и т.п.

ЛИЧНО я

[Илья]

[darkich]

Извени илья но твой пример и правду грубоват патриот это конечно солдат и он как солдат должен выполнить приказ

Но свободный программер это не солдат и ничё он не обязан на то он и свободный...

[Илья]

По поводу солдатов, патриотов и разработчиков я дал ляп, неудачно выражаюсь.

Но все же считаю что у окрытого кода есть преимущества.
Как сказал какой-то флософ или диктатор (не запомнил) что труднее всего сломить и победить идею. А такие движения как Linux и т.д. это уже из разряда идей (может и навясчивых ).

[darkich]

полность с тобой согласен...
но я вот над какой вещью думал:

Да свободное по сможет распространится и подписывать с компаниями контракты и нести ответственность при этом оставив софт свободным но и деньги они должны заработать и пути зарабатывания я вижу такие:

они могут просто поддерживать компанию (грубо если брать) быть приходящими платными специалистами - тут правда мне вспоминается 1С (хотя неудачный наверно пример) и epson кторорая продаёт струйники по себистоимости живя за счёт расходников (и не хило при этом живя - и юзатели не хило платят)

ось то можно оставить свободной а остально платным а грань между полезностью свободно ОС и ещё функциональностью без такого ПО тонка...


тут надо задать себе вопрос - за счёт чего такие компании должны жить?
просто продажа дисков это уже не актуально и смешно...
написание специализированных программ под заказ - ну может быть... хотя сомнительно - это скорее одна из статей дохода чем её основная часть

[darkich]

КОРОЧЕ!!!!!!!
так мы далеко уйдём и уже офтоп начинается...
как я и сказал с этого момента меня в этой теме нет!!!!!!



Дальше можите без меня

[Nik]

Ну ты даркич и нагнал про Гну с GPL. Просто интересно откуда такое берется? Кто это придумывает?
Я то читал, и, что немаловажно, понял. Почитай и ты.

Introduction
Published software should be free software. To make it free software, you need to release it under a free software license. We normally use the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), but occasionally we use other free software licenses. We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software.

Documentation for free software should be free documentation , so that people can redistribute it and improve it along with the software it describes. To make it free documentation, you need to release it under a free documentation license. We normally use the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL), but occasionally we use other free documentation licenses.

The GNU General Public License

The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short; it is used by most GNU programs, and by more than half of all Free Software packages.

* The GNU General Public License text, in four formats: html, plain text, Texinfo, and LaTeX. These documents are not formatted for standalone publishing, and are intended to be included in another document.
* The GNU GPL Frequently Asked Questions
* How to use the GNU GPL for your own programs
* Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors
* What to do if you see a violation of the GNU GPL, LGPL or FDL
* Releasing Free Software if you work at a University

The GNU Lesser General Public License

The GNU Lesser General Public License is used by a few (but not all) GNU libraries. This license was formerly called the Library GPL, but we changed the name, because the old name encouraged people to use this license more often than it really ought to be used.

* The GNU Lesser General Public License text, in three formats: HTML, plain text, and Texinfo. These documents are not formatted for standalone publishing, and are intended to be included in another document.
* Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
* What to do if you see a violation of the GNU GPL, LGPL or FDL

The GNU Free Documentation License

The GNU Free Documentation License is a form of copyleft intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifications, either commercially or noncommercially.

* The GNU Free Documentation License text: in HTML, plain text, or LaTeX. Texinfo. These documents are not formatted for standalone publishing, and are intended to be included in another document.
* Why publishers should use the GNU FDL
* How to use the GNU FDL for your documentation
* Tips on using the GNU FDL
* How to use the optional features of the GNU FDL
* What to do if you see a violation of the GNU GPL, LGPL or FDL
* Older versions of the GNU FDL

Unofficial Translations

Legally speaking, the original (English) version of the GPL is what specified the actual distribution terms for GNU programs. But to help people better understand the licenses, we give permission to publish translations into other languages if the translations provided that they follow our regulations for unofficial translations.

* List of unofficial translations
* How to create an unofficial translation

Verbatim copying and distribution

The standard copyright notice for GNU webpages reads: Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Please note the following commentary by Eben Moglen:

"Our intention in using the phrase `verbatim copying in any medium' is not to require retention of page headings and footers or other formatting features. Retention of weblinks in both hyperlinked and non-hyperlinked media (as notes or some other form of printed URL in non-HTML media) is required."

List of Free Software Licenses

* List of Free Software Licenses

What Is Copyleft?

Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.

The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.

Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to free software get permission to do that. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.

When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.

To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.

Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''

Copyleft is a general concept; there are many ways to fill in the details. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use are contained in the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU source code distribution.

The GNU GPL is designed so that you can easily apply it to your own program if you are the copyright holder. You don't have to modify the GNU GPL to do this, just add notices to your program which refer properly to the GNU GPL. Please note that you must use the entire text of the GPL, if you use it. It is an integral whole, and partial copies are not permitted. (Likewise for the LGPL and the FDL.)

Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it easy to copy code between various different programs. Since they all have the same distribution terms, there is no need to think about whether the terms are compatible. The Lesser GPL includes a provision that lets you alter the distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into another program covered by the GPL.

Licenses for Other Types of Works

We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation. We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL).

For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons.

However, when using them, we strongly urge you to reject the option to reference the license with a link to a URL. You cannot take for granted that the same URL will still function ten years from now; fifty years from now, URLs as they exist today may be entirely obsolete. If the URL does not function, that would disconnect your work from its license; then it would effectively lose its copying permissions, since people won't be able to tell what is permitted. We therefore urge you to include a copy of the license with the work, for every work, all the time.

[Nik]

То есть я больше верю gnu.org. Они может в 1С и не шарят, но то что сами пишут наверное понимают. А вот как раз Open Source и Free Software - это абсолютно разные организации с разной идеологией. Если верить их руководителям. Не буду судить про мир бизнеса, но у BSD лицензии есть один, очень спорный "порамитер" - из нее можно брать что угодно БЕЗ указания авторства и каких-либо ОГРАНИЧЕНИЙ, типа открытых исходников, то есть она ЛИБЕРАЛЬНЕЕ чем GPL. Поэтому из нее бесплатно берут идеи и Микрософт и Аппле и потом продают за деньги. Что как-то не очень хорошо, по-моему.

UNIX, как торговая марка, существует в одном виде: SCO UnixWare от 883 USD - 1 user/1CPU до Unlimited User Licence - 27623 USD.

[Nik]

http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/article695.html
Вот статейка ничего, но опять же это мнение автора а не Столлмена.