Re: C++ price
Open Source development seems like a logical thing to do if you think about
it. You are allready giving away your program in binary form, why not give
it out in source form aswell right?
Well look at how much money the Game Industry is making by licensing out
their "3D Engines". Some licenses cost up to 200,000 dollars!
What if the game developer that creates a 3D engine, sells their game as
Open Source, and lose millions because no one is going to license their 3D
Engine anymore since they get it for free for just a few bucks. Allthough I
heard there is something like LGPL for libraries, I'm not sure what it
stands for though..
Jason Leit,
Cheers : )
>At 07:21 PM 6/20/00 +0000, Jason Leit wrote:
>>>I know that you have just said that you are sick of free
>>>compilers. However, have you tried the Gnu Compiler Collection - it
>>>handles C, C++, Objective C, Fortran, Java and CHILL - while it may be
>>>free, it is used successfully by thousands of developers world-wide.
>>
>>Yes.
>>However, all these "thousands of developer world-wide" have one thing in
>>common. They are forced by law not only to release their sofwtare free of
>>charge, they are forced by law to do it by releasing the SOURCE CODE to
>>any
>>application compiled with a GNU compiler. You wrote
>>a cool game with DJGPP? Then you are forced to distribute the full source
>>to
>>it when you sell your game.
>
>Hi Jason!
>
>Some of us consider this to be an advantage. ;)
>
>Seriously though, I am embarrassed that I did not think to mention this.
>Thank you for mentioning it.
>
>I do almost all of my programming with open source tools - I forgot that
>not everyone knows that Uncle Stallman has an interest in their source code
>when they use GNU tools.
>
>>And your publisher won't just "sit around and
>>wait for the cows to come home", but will compile your source and sell the
>>game as it's own.
>
>Ah yes... however, then *they* need to worry about being sued by the Free
>Software Foundation. The primary GNU license is viral in nature. If a
>publisher redistributes open source code as their own application then they
>have three problems:
>
>1.) Moral - not a big issue for most of them...
>2.) If caught, the FSF may sue them.
>3.) Even if they make changes to the code, if they get caught, then that
>code is legally open source - they lose their investment.
>
>>Some publishers even have hackers employed to strip the
>>names out of products from people that apply for something to be
>>distributed, and sell it as their own.
>
>This is a venerable tradition in the software industry. ;) Software
>companies have used everything from industrial espionage to psuedo-legal
>teams of 'virgin' developers in stealing others source code.
>
>>So, GNU is great for hobby programming at home,
>
>I don't agree with that - I feel that a lot of the infrastructure for
>operating systems, languages, graphics engines, etc... should be licensed
>in a fashion similar to the GNU license. I believe that open standards and
>open source lead to better software for everyone. However, only time will
>tell.
>
>Note that I don't actually like *everything* about GNU/FSF - I feel that
>their stand has become more dogmatic than pragmatic in nature as time has
>passed. However, I do understand that it was/is an attempt to both free
>the programmer and improve the state of the art.
>
>>but the moment you place your app on the web, free or not, you are forced
>>to place the source right next to it or you can get sued by the FSF!
>
>For everyone who has an interest in this topic, drop by
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
>
>
>Ciao,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Zak Greant
>Creative Director
>Nucleus Information Service Inc.
>
>"I am rather like a mosquito in a nudist camp: I know what I ought to do,
>but I don't know where to begin."
>- Stephen Bayne
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
