So I posted this on the "Which ship will you jump to thread" and then wmarone replied with this.

I was in the middle of typing a response when I realized responding would just hijack that thread and turn it into an argument about open source vs not open source.

Gerbick responded later with this excellent quote:
Anyway, I think its pointless to argue why open source hasn't produced a compelling (read: successful) product to compete with proprietary products, whether they be Windows or OSX or iOS. Android is supposedly "open" but I've seen many complaints about its particular brand of open.

What I want to argue is that open source isn't all its cracked up to be, and that as a consumer, there's nothing inherently wrong or stupid (as wmarone seems to believe) with buying the superior product.

The definition of superior is obviously arbitrary, and in my case, I just want something that will interface my music, gaming, social, and web experiences very well.

The definition of superior for wmarone (sorry to keep calling you out) seems to begin with "open source" and not give a hoot what else is present.

Anyway, my thesis and argument is this: The state of Open Source would be much further advanced by getting rid of the GPL in all its current states, getting rid of the half-step that is the LGPL, and introduce a license that ALLOWS companies to use open code in a proprietary product. Give them a grace period (say 4 years) where they can get a competitive advantage out of that code before they have to release their source code.

A simple "source code must be available by the end of 4 years from the first distribution" would do wonders for open source.

Companies who aren't keen to open source in its current state can take code, make compelling products out of it, reap all the advantages they are owed as a result of their labors, then 4 years later their code is free for everyone to read and build on as well.

EDIT:

Feel free to take this thread in totally different directions.

The world doesn't revolve around commercialism good sir.

Indeed I would posit that we would be far less advanced were it not for licenses like the GPL. (You certainly wouldn't have the N900 in your hands right now without open source) The environment I think has become a very healthy one in the last decade. I wouldn't want it to be any different.

In a very huge way Linux and various Unix derivatives are the backbone of the commercial world, likely they will continue to be that way for decades to come. Your basic LAMP stack is, essentially, fully open. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to take you seriously if you were to suggest that such a setup was inferior to commercial alternatives.

Besides, outside of PHB circles, words like 'superior' simply don't matter in the business world - the best tool for the job does. If that happens to be open or closed it makes no difference. As an end user I'm going to pick the most affordable solution for whatever problem it is I face. Sometimes that means I pony up a couple of grand to Adobe, other times I hit the torrents for the latest Linux distro, maybe I open up a few terminals and craft together a solution using vi.

I don't think you can get the GPL Genie back in the bottle.

Yay, a "let's bash open source" thread!

There isn't if you're totally uninterested in not being locked in to a single vendor's platform. But that raises the question as to why you are -here- and not the Nokia end-user forums.

A license exists for that, it's called the BSD license. The GPL has an explicit purpose to keep the source open to the user so they cannot be locked in by proprietary software. Even a time delay would defeat the purpose as that allows them to keep you on the treadmill or be pushed into technical obsolesence. Just using open source shouldn't push the end user out of the forefront of technology.

If people want to use open source technology, they shouldn't be locked out of their systems, they also shouldn't be forced to "compromise", so quoted because your solution is entirely in the favor of proprietary software companies.

My issue is that MS and Apple are trying ensure that the trend we've had for the past 3+ decades of hardware under the end-user's control comes to a close, and is replaced with the trend of super locked down devices that serve 3rd party interests primarily. Currently they've got people accepting it on mobile devices, and I'd not be surprised if they move against desktop PCs in time (assuming they aren't pushed aside for the majority of the market by high powered Cortex-A9 class devices.)

Motorola abuses their customers by effectively making their devices closed (behavior that resulted in the GPLv3) and this provides -no- benefit to the end user, only Motorola. I could see the same thing happening to a MeeGo device.

My issue lies less with the platforms being closed, and far more with being prohibitively locked down by default.

"What I want to argue is that open source isn't all its cracked up to be, and that as a consumer, there's nothing inherently wrong or stupid (as wmarone seems to believe) with buying the superior product."

Jeez what do you think OSS is cracked up to be? For your needs proprietary software seems the most reasonable choice. I write this because, 1. you are fine with your machine being "locked down" as long as your media, games, and what not are well integrated into your computing experience and 2. you appear to want to minimize the amount of work you need to do to actualize this goal. On the other hand I like to make/build/fix things: book scanners, genealogy lists, repairing old homes, etc., and I use my computers to help me pursue these interests. For me OSS not only is in line with my desire for a symbiosis of work and creativity it is a life saver in terms of the amount of time I can save by customizing code to do what I want and working with the developer(s) to achieve my goals.

TBH I'm rather surprised to find someone with your needs on this forum, but life is full of surprises. Do what is best for you and I think everything will work out.

Allow me to say that while I was quoted, and I fully support what I said then in regards to the openness that is Maemo 5 and the repositories and the Ovi Store versus the walled gardens of the iTunes Music Store ecosystem and how they've gathered different kinds of attention and developer types... open source is very necessary and vital to anybody that uses a computer despite being a developer, designer, admin or casual user.

I give hell to a lot of OSS projects for being "design by committee" projects where the UI/UX tends to get bombed with so many perceivable thoughts of how it should be done - each user thinks their way is better or more right than the other. But let's be honest, the opposite is not always the better option either - where one person dictates the entire project and it has gaps in useability and/or forces the user to think and use a computer like that person.

I'd rather have a voice and say than not. So I lean towards open source moreso than not. In fact, the fact that Linux and openness is being embraced on my phone and by more of the apps that support my livelihood is great. And down deep, I want those devs to "win"... simply because the community has more control of the ship as it goes forward.

But I'll not bash the open source crowd... ever. I just would love for it to pay off in the same ways (besides popularity/notoriety) as the people that make apps in the iTMS ecosystem.

Too much taking and not enough giving. If you first were to get rid of all software and hardware copyrights, licenses and patents, then I say let companies try to lock down their stuff any way they like. The market should do the rest.

Everything in my house at least uses, if not completely powered by, OSS.

From my wife's computer (Ubuntu), to my computer (Ubuntu, but I also have World of Warcraft on it), to my childrens computer (various Linux distro's), to my phone (N900 with Maemo - powered by OSS, even if it does have closed components.), to my wife's phone (Android-based. OSS operating system, closed google apps)... my entire life is driven and powered by OSS.

To say that it has netted "nothing" compared to the closed source alternatives is ignorance at it's finest. When some of the leading software on the market today (Firefox, Apache, PHP, MySql, PostgreSQL) are all OSS then that's quite a bold, and wildly innacurate statement.

I will admit, it seems to be harder for OSS communities to successfully manage to get a working, viable solution together without the backing and support of a major company (which likely uses non-OSS philosophies in other areas of their business) - I would argue that when they do get working their products are superior to the closed-source alternatives. As, not only are they at least mostly feature-equivalent, but they are also free.. which is a heck of a hurdle to get over when you're not rich.

Don't forget the compelling aspect of the GPL is that it empowers the end user, the recipient of binary distribution, not the developer/distributor.

The end-user is guaranteed to have access to the source code and to have rights to distribute it and derivatives of it.

The best example I have of why this is a good thing, relates to a Windows app called UI-View which was developed by a radio ham for other radio hams to use. It was released a shareware, but the majority of freeloaders using it didn't pay for it, which upset (quite rightly) the author. He was so annoyed that he specified in his will that the source code should be destroyed, so that the freetards wouldn't get any updates.

Well, he died, and so did any hope for the multitude of UI-View users (even those that paid) that even to this day don't have a better option than to use antiquated code on new Windows platforms.

I wouldn't put myself in their shoes - I don't rely on anything that I don't have the source code for.

I don't know if it's me always being a cynic but I think what once started out as a movement to topple Windows OS has turned into an 'Animal Farm' situation. Not saying good things haven't happened nor that it is a bad alternative direction.

I don't think that Microsoft or Windows had anything to do with the origins of Linux or GNU, which started off with the intention of providing a free, open-source UNIX like OS.

If there is a movement against Windows, IMHO it is a movement consisting of users who know what they want.