> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:10, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good and valid questions. > > Primarily consumer side. I am a longtime user of Linux, 20+ years. I prefer > and advocate for open source software even when required to use Windows/Mac. > So in general in personal life with friends, family, acquaintances if the > subject is computers or software and the opportunity is reasonable I will > advocate for open source software. Many times simply as an opportunity to > educate people who may not know or be misinformed. > > I am a business man, an employee of a company. My employer is purely a > Windows shop. No development is a part of my day job. > > All of my use of development software is personal projects. I have not > released any software. Nothing has reached a point to release. I am however > wanting to release a couple of projects this next year. One I hope to make > money off of the use of and not the sale of. The other is personal, not > business software. I hope to have both in a releasable state sometime in the > next 6 months. > > My problem has always been indecision on what I thought would be the best > language for the project. I have always loved Pharo/Smalltalk. But sometimes > I explore other languages. Sometimes because they already have libraries and > bindings that would make the project easier. This is still a very reasonable > possibility. I am not a professional. I only program in my spare time. Due to > my job, sometimes that is very little. > > Regardless, the software I hope to get to a releasable stage I do plan on > releasing as MIT. It is the license I prefer and believe in. One need not > program or release software in order to be an advocate. > > I have no problem with someone writing closed source software. That is their > personal or business choice. Myself, I have spent way to much money on > software which was closed source and the company disappeared or changed > directions. Then I am stuck with software that has no future.
This is a bit my point: if you respect closed-source software and commercial restrictive licenses, you should also respect GPL and friends as valid choices and not describe them with negative adjectives. On ethical grounds, I like GPL a lot. It is also very successful (Linux, GNU). It is a valid choice. And yes, in certain license constructions that could mean you cannot use certain software. On a more positive note: I personally think that a system like Pharo is the ultimate open source incarnation as you can literally read and change each and every part in the same language (modulo the VM and plugins, but I am on the as-much-in-image as-possible side). I guess very, very few people actually looked inside the Linux kernel, C library or C compiler, let alone a driver, as these are much too complex and too far removed from your own program. In Pharo you can stumble into code in very deep areas such as graphics, the compiler, the debugger, etc ... > Jimmie > > > On 10/02/2017 03:36 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> Jimmie, >> >> Since you started this thread, I have to ask. >> >> You say you are an advocate of open source software. OK. But are you just on >> the consumer side or also on the producer side ? In other words, have you >> written/published/supported any non-trivial open source software ? >> >> Are you an academic or are you involved in commercial software (i.e. have >> you written closed software that you sell or otherwise make money off) ? >> >> Sven >> >>> On 2 Oct 2017, at 22:06, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> No I have not. I don't tend to go their direction very often. I am an >>> advocate of open source software but am not a fan of FSF's ethics or >>> political opinions. And as you say, that want all software to be GPL. Also, >>> I do prefer to hear third party opinions especially those who have >>> potentially court tested ones. That is ultimately where we find the true >>> definition and understanding. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Jimmie >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/02/2017 02:48 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote: >>>> But of course this is written by FSF, and for them GPL is not just a legal >>>> matter, but an ethical one (and from their perspective GPL being a virus >>>> infecting other code is a good comparison, because they really want to >>>> take over). >>> >> > >
