Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140

    The definition of open source? Why should it be free?

    https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

    This is the opensource.com giving its explanation of what is "Open Source".

    Since the site is basically the word "Open Source" itself. I believe what it says can be considered the way open-source is, has been, and will be.

    Then,

    What could be the motives or reasons for someone to claim and spread the idea that "Open Source SHOULD be FREE"? And therefore everything within this Open-Source ecosystem should also be FREE?

    Just curious, after a long dragged out shit battle that just refuses to end.

    #Edit. Glad it ended.



  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kiel, Germany
    Posts
    3,486
    Originally Posted by TeaCrab View Post
    What could be the motives or reasons for someone to claim and spread the idea that "Open Source SHOULD be FREE"? And therefore everything within this Open-Source ecosystem should also be FREE?
    Could you please clarify what you mean by FREE in those questions of yours? Free as in "beer" or free as in "speech"?

    If you don't make this clear, be prepared for another shit battle circling around this very misunderstanding.
    Last edited by IkariShinji; 13-Aug-17 at 06:13.
    Asus Sabertooth 990 FX | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.6 GHz | 32 GB RAM | GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 680 OC 4GB
    Win 7 Ultimate x64



  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    47
    • Well imo, money and big companies have created an imbalance in humanity. They now have monetary power and political power. They invent and fix rules that serve only their interests. And the poor are increasingly poor and their numbers are rising. It also generates more ignorance in people. This is why we need alternative systems and open source is one of them.


    That being said I don't care about paid addons, if they worth the money I will buy them. If it doesn't worth the money I don't buy it and look somewhere else...
    Last edited by StroBlend; 13-Aug-17 at 06:07.



  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140
    Originally Posted by IkariShinji View Post
    Could you please clarify what you mean by FREE in those questions of yours? Free as in "beer" or free as in "speech"?

    If you don't make this clear, be prepared for another shit battle circling around this very misunderstanding.
    I'm not sure what you meant by "beer" and "speech". But let's say "beer".

    I agree money has always been troublesome.



  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kiel, Germany
    Posts
    3,486
    A major misunderstanding concerning OSS is that it has to be "free as in (free) beer", meaning it has to come at no cost (like a gratis beer). "Free as in (free) speech" on the other hand doesn't deal with financial matters at all, but is about what you are allowed to do with the software. So, the idiom "free as in beer or free as in speech" actually alludes to the difference between "freedom of charge" and "freedom of use" and the need to clarify which meaning of the word "free" is intended.

    I'm still not sure what you were actually asking about in your OP...
    OSS software having to be gratis? Or OSS vs. FOSS with regard to OSS licensing?

    Those two are completely different discussions. Hence you will have to make clear what you mean by "free" in your question...
    Last edited by IkariShinji; 13-Aug-17 at 09:45.
    Asus Sabertooth 990 FX | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.6 GHz | 32 GB RAM | GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 680 OC 4GB
    Win 7 Ultimate x64



  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140
    Originally Posted by IkariShinji View Post
    A major misunderstanding concerning OSS is that it has to be "free as in (free) beer", meaning it has to come at no cost (like a gratis beer). "Free as in (free) speech" on the other hand doesn't deal with financial matters at all, but is about what you are allowed to do with the software. So, the idiom "free as in beer or free as in speech" actually alludes to the difference between "freedom of charge" and "freedom of use".

    I'm still not sure what you were actually asking about in your OP...
    OSS software having to be gratis? Or OSS vs. FOSS with regard to OSS licensing?

    Those two are completely different discussions. Hence you will have to make clear what you mean by "free" in your question...
    I can be sure what I want to know is not about OSS vs FOSS with regard to OSS licensing. The person who claimed "Open Source should be free" had a clear message as that Open Source software should be gratis. And IMO, it doesn't have to be gratis, and the addons/plugins inside the OSS's ecosystem also doesn't have to be gratis. (#Edited: Does FOSS make any difference though? Since Blender is FOSS.)

    So I want to know what could be the possible reasons and motives for one to actively encouraging other people to think like so. And when people do think that way, what happens to Blender?



  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kiel, Germany
    Posts
    3,486
    Well, one might argue that "freedom" has a theoretical and a practical side:
    Being free to do with a piece of software whatever you like becomes meaningless if the price for that software is so high that only a few can afford it. And even a comparatively small fee for a piece of software will exclude millions of users from low-income countries, heck, almost any price-barrier will effectively stop a certain amount of people from being able to access and use the code.
    Last edited by IkariShinji; 13-Aug-17 at 10:19.
    Asus Sabertooth 990 FX | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.6 GHz | 32 GB RAM | GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 680 OC 4GB
    Win 7 Ultimate x64



  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140
    Originally Posted by IkariShinji View Post
    Well, one might argue that "freedom" has a theoretical and a practical side:
    Being free to do with a piece of software whatever you like becomes meaningless if the price for that software is so high that only a few can afford it. And even a comparatively small fee for a piece of software will exclude millions of users from low-income countries, heck, almost any price-barrier will effectively stop a certain amount of people from being able to access and use the code.
    Being FOSS, I understand this argument for Blender as a standalone software. But what about the sub-organisms living inside the ecosystem of Blender's FOSS principle? For example, blender's paid addons, do they challenge Blender's FOSS principle? If so, why?

    And, from a moral standpoint, if one has put in effort and work, why is it "wrong" to ask for compensation up front?



  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kiel, Germany
    Posts
    3,486
    For the record: I did not say that this is my opinion, just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm all with you about achievement having to be worthwhile - even financially.

    But if you search through this forum regarding paid addons, you will find many with a very strong opinion about everything Blender related having to be gratis... Just saying.
    Last edited by IkariShinji; 13-Aug-17 at 11:04.
    Asus Sabertooth 990 FX | AMD FX-8350 @ 4.6 GHz | 32 GB RAM | GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 680 OC 4GB
    Win 7 Ultimate x64



  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140
    Originally Posted by IkariShinji View Post
    For the record: I did not say that this is my opinion, just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm all with you about achievement having to be worthwhile - even financially.

    But if you search through this forum regarding paid addons, you will find many with a very strong opinion about everything Blender related having to be gratis... Just saying.

    I understand, and did not mean to imply that you said anything to invoke my questions. And thank you for the advice.



  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,449
    you're free to do whatever with it, so indirectly even if it was payed for, it then can be distributed for no payment
    free choice



  12. #12
    There is no "should" as far as I'm concerned. If you create it you determine for yourself if a price will be attached. And it's not something I would personally grumble about because there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I recognise no requirement, or argument, to keep open source content free, unless the creator expressly wishes it.

    If we're forcing the "free" element of open source, in the economical sense, then I don't think it's very "free" in the philosophical sense.
    Last edited by Macser; 14-Aug-17 at 05:25.



  13. #13
    Originally Posted by TeaCrab View Post
    Being FOSS, I understand this argument for Blender as a standalone software. But what about the sub-organisms living inside the ecosystem of Blender's FOSS principle? For example, blender's paid addons, do they challenge Blender's FOSS principle? If so, why?

    And, from a moral standpoint, if one has put in effort and work, why is it "wrong" to ask for compensation up front?
    It's not wrong to ask for compensation but you don't deserve compensation just for releasing something, meaning it's up to other people if they want to buy your addon or not. If it's not free less people are interested and those who are interested will compare it with free or cheaper alternatives before buying it. This means that your addon actually has to be better than the alternatives, at least for it to be profitable (or people will just use the free/cheaper one).

    Personally when buying a Blender addon I will ask the author to fix issues I found with it (again, to make it better). I think you're entitled to some level of support when buying something like an addon. That way it's not just compensation for the addon author but also to the customers of the addon which makes the community stronger. For free addons I'm more likely to let issues slide/fix them myself. That being said I have nothing against free addons.



  14. #14
    That's a reasonable position though. You make a choice. But you're not expecting that it should be free simply because it's open source. And yes. It's reasonable to expect it to work as advertised if there's a fee involved. If you make addons that don't work. Or work poorly you're unlikely to get repeat business.

    For free addons I'm more likely to let issues slide/fix them myself. That being said I have nothing against free addons.
    I don't think there's anyone out there that has a problem with free content. Which is why they aren't complaining about it. But there are those that don't seem to think an author should have a choice. That anything released as open source should be economically free. That seems to be the point of contention.



  15. #15
    Member sdfgeoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the best chocolate comes from
    Posts
    4,973
    Open source != free. Open source gives you (the end user) access to the source code and the permission to change the source code. Open source itself says nothing about distribution cost or distribution rights (eg copyright).

    Most major open source licences encourage no-cost products.
    Consider 'source development kits' for various game engines. The often cost money, you're not allowed to distribute the source, but they are, in one sense, open source licenses in that they give you access to the code.

    The GPL (blenders license) is a beautiful piece of art that is a 'hack' (old fashioned sense) of the copyright system. It uses this to become parasitic and impossible (or nearly so) to remove. Indeed, this feature has kept companies from developing their own version, instead getting them to contribute into blender itself. It does not prevent sale, and if you read up on it and understand it, you'll probably start using it for your projects....

    Paid software comes with the illusion of support, free software doesn't. That is the only difference other than cost. That or you pay as a donation to the author - before you've even used it.
    In my opinion, there will be a culture shift in ten or twenty years resulting in most software having (restricted) free licenses.
    I would like to see sunch an open an honest culture such that everything is free, but everyone pays what they think the product is worth. But that is either centuries away or a pipe dream.
    Last edited by sdfgeoff; 14-Aug-17 at 06:14.
    "Someone applied a roof texture to that wall" - martinsh

    Website: www.sdfgeoff.space



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •