software suggestions; open source

Knapp magick.crow at
Wed Sep 12 07:34:23 UTC 2007

>This means it is dual-licensed.  For instance, QT is also
>dual-licensed.  Do you consider that not 'totally open source', whatever
>that means.  Firefox is dual-licensed.  How about  Do
>you consider that not 'totally open source'?

Edges are always blurry in the real world. I guess the answer to your
question would have to do with what you get under each license. For
example with Firefox what would you get if you payed for it? If
without paying you get something that is incomplete, is full of ads,
or has limits, like you can not use it for profit or whatever, then I
would call it cripple ware, ad ware or perhaps to be nice sample
software. If you get everything and the software is totally free (as
in speech, not beer) then I would think of it as open source. I don't
think Linux would be were it is at today if there had been two
versions of it.

"Although the OSI definition of "open-source software" is widely
accepted, a small number of people and organizations use the term to
refer to software where the source is available for viewing, but which
may not legally be modified or redistributed. Such software is more
often referred to as source-available, or as shared source, a term
coined by Microsoft in opposition to open source." Wikipedia

I think it is important that we all have some idea of what open source
is all about as MS seems to be trying to blur the definition in an
attempt to kill it, take it over or control it. Why have
proprietary-licenses if the software is really open source? On the
other hand it if does have a GNU license than why do they also have
the Proprietary license? If they are truly into the OSI thing that why
not give it all away for free? Yes, because they want to control it
and make a profit. They want to force people to have to pay for the
good stuff in most cases.

As a medical person, I have watched what this for profit thing has
done. It has made the whole USA health system only good for the rich
and even then it is not in the best interests of the drug companies to
cure you. It is better if they can treat you forever, same for us
doctors. So how do you make a medical system that makes doctors excel?
It is called subscription medicine. You pay the doctor (NOT the
insurance companies) a set yearly fee. Then you can go to him as much
as you like. It is in his best interests to keep you healthy because
then he can have more patients per year. And if you get sick it is in
his best interests to make you healthy as fast as possible. If our
whole economic system was set up this way you would see a lot of
changes in how the world was run. Yes, there are holes in this system

As users and supporters of open source, I think that we should all
know what is happening and make a choice of what we feel needs to be
supported. There are profit companies that I really like, like Google,
Canonical and ones that I am not so happy with like MS. Then there are
the people that make things like Linux. Pick who you like and support

I really don't want to spend my time paying 50 companies 5$ each to
make their software save what I have written or work in some needed
special way. LOL. For me the more whole, complete and open the better.

I have chosen to support PostgreSQL. Maybe I am wrong in not being
into MySQL more. Have you read the wiki entry where it gets into the
licensing Issues of MySQL? Did you see where they say that they could
change the license but promise not to? What if I invest in their
software and they drop the GPL license? Will the community pick it up?
PostgreSQL works for me. It is totally free, well supported for free
by the community and unowned.

I am very open to you showing me where I am wrong. I am here to learn
and to help others when I can.


More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list