eric, go tell it to your mom, because i don’t really give a flying <#$%*>.
First you defend it, then you found out you were wrong, and now you don’t care.
Ahh, that’s just great.
Anyway, thanks for being honest.
no, you’re wrong i actually never cared.
<edit> i see it like this, eric,…there are things in this world worth getting pissed off at, but this is not one of them. I will not be dragged into a debate about something as trivial as a program.
take it a bit further than you ditto 
Free= Without charge. (dictionary definition that is most applicable in this situation.)
the free that Open Source people are trying to argue is.
Free= Not controlled by obligation or the will of another:
sorry guys, but the industry standard of the word “free” when is relation to any sellable goods, is “Without charge.”
Open Source is Free, it is Without Charge, and also free Not controlled by obligation or the will of another:
but it does somewhat piss me off that people EXPECT things to be donated to the OS community, there is no obligation for this to be done, and frankly its an insult to get grumpy at people if they don’t donate their work.
you live in a capitalist society, if you can’t handle this then vote at the elections for socialists or left wing people. until your society goes socialist then you should respect people trying to live in the current society.
Alltaken
I’ll try to put some things in perspective:
First, Open Source Software does NOT mean Cross Platform: there are many Open Source projects that run on one OS only. So even if Dogwaffle would be Open Source it could still be Windows-only. So the argument that Dogwaffle not being Open Source is linking it to Windows is clearly a very ‘uninformed argument’.
Second, Open Source is about giving certain forms of freedom in relation to using software. One of those freedoms is the availability of the source-code so you can develop the application into certain directions. However, this particullar freedom is NOT solely available with Open Source software. The commercial software world has another way of giving developers freedom to extend and add functionality: SDK or Software Development Kit, and Dogwaffle DOES have this. So Modron’s point of view in this regard is valid.
So while Dogwaffle is not Open Source, it actually DOES give a programmer the option to extend the program. Besides this it (this particullar version) IS freeware. The fact that Eric can not run it (probably because he is running Linux) doesn’t say anything about the quality of the software. I know of many Open Source projects that run ONLY on Linux but that doesn’t make them more or les quality-wise either.
I’ll leave it at that 8)
Alltaken: I don’t know about industry standard, but on the website it says “freeware”, and that’s, atleast how I understand (probably dont :)) things, a “gratis”-program only.
sorry for sounding harsh,…by way of explanation, i just got through wrestling with a bunch of blockheads over war, and human suffering, and racism, and frankly i’m all argued out. so that’s my excuse, though anyone who knows me, knows that I am prone to snap at people from time to time, for which I apologize. %|
Modron: I wasn’t exactly kind to you in the beginning, so I completely understand your actions.
hey no biggie.
“freeware” is even MORE SPECIFIC.
lets start in a list
Open Source = everyone owns the rights
freeware = privatly owned, freely given
mailware = send the person a letter to use it (basicly freeware)
trialware/shareware/demo = privatly owned, semi disabled version, either time limit, or reduced features.
spyware = the CIA makes it well
Adware = yeah says it all
malware = software with malicious code, like hotbar, and other IE changer software, that might help install virus’s and spyware…
freeware is very very well defined and is not a term that is open to interpretation. just as shareware, and other such distribution methods.
for example trillian 0.7 is freeware. but the next version up is not.
trillian 0.7 is a standalone software and hence not a demo version or trial version.
Alltaken
To be even more specific: with Open Source everyone does NOT own the right, that is called Public Domain software. When software is ‘in the public domain’ then actually nobody owns any rights and everyone is free to do with it as pleased.
Not so with Open Source software. In this case the developer does own the copyright and/or intelectual property of the sourcecode. The developer decides to make the sourcecode available but this is always linked to a ‘license’. The particular Open Source license determines what can be done with the sourcecode. For example, software can be Open Source without being free software.
Blender is Open Source software but you can not do with it as you like, you must adhere to it’s license (GPL). In this case the license is there to actually protect the software being (and staying) freely available as Open Source. The license also states several things you are NOT alowed to do (like using the code to develop your own commercial 3D software).
The Blender license is here:
http://www.blender.org/modules/documentation/htmlII/x11935.html