Active Topics
|
2009-11-20
, 14:07
|
|
Posts: 189 |
Thanked: 121 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#112
|
Originally Posted by jaark
I guess it depends on how you define "rare". For example there are multiple distributions of Linux that you can pay money for - this is typically for a nice boxed version and support but you're paying for it anyway.
You might get some stick from those who do't understand the GPL. The GPL allows exactly that, but it almost never happens ...
You must publish the source for the 'productised' version to those who bought it and it must be licensed under the GPL - you can't stop them buying it then publishing it on extras for free.
Another example is Code Weavers that sells productised versions of WINE http://www.codeweavers.com/
Commercial activity generally springs up around narrow requirements. Broad requirements will usually be met by the community for free but the more narrow the thing you want is the more likely it is you'll have to part with cash to get it.
"Make this work on an N900" is an example of a narrow requirement.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 14:12
|
|
Posts: 189 |
Thanked: 121 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#113
|
Originally Posted by ewan
It would be entirely ridiculous for Nokia to create a competing payment/distribution system for OSS and leave OVI broken.
It's hardly irrelevant. No-one here is arguing that people shouldn't be able to sell things for a fee in principle (and I think it's unlikely any free software people would - it's completely not the point); the argument is that Ovi is all about proprietary software, and there's no need to be sad that a system for distributing and promoting proprietary software doesn't work too well on a free OS.
If people want to ague for a (Nokia supported?) system for paying for FOSS apps, either as donations or as bounties then I'm all for it.
If you don't like proprietary software don't write any and don't buy any but what we're talking about here is what customers want, what developers want and what the platform needs not what your specific preferences for what all software should be like. If you're willing to compromise all those things and the future of the platform itself to satisfy non-relevant idealogical principles then that's sad but not entirely uncommon in the OSS arena.
If code177 makes an application I like I want to be able to pay him for it. It's as simple as that and he shouldn't have to incorporate or buy liability insurance in order to complete that transaction. If he can't sell and I can't buy it odds are I'll have to go elsewhere to buy the application he creates and that people like him creates.
 |
|
2009-11-20
, 14:17
|
|
Posts: 850 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#114
|
Originally Posted by ewan
sorry, but you're completely wrong.
It's hardly irrelevant. No-one here is arguing that people shouldn't be able to sell things for a fee in principle (and I think it's unlikely any free software people would - it's completely not the point); the argument is that Ovi is all about proprietary software, and there's no need to be sad that a system for distributing and promoting proprietary software doesn't work too well on a free OS.
this whole discussion is about a way for developers to sell 1€ and 5€ apps without having to set up their own repositories and payment infrastructures.
That's what OVI is for, a nice and convenient way to sell apps, whether they are proprietary or not.
in the other thread quim said that Ovi will also contain OSS.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 14:24
|
|
Posts: 316 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on May 2006
|
#115
|
Originally Posted by sharper
Yes, there is also often some bundled software in there also. That is a different issue, bundling GPLd software with others. It's totally fine, the GPL components are still subject to the GPL and people are free to do with what they will. IIRC, Centos takes RedHat enterprise distro, strips out the non-free stuff and uses that as their distro (OK, they do a bit of extra work and tweaking but that's the core)
I guess it depends on how you define "rare". For example there are multiple distributions of Linux that you can pay money for - this is typically for a nice boxed version and support but you're paying for it anyway.
Another example is Code Weavers that sells productised versions of WINE http://www.codeweavers.com/
Your example was GIMP with a polished UI. AFAIK, GIMP is licensed under the GPL so your resulting version will be subject to the GPL.
Both of your examples involve software under non-GPL licenses.
"Make this work on an N900" is an example of a narrow requirement.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 14:26
|
|
Posts: 189 |
Thanked: 121 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#116
|
Originally Posted by jaark
I don't think you understand the point I'm making.
Your example was GIMP with a polished UI. AFAIK, GIMP is licensed under the GPL so your resulting version will be subject to the GPL.
Both of your examples involve software under non-GPL licenses.
Some here appear to be glad that Ovi doesn't make it easy to sell software for the N900 under the mistaken belief it will keep commercial development out and instead foster OSS applications which are free.
My point is OSS and Commercial are not competing concepts at all so the likely result is simply a lack of applications and consequently a lack of users.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 15:04
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#117
|
Originally Posted by sharper
OSS and Commercial software are not competing concepts per se. Business plans built around the two, however, *can* be competing.
My point is OSS and Commercial are not competing concepts at all so the likely result is simply a lack of applications and consequently a lack of users.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 15:09
|
|
Posts: 189 |
Thanked: 121 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#118
|
Originally Posted by attila77
Anything "could" compete on that basis - C++ and python could be competing, C and Java, Agile Development versus long life cycle etc etc etc
OSS and Commercial software are not competing concepts per se. Business plans built around the two, however, *can* be competing.
To pick one of the above though the N900 doesn't currently have Java. It would be foolish to think "Great! I like C and that means we'll get lots of C applications instead of Java ones!". Certainly all the applications you'll get will be in C (if that's all you support) but it doesn't mean you'll get all the applications you would have gotten if you supported C and Java.
Of course the N900 can run Java and probably will.
|
|
2009-11-20
, 16:01
|
|
Posts: 5,335 |
Thanked: 8,187 times |
Joined on Mar 2007
@ Pennsylvania, USA
|
#119
|
Originally Posted by SubCore
Nope. Extras is now to be enabled by default with the first maintenance release of Maemo 5. No date has been given, but as an update enabling portrait mode in the web browser has been promised by Christmas...
i thought extras is gonna be enabled by default in production devices?
__________________
maemo.org profile
maemo.org profile
|
|
2009-11-20
, 16:31
|
|
Posts: 850 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#120
|
Originally Posted by sjgadsby
this post is nearly a month older than the one i linked to
Nope. Extras is now to be enabled by default with the first maintenance release of Maemo 5. No date has been given, but as an update enabling portrait mode in the web browser has been promised by Christmas...
edit:
although, quim doesn't say anything about the timeframe in that one. i'm confused now
Last edited by SubCore; 2009-11-20 at 16:35.
 |
| Tags |
| one billion dollars! |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:17.
If people want to ague for a (Nokia supported?) system for paying for FOSS apps, either as donations or as bounties then I'm all for it.