Opensource vs Closedsource

[MasterMac]

I think I missed something in one of your older posts.

I think that charging people on a yearly basis once they have purchased an owned license is unecessary and unfair.

They aren't "forced" to pay a yearly fee. If they don't want access to more upgrades then they don't have to pay. They can use the latest version that they have forever (already stated...but I think you had the misconception that you're forced to upgrade after a year)

[Paul J]

Originally posted by Cyborg from DH
would you prefer an upgrade cost, where you pay for every time you want to upgrade to the next version?

(ie: windows, photoshop, etc.)

No, I think I've been pretty clear as to what licensing scheme I think fosters growth.

[Paul J]

Originally posted by MasterMac
I think I missed something in one of your older posts.



They aren't "forced" to pay a yearly fee. If they don't want access to more upgrades then they don't have to pay. They can use the latest version that they have forever (already stated...but I think you had the misconception that you're forced to upgrade after a year)

Yet Jelsoft refuses support on any versions earlier than the one that's currently out.

So, indeed, people are forced to spend $30 a year after spending an intial $160. Isn't it the "support" that people always wave around when justifying buying a vB license to begin with?

[Darth Cow]

Originally posted by Paul J
No, I think I've been pretty clear as to what licensing scheme I think fosters growth.

What, one that's free?

That's not going to happen.

[Tolitz]

The topic title should be renamed "free software vs. commercial software" ... coz the whole line of discussion has almost nothing to do with open source at all

[Paul J]

Sure it does, though not directly.

The philosophy of opensource is directly relative what I'm talking about. The last two posts about the license have strayed. I used the license as an example, but some failed to understand it.

[Tolitz]

But the operative word I see in your posts is the word free ... and the context in which the posts are written puts "free" in financial terms, which is not what open source is entirely about ...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html

And yes, there are some who want to make free software and open source synonymous:

http://www.debian.org/intro/free

Of course, I may appear to be merely arguing semantics here, but I believe it is best to put the discussion in a better light...

[Paul J]

I used the word "free" because people were implying that "free" software is somehow worse by nature of it's cost.

I think I explained the difference between free software and opensource in my response to Wayne here.

[CeleronXT]

The difference with free and the cost isn't necessarily in the software, but rather what's behind the software. You're likely to have a company behind something you're paying for, whereas anyone could have created whatever is free.

[Paul J]

You wanna be a company? Me and you can declare ourselves a company in 15 minutes.

[CeleronXT]

Sure. What should we be called?

[vBR]

Originally posted by CeleronXT
Sure. What should we be called?

How about "XJT systems"

[Paul J]

"Down With Confining, Greedy Spyware Licenses LLC".

[CeleronXT]

Originally posted by vBR
How about "XJT systems"

Ooo, I like it.

[Raz Meister]

I've never understood why you have to buy an "upgrade licence" for the members area to download security fixes...other versions and enhancements yes, but not for a security bug. They should be given to all members free of charge.

IMHO only of course. I'm sure Jelsofts business plan disagrees with me though.