quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
Why do you define everything in life in terms of money? What if the user has no money to give? Do they not deserve to be able to use anything?

---

That is EXACTLY the point. If a person has no money to buy food, do they have the right to steal it?

quote:

---

And your statement also implies that a product is worth whatever price tag you choose to place on it, which is also pretty silly. If I decide to price ICQ at $2 billion, it''s not suddenly worth $2 billion just because someone wants to use it.

---

That''s where the law of supply and demand comes in. Certainly the demand for ICQ is not such that people would pay $2 billion. Economics 101 teaches you the curves that gross receipts = # of sales * price. Those 2 numbers are related. The more you raise the price, the fewer you may sell... the less you charge, the more you will sell, but you will make less per item. The "market price" is the point where you maximize the combination of those two numbers... usually someplace in the middle. I have a good bet that if you charged $2 billion for ICQ, your equation would be $2,000,000,000 * 0 sales = $0. You certainly have the right to charge that price and people certainly have the right to CHOOSE not to pay it... but NOT partaking of the product. They do NOT have the right to say "it costs too much, I will steal it instead." They would have broken the implied contract between producer and consumer.

quote:

---

People out there are using one of my programs. (Only 1492 downloads, but hey, it''s better than nothing.) I am not getting paid, nor do I mind.

---

But that is a choice that you, as producer, are making. If a producer does not choose to give away his product for free, the consumer does not have the right to insist that he does so.

quote:

---

I am saying that people should take a more holistic view of development and sell the product as a whole. Why would giving the source for free on the net mean that the programmers don''t get paid?

---

And if Coke gave away their formula - something they worked long and hard on (and spent money to develop), everyone else would be allowed to copy it... and then Coke wouldn''t be all that special any more, would it?

quote:

---

Call me a communist, but hey, sharing stuff tends to benefit everyone.

---

... the thought DID cross my mind.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

so, everything should be "open source"...
if you look at a filme like final fantasy, you should be able to download all characters...
if you buy a cpu, you should get the core-design pattern...
if you buy a coke, the formula to mix it yourself...

but why? why don''t you use the things which exists and create others, which do not match you desire by yourself...

do you just need the code to find out how to code it? you can ask read some researches and follow their tips... or use your brain... why do anybody need the code of somebody else? to make it better? make your own code... make it better...

quote:

---

Why do you define everything in life in terms of money? What if the user has no money to give? Do they not deserve to be able to use anything?

---

Take this argument and apply it to anything non-programming and see what happens. What if the person at the car lot has no money to give? Do they not deserve to be able to drive something away? What if the person at the grocery store has no money to give? Do they not deserve to walk out with a gallon of milk? What if the person at the movie theater has no money to give? Do they not deserve to see the movie anyway?

Yes, it''s just as silly when applied to software.

Welcome to civilization. Everything works this way, whether it''s bartering for chickens in some third world country, or billing for services rendered here. Something for something.

I think the open source model is inherently flawed. I think it can work in a few circumstances, but it simply can''t be applied across the board.

Take care,
Bill

quote:

---

Original post by Siebharinn
...bartering for chickens in some third world country...

---

Dudie, keep your misperceptions of the so-called "Third World" to yourself. It''s nothing like your stereotypes.

Here''s the problem with Open source development: it levels the playing ground. And a level playing ground is a severe disadvantage to competition. Oh, sure, "the user will benefit", but the producers will not be able to distinguish their products which will shrink their profit margins, which will eventually lead them to drop out of the business - which will cut jobs and eventually come around to bite the user in the ass.

If I discover a mindblowing new graphics technique, I have no intent whatsoever of allowing my competitors access to it. I intend to bring a product to market that utilizes it, make a ton of profit, and once the major earning period is past (and comparable technologies have been discovered or I''ve discovered yet another cash cow) release the source code (and thereby equalize my competitors, who were trying to catch up with me). And they''ll be trying to do the same thing to me.

The above is what id Software does, and it works beautifully. They don''t engage in Open Source development, but they do donate source code after the fact. That I encourage and applaud, but I do not encourage Open Source in as high-risk a sector as high-profile/performance software development.

As always, just my thoughts.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Everyone,

Obviously open-source is a topic of great contention on this board... I should have never mentioned it at all, because now I can''t get an answer to my question out of this thread. I guess I''ll have to start a new one, because I just don''t CARE about open source vs. copyrights except as it pertains to the question of whether monetary considerations make for better or worse games. Next time I ask, I''ll be sure to phrase the question so open source won''t even be an issue.

Thank you for your time, and I''m sorry I stirred all this up.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

quote:

---

Original post by krez
some of yous guys are [deliberately?] twisting this issue.
i get paid to program where i work, and i get a paycheck every two weeks. i don''t give a DAMN what they do with my code once i compile a working program and put all the source in the "save all source in case we missed a bug or need updates" archive. they can put it on the internet as open source

---

Do you think the company you work for would have the money to
pay you if they gave their source away?
its a domino effect, krez- if joe-schmoe can compile his own
copy of Quake4, why is he going to buy it? if he doesnt buy it,
how is your company going to fund further development?

quote:

---

Why do you define everything in life in terms of money?

---

unfortunately, the world revolves around money.
sad but true? if you want to live a modern lifestyle (ie- not
a farmer or monk or whatever) then you must have a source
of income.
almost everything in life can be defined in terms of money.

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

quote:

---

Original post by krez
some of yous guys are [deliberately?] twisting this issue.

open source != no pay  

---

No, but Open Source does typically mean...

Open Source = Free Code

quote:

---

i''m not haughty enough to think i deserve royalties for something that i programmed a year ago and then promptly forgot about.

---

Point #1

If a company chooses to release a product as open source, that''s their choice. What I''m talking about is specifically developing Open Source software rather than openly releasing outdated code.

Imagine Microsoft releasing the next version of MS Office as Open Source. It would take years upon years to recoup the costs of developing something like this through selling manuals and training. I seriously doubt they would stay in business long if they produced the quality of applications they do now.

On top of it, they would have a slew of other companies offering training and books for their product which would further reduce their income.

Point #2

The big open source line of bettering the world is hardly applicable to old outdated code. Besides hobby developers, how is old technology going to do much good for anyone. They will still always be behind the curve.

Frankly, I think companies releasing some source can be a good thing in some cases. For example, where I work I am responsible for writing code and modifying code on a pre-packaged application that we paid x million dollars for. My life would be much easier if some of the source was made available. But should every Tom, Dick or Harry have that source available? Only if they pay for it.

borngamer

Personally I like Open Source, most of the tools I use are Open Source (mingw, xemacs,gimp,povray,SDL,linux), I feel I am in debt to them, which is why if I ever make some noticeable profits, those guys will be getting a donation from me/my company, which brings me to my point of view.

a Game is entertaiment software, it serves no purpose other than entertain the player (this is a very general definition), by playing a game you wont be making any money, so I see a game as an END product, and as such the open source mentality does not work with games, Open source projects are eighter for fun or maintained by donations, I can Imagine someone who is so grateful with the Open Source TOOLS he/she used to make an end product making money donations to the Open Source projects that helped him/her in making his product, however I cant imagine a game player sending $50 to an Open Source game producer after having finished the game, unless its a briliant game, but lets face it, you need pre-release funding to make a good game (paying artists, programmers, designers makes em work better ) and even comercial games with funding suck, will you take your chances?

In all the entertaiment situations I can think of in real life as an example, I find that you have to eighter pay for the ticket first, or put your quarters on the machine before actually being entertained, why should it be different with games?

I hope you understand my ideas, sometimes I get confusing, its the language I think

quote:

---

Dudie, keep your misperceptions of the so-called "Third World" to yourself. It''s nothing like your stereotypes.

---

You''re wrong, of course. Do you not ever watch the news? Read the paper? Watch the discovery channel? Heck, have you ever *been* anywhere? I have, so you can take your "misperceptions" and "stereotypes" and stick them.

I can agree with the rest of your post though. That''s the basic thrust of the last half of Stephenson''s "In the beginning was the command line". How after a certain period of time, a technology is effectively worthless. A DOOM-like game couldn''t make any money now, so id doesn''t lose anything by releasing the source. But they certainly didn''t do it when DOOM was new, they charged a big licensing fee for it. Once it has no value to them (value being money earning potential) then they gave it away. I admire the gesture, don''t get me wrong, but it''s not particularly altruistic.

Take care,
Bill

quote:

---

Original post by eldee
Do you think the company you work for would have the money to
pay you if they gave their source away?
its a domino effect, krez- if joe-schmoe can compile his own
copy of Quake4, why is he going to buy it? if he doesnt buy it,
how is your company going to fund further development?

---

i''m sorry, that was a very bad example, it didn''t help my point at all... someone mentioned earlier the horror they felt when they found out that their work was being released as open source; i just meant to point out that they most likely got paid for the time/work they did, and they shouldn''t care about what their boss does with the code afterwards (the only possible exception to this is if they did the work without being paid, expecting money later on, and then found out it was going open source; if that happened they are gullible and deserve it).
if you don''t want to write open source code, then just don''t do it. sell your stuff or whatever you like, and keep the source code in a safe for all i care. but don''t bitch about other people who want to release their code! why does it matter to you if someone else doesn''t mind not making the money they deserve? some people like to share; get over it.

quote:

---

almost everything in life can be defined in terms of money.

---

almost everything in life can be defined in terms of lots of things... money, power, happiness, et cetera... the choice to use the "money" sunglasses instead of the "personal satisfaction" ones when deciding on one''s viewpoint is a personal choice. don''t try to push yours on everyone else.

borngamer:

quote:

---

Point #1
If a company chooses to release a product as open source, that''s their choice. What I''m talking about is specifically developing Open Source software rather than openly releasing outdated code.

---

that would be the company''s choice, don''t you think? obviously even microsoft would fail as a company if they "specifically developed Open Source software"... generally companies don''t do such suicidal projects; but, if they should happen to, who the hell are you to say they can''t? your previous posts make it seem like open source is threatening your way of life... lemme see... ah here it is:

quote:

---

I just think that Open Source will eventually be the death of programming if it get''s a big enough foot hold in the market.

---

i agree with this whole "if you work you should get paid for it" thing of yours... but you are confusing the programmer with the theroetical "open source" company! if you work (programming) for a company, you will get paid for your work; if the company gives away the source code, they lose money, but you still already got paid whil working . so yes, open source might kill a company, but don''t act like programmers are being forced to code for free!

quote:

---

Point #2
The big open source line of bettering the world is hardly applicable to old outdated code. Besides hobby developers, how is old technology going to do much good for anyone. They will still always be behind the curve.

---

true, even the DOOM engine was a "hand-me-down" because they couldn''t get more money for it... and everyone knew this and everyone still loved getting their hands on that code. but nobody expected to get the DOOM3 engine for free; they knew it was for the old game.
however, you are forgetting all the open source projects that aren''t hand-me-downs from some company who is done with it. i know, i know, you already said you don''t think GNU/Linux or FreeBSD are worth a sh*t, but you may have failed to notice that that "free and therefore worthless" code has been scoured by thousands upon thousands of programmers, and companies HAVE made money using this "worthless" code (i seem to remember a price tag on RedHat).
as for a quick solution to your "i''m going to lose my way of life" problem: when you stop receiving paychecks, stop coding and look for another paying job. i''m pretty sure it isn''t legal to force someone to program a computer without pay.

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)