OpenSource everywhere what do you really think about it. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: hisense999
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 06:52:24 pm
content: As now are years of OpenSource boom...I want to ask you all what do you relly think about OpenSource software/hardware personally I hate OS but I want to hear opinions of other ppl what they think about OpenSource is it good or bad, give something usefull and good kick into technology or is more a trolling which usually steal good hi-tech ideas and try put it for free which sometimes don't give a start chance for real companies to grove up, because of everywhere opinions are only how briliant idea come with OpenSource and how this change the world and open knowledge for everyone is it in your opinion true ?And the last question what profit inestead of build own ego have a persons which make OpenSource things ?

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 07:04:23 pm
content: It works.Free and Open Source itself are probably the most clean software you can get when it comes to intellectual property rights. Because everyone can get the source code it is extremely trivial to prove if some particular OpenSource software is stolen from somewhere. It is for sure not absolutely clean, because event he most trivial stuff these days is patented, but it is as clean as it gets. Therefore, your claim that it is stealing high-tech ideas is baseless and you should seriously stop believing the junk Microsoft is telling you.In fact, it is the other way around. Open source is regularly stolen. The worst offenders are embedded device manufacturers. And among those the ones from Asia.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 07:11:55 pm
content: Why do you hate open source?Some open source software is great: OpenOffice.org, Inkscape, The Gimp, Firefox etc.I don't see why any end user would prefer a licence forbidding them from copying, redistributing and modifying the software as opposed to one which does. If you think most open source software blows, you're entitled to your opinion but surely it would be better if your favourite piece of software become open sourced?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 07:15:53 pm
content: Strictly speaking open source only applies to software (source = source code = software). Open hardware designs are interesting too, although of course there is nothing "free" about hardware like there is with free software. You still have to buy the parts and manufacture the product.If you take the view that I do, that the patent system is being abused and that intellectual property is theft, then open designs are a really good thing. Right now the only value of patents is to big corporations who can use them to enforce a legal monopoly and lock out competition. This is never good for you and I, the consumer. We are being screwed by rich people.The best way to defeat the abuse of patents is to place as much knowledge as possible in the public domain. Make sure everything that could be construed as an "invention" is published and documented. Patents can't be granted (in the USA at least) if the claims are not original.One of the goals of the patent system is that ideas are published and not kept secret. Well publishing everything freely is a better way of achieving that goal than allowing people to patent things that should be available for the public good.As to how you make money when information is free? The answer is in application support, services, project execution, consulting, lower cost and better quality than the competition, better distribution and availability, and so on. Allowing (or forcing) people to compete in manufacturing and selling the same designs can only be good for consumers.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 08:14:18 pm
content: I agree that the patent system isn't always good but I think it's much better than the current copyright system.People claim that illegal downloads are killing music when in reality it's not, copyright is doing more harm to music than good. The idea that someone just needs to make one hit record and they don't have to work for the rest of their life due to royalties is retarded because they're getting paid for doing sweet fuck all.In China, piracy is rife, something like only 10% of music is paid for, yet musicians still make money, how may you ask? By performing it. Downloads and CDs are just there as a means to advertise gigs and concerts. I think this is good because people are only being paid for working, not for doing nothing. Copyright harms music because people can't use the work of other without having to pay huge royalties, even if they use a tiny sample of the original.In reality, if copyright were abolished, there would be music, it wouldn't die, there would just be no record companies. Of course I'm not suggesting for a second that copyright needs to be abolished, just reformed, perhaps copyright should expire after something like 20 years and there should be less limits on how the creator can limit what people can do with their work? Using the work of other should be allowed providing it's not just copied verbatim or perhaps royalties could be paid but limited depending on how much of the original is used?I don't have all the answers but the current system where people are prosecuted for merely sharing information is totally undemocratic. People have allied open source software with communism (when in fact the reverse is true), in reality the current copyright system if anything is fascist. I think the balance between the consumer and creator needs to be redressed.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 31, 2011, 08:18:57 pm
content: Try splitting paragraphs in multiple sentences, it makes them easier to read.Quote from: hisense999 on July 31, 2011, 06:52:24 pmIs this based on experience or ignorance?Quote from: hisense999 on July 31, 2011, 06:52:24 pmMany innovations came from open-source. The whole Internet was build on open-source (although they probably didn't call it open-source) software, commercial operating systems like Windows came late, I believe even Windows '95 didn't support TCP/IP by default. You might have heard of some small companies that were able to profit from this 'Internet' thing. Apache httpd still runs on the majority on the websites, and most large providers run open-source mail transfer agents. Same with databases and programming languages. Probably all of the software running on eevblog.com is open-source. Embedded Linux is used on a lot of appliances. Gcc, one of the most popular compilers (many commercial ARM compilers are based on it, as are the Microchip compilers for the larger PIC's), is open-source. Many commercial IDE's are build on Eclipse or Netbeans (eg. MPLAB X). Some of the major browsers (Firefox, Chrome) are open-source.This certainly isn't the case in all industries, open-source EDA tools seem far behind the high-end commercial tools for example, same for graphics tools, but there are plenty of successful open-source projects to prove that the idea is viable.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 04:54:07 am
content: Open Source software and Open Source Hardware are two entirely different beasts.Which one (or both) don't you like, and why?As always, both have their pros and cons...Dave.

author: hisense999
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 07:10:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 01, 2011, 04:54:07 amWith idea of OpenSource & OpenHardware is nothing wrong but I hate realisation of it. Just always this going in same way - someone come with idea create basic things and after this project which have bright future is splitted into 10 distributions by others.Just good example is Linux and why this never succeed more than a platform for servers - in old time some ppl going into RedHat project other Mandrive and other into Debian now Ubuntu and god know how many more distributions I just give up with Linux many years ago - this never have one standard and always going to 20 projects instead of one which getting upgrade every one - two years and in time between it only patches.3D printing - very nice idea to bring 3D printing for all ppl in the world - I'm engineer and when I try to get idea where to start and what to build it is again old Linux fail story... first which RepRap 3D printer to pick up uhmm same as with Linux Linux don't means Linux have many different distributions so 3D printing also: Original Mendel, Prusa Mendel, Huxley, Legacy: Darwin and at least 3-6 more. It's only list of hardware then things come into software where is same story again everyone get his own idea and I discovered exist at least 3 possible OpenSoftware to use with it without one simple and stable.Even when Google released Chrome so much ppl take it and start to create own projects in the old Linux fail style I don't know how is today but after chrome started many years ago was enough 2 weeks to see 3 separate project based on Chrome sources.And many many more examples...But also exist few OpenSources which follow straight way are stable and usefull for example WireShark which I use sometimes.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 10:45:39 am
content: Open source is like knowledge you get in the library or from school, one programs your CPU the other your brain. It works well in academia and has a similar model by which academic knowledge if financed, made and then given away. Just as what is taught in academia has to be molded to fit your real world business operation, likewise open has to fit your business or industry.Yes, you can see many variations in products written with open source until the application matures, until that happens you are seeing really R&D and field trial close together.A problem with open or free software is support; if you find a bug that causes your operation to halt, you are on your own until the developers decide to fix it. If you have someone local who can read the source and do the fixes, then you are still paying for support, with that employee's time.Many open software are sufficiently mature that support is mostly in user training rather than technical. If that's reached, its very competitive.I've migrated and used open applications for over a decade, starting with the original Mozilla browser, through to Trucrypt and OpenOffice, from A for Apache, to "Z" for 7-zip.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 10:47:23 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 31, 2011, 07:15:53 pmAh, just don't forget that the freedom in free software also includes the freedom to take money for it.

author: joelby
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 12:15:16 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on August 01, 2011, 10:45:39 amActually, this is the beauty of open source software. Turn the sentence around and you get:QuoteAt least with OSS you have the option of fixing things yourself or, if it is a serious enough problem, paying someone to fix it for you. Don't think for a second that developers of commercial software will bend over backwards to fix the bug you've discovered or add the feature you need in a timely manner.Commercial software developers are typically too busy adding 'vaults' and moving things to the cloud than to fix bugs and improve functionality that users genuinely care about.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 12:31:03 pm
content: If you are a small company, a big software company will not listen, so a lot depends on how well you are matched. However, if you are Oracle or Peoplesoft, you'll probably get nowhere unless you are Microsoft Inc. or Google.For software that cost $1M and up annually, most will allow negotiated license agreements. They 'partner' with us as the bugs are applicable to all their sites, and we hold them liable for failure of their software in key areas. Repair is fast, they will even send the engineer personally to diagnose fault. But routine upgrades take years.Quote from: joelby on August 01, 2011, 12:15:16 pm

author: img
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 01:11:30 pm
content: OpenSource or not - it all evens out in the end.Very few designers can resist the temptation to turn their initially simple designs into bloatware, and both proprietary and free things suffer from this.In both cases money is charged, in both cases there is a fair bit of free will.And in both cases, if your project stopped because of a bug, and you don't know the system in sufficient detail to fix it yourself, you're stuck.

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 01:12:08 pm
content: Quote from: hisense999 on July 31, 2011, 06:52:24 pmyou have to splitt the whole OpenXXX to 3 categories:- 60% useless things, every idiot is publishing whatever crap, mostly copy/paste from other useless projects- 30% are business model - tell ppl OpenXXX and sell useless crap (groving, every day more and moreuseless thigns from 60% crap category moving over here)- 10% usefull things, good maintained codeSo the third category is good thing, for all, no doubt. The other too are like a cancer for OpenXXX comunity.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 01:23:07 pm
content: I think the open source concept is awesome, both from the software and hardware perspective. I can mostly speak of software development, as I am a coder. I have utilised a lot of projects that have open licensing schemes, ranging from C libs to entire full-fledged software tools. Of course, quality can vary a lot, but there are some gems out there. And contrary to belief, you can actually use open source stuff in commercial applications, which I have many times - you just have to pay attention what the licensing demands are.

author: sacherjj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 02:59:52 pm
content: Open Source software allows most of the systems we use today to exist. Linux is under the covers of more than you think.Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on August 01, 2011, 01:23:07 pmA good example of this is HP's WebOS phone/tablet operating system. It is Open Source in the base Linux kernel and components, with proprietary icing on the top. For this reason, there are many developers who are skilled at Linux "hacking". New kernels are released to allow overclocking. Ubuntu was running on the HP Touchpad tablet, 15 days after launch. Many, many cool things are being done because the base is a common known piece of software.The same thing is happening with hardware. Arduino is an Open Sourced hardware that allows a common base. It has unarguably reduced the barrier to entry of those not well versed in electronics, to use microcontroller projects. It has allow made standard for add on boards, which has helped even non-open source hardware developers to fill the needs of the Arduino users.If you can get what you need from an open sourced platform, it often gives you more freedom. Past that, there are fundamental reasons to support it, including the FACT that our Patent System in the US is completely screwed up. It is currently large companies with a cold war. They each hold patents that could annihilate each other. It is not unlike the nuclear showdown between USSR and US, but in business. It is stupid. Innovation is killed. Small companies can't bring revolutionary products to market without the fear of being sued into oblivion. It is complete and utter crap. Something needs to change. Open Source is a small part of this change.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 03:18:33 pm
content: Quote from: sacherjj on August 01, 2011, 02:59:52 pmTell me about it. We had to submit a patch for our iOS app because of the Lodsys fiasco that has unfolded in the past couple of weeks. More infuriating, we are not even operating in the US, and yet patent trolling still affects us indirectly.Anyway, I wouldn't go as far as open source will the cure for all our ills in the software/hardware industry, but it definitely helps to some extent.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 04:12:14 pm
content: Yes, that's a good point. Tomtom GPS units run the portable Linux kernel, and roughly out of nowhere, the Android OS gave all of us a smartphone reducing the price by from 60-90% of an iPhone. Granted Android has its flaw it a good model of the results of proprietary versus open.Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on August 01, 2011, 03:18:33 pm

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2011, 07:31:23 pm
content: Quote from: hisense999 on August 01, 2011, 07:10:26 amIt seems that you don't know many thing about Linux and GNU/Linux.Stop confusing Open Source with Free software.Alexander.

author: hisense999
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2011, 07:05:16 pm
content: Quote from: tinhead on August 01, 2011, 01:12:08 pmAbout this 30% I'm worry this already cover 60%. Is very simple to discover this kind of projects - wikipedia script described whole project and messy documentation which say everything and nothing about whole project, main website very professional where is more easy to find links where to buy overpriced hardware than schematics and how to build it for example FTDI + PIC with few LED's and connectors for super cheap price of 30$ sometimes only not assembled kit - even if gerber files can be found usually for make a job a little complicated PCB is only as SMD format smallest parts as possible for simplify "build it in home" process is rare to find - "commercial" and "for build in home" format of PCBBut everyone is so happy of this because "look this is "Open" this is free" so 30$ earned, no support, no warranty no headache... new way of business using "Open" face but I preffer to pay 90$ and get a good quality product instead of donate this parasites which scared real business to bring better product on the market, too many companies are worry when they see something "Open" then they preffer to not competite with it and move to other field.

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2011, 12:32:40 am
content: QuoteThe hell it didn't. (for suitable definitions of "steal" and "ideas.") Or are you claiming that it was never an intent of linux window managers to provide a "look and feel" similar to proprietary operating systems like Windows and MacOS? OS may never have stolen "legally actionable intellectual property", but that's not the same as borrowing ideas. The fear is that a company trying to produce a commercial product, using a "young" implementation to produce income to fund additional development, might be undercut by an "open source" version of approximately the same thing, built by bored hackers with idealistic/political motivations who may or may not produce/support the follow-on features envisioned by the would-be commercial product. I think this shows up a lot with compilers, for instance. Companies trying to implement clever compilers for 8/16 bit CPUs (say, Atmel AVR) have to compete with free versions of gcc. Gcc isn't particularly wonderful in the 8-bit world, but it is free... (partially) as a result, commercial compilers seem to come from "big" companies and seem to be particularly expensive...Other thoughts on Open Source:Open source isn't new. DECUS was sharing software back in the 60s. LOTS of hacks for mainframes in 60s and 70s. CPMUG in the 70s and 80s. Most TCP Networking stacks are based on Berkeley SW from the 80/90s. Hardware used to come with schematics attached to the inside of the chassis. REQUIREMENTS for Government-funded projects to be shared (TCP/IP again!)I don't buy the argument that intellectual property is evil, and we should all make our livings from doing maintenace and customizations. It includes the idea that software (in particular) ought to require continuous maintenance. And it makes creators into janitors, devaluing the value of thought. There was a time when only material wealth and labor were considered to have value; the idea that ideas have value is one of the major philosophical advances of the modern age.I particularly dislike "viral" open source licenses (GPL/etc.) Requiring people you share something with to support your political agenda is ... wrong. There are already fields where the people writing proprietary software are not allowed to even look at open source SW in the same field (compilers being the obvious example, again.) There are MANY proprietary endeavors where using open source SW (or pieces thereof) will require approval of a committee of lawyers. I don't think that that supports the general idea. (To be fair, I think that FSF has been pretty good at only complaining about appropriately "serious" violations of GPL licenses, and the situation isn't really any worse than including patented/must-be-licensed-from-three-different-vendors technology in international standards.) But I keep waiting for the trolls to come out.I don't think it was the intent of the "Open Source Movement" to support large groups of lawyers, rather than engineers. But sometimes it looks like that's the way it's headed.There are large subsets of "development" that are handled particularly poorly by existing open source licenses. Deeply embedded (eg for microcontrollers) applications are one. "Libraries" that have to be distributed in source form are another.That doesn't stop people from slapping a inappropriate license on a piece of code that they're willing to share. There are a bunch of Arduino libraries tagged with GPL3 licenses (which is inappropriate for libraries to start with, and fails to match published intent that Arduinos can be embedded in proprietary products.There's too much "all or nothing" involved. If I want to allow my OS stuff to be used in proprietary products, but only in return for compensation, my life becomes pretty difficult, and I'm basically dependent on the would-be manufacturer to offer terms. Similarly, while a large company may be able to put together business models to make money from open source things, it seems much harder for an individual or small company to do so.With respect to hardware, open source doesn't mean that you can make one yourself. Arduino hits a sweet spot where even relative amateurs can create and build a slightly modified version in their kitchen/school/etc, but by the time you get to Chumby or BeagleBoard it's a lot more difficult to do anything in a cost-effective manner.Bah. Enough. I never read posts this long, either...

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2011, 02:42:51 am
content: Quote from: westfw on August 04, 2011, 12:32:40 amThe problem I have is that the system doesn't adequately distinguish between the product of truly original and creative thought on the one hand, and the simple application of ordinary human logic on the other.It has been said for example, that there are only seven basic plots for a story line, and that all stories ever written are some variation on one of those themes. Well suppose the first seven people to use those themes were able to patent them, and were able to sue any one else writing a story that used the same theme? Then where would we be?But the same is essentially true of patents today. Vast numbers of patents are commonplace solutions to problems that any competent person would logically derive if given the same problem to solve. There is no creative element there, no original thinking.This is why I say intellectual property (in the sense of patents) is theft. It is theft from me of the ability to use my brain to do engineering and solve problems. If I derive an obvious solution to a problem in my work, and someone else claimed it first? Well it's tough on me, my friendly government has given someone else an exclusive monopoly to use that design in return for payment of a fee. We have a system that claims to oppose monopolies legally enshrining monopolies in legislation.What I think would make sense is to abolish patent law and simply allow people to have reasonable copyright in their designs. Engineering is a creative field just like the arts, and what engineers do (or should do) is apply science creatively to solve problems. Unfortunately most of the population think that science and engineering is some mysterious form of magic, and that if someone is granted a patent they must have demonstrated an intellect beyond the reach of mere mortals and therefore deserve protection against someone of baser intellect taking advantage of their genius.Anyway, rant over...

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2011, 12:22:44 pm
content: Here's the latest on Android, open based on the Linux kernel, vs Iphone, proprietary, in terms of growth, In the graph, wider is better.http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Android-is-No-1-in-35-countries-approaches-50-global-market-share/1312226400

author: hisense999
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2011, 10:53:28 am
content: Quote from: saturation on August 04, 2011, 12:22:44 pmYes and this is perfect example how to make a money on open based things, Android is not a something magic created for you or for me or for anyone this is only a tool for bring a money for google by pushing manufacturers to use it and open a way for chinese cheap manufacture by decrasing software R&D cost yes you getting more cheap phones but in this way google will take the most big piece of cake which is called Android Market and phone manufacturers leave in position where they must play for 5USD profit even Apple when discover they market share start do be really small will start to selling a phones at manufacturing cost because the most good profit come from applications.Today phone manufacturing is play for tips and real game is between OS and profit from applications, smart manufacturers going to they own OS other lemings follow the right side and just walk without looking what can happen soon.Quote from: IanB on August 04, 2011, 02:42:51 amEven Tesla got a right to patent his coils, Tesla and Edison was an owners of more patents than most modern companies. If you think to got a patent and keep it til lend of the world is simple story you are wrong this have usually big cost and even patent trolling is an short story from which anyone can protect very easy only if understand patents are something which we must live and which we must check and know how to jump over it sometimes. And by the way 95% things in our life we make by copy (base ideas, something which we saw in past time, reverse engeenering some nicely done product) only 5% is an real pure invention.Google for google - you can find how google start up looks... yes they copied idea, they looking like a crazy for a way to make a money from crappy search engine which cannot make an money without milion of banners then they borrow idea from other start up company which have patent for it and today this looks an simple - make an search wngine and special paid links and got milions many years ago hundreds or even thousands of ppl from morning till night try to find out a solution how to make an money - today even you know this because someone show thit to you and going to source of your knowledge usually you can get a real inventor and all other ppl only copied his idea.Just look at Edison about which everyone teach you how much for us he give -http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bledisonpatents.htmhe try to trolling at everything and not for you but for profit and fame who know maybe if someone not give for him this possibility instead of play with electricity he then move into agriculture for better profit.Intelectual rights must exist - I welcome you in China anytime - here you have free rights to invent and copy what you want - also law about intelectual rights working very less. Yes for make an copy and manufacturing in China is very simple but try to invent here something at first year before release you can discover workers stole whole R&D and sold to anyone who can pay a little then after release on local market you can have only unluck or very big unluck - first unluck your product succeed but just now are bunch of companies which selling same product more cheap sometimes same or better quality, big unluck - your product not succeed but local competition copied it and improved by the way now they selling more cheap and good and they have really big sales.B.R.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2011, 12:36:17 pm
content: Yes, you can say that hisense999 about google and android, but look at its competitors on that graph on opposite side, do you want to stay with Apple, Microsoft or RIM instead, that's the alternative, and that's a key difference between OS and proprietary. With proprietary you pay upfront, and having had a Palm and Windows machine, I can say clearly they are made far inferior than Android. iPhones are different, I still they they are better designed since Apple has full control over their OS and hardware; there are glitches in Android that will confuse newbies. Google so far has made great wealth purely from advertising, not from the consumer or even from the developers themselves so that's all we should care about.If the future see's google turning into Apple, then we go to were the resistance and cost is cheaper while still giving us the product we want or need; with OS I don't have to use the google apps included with Android, but right now they are far better than competitors: such as language translator, text to speech, etc., and all free.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2011, 11:54:49 am
content: Quote from: westfw on August 04, 2011, 12:32:40 amThe ideal that ideas can be stolen is questionable. If you make your idea public, then it's no wonder others will use it.Commercial companies use other peoples' ideas all the time, it's not restricted to open source developers.QuoteIn my opinion, if a company's software is that simple that an alternative implementation can be by created by hackers for free, then there's no real justification for charging an extortionate licence fee.QuoteAlthough software patents offer questionable value and aren't enforced everywhere, companies have patented optimisation algorithms so others can't use them.QuoteNor do many of the people in the open source community. Some are fine with IP and the current system, others thing it should be reformed and there are some who do thing IP is evil but I don't think they're the majority. Lots of open source projects possess IP, for example the Mozilla Foundation own the Firefox trademark.QuotePeople often get paid to improve open source software. If a company are using an open source program and they desire a certain feature they may pay their programmers to implement it, which isn't possible with proprietary software written by a third party.QuoteI don't understand this. Why would someone like Microsoft be any more worried about employing a developer who's seen some GNU/Linux code than someone who has previously coded for Apple?The only difference is they get sued by Apple instead of the free software foundation if the developer uses some code stored in their brain.QuoteI don't think that was ever the intention of the free software foundation. It's just a sign of the times. Proprietary software developers such as Microsoft have resorted to such methods so the free software foundation followed suit.QuoteI agree but that's the general ignorance of the developers about the licences rather than a fault of the open source model.In my opinion, software licences have become too long winded. No one bothers to read three pages of legal crap before clicking on the agree button. I think their should be some law limiting the number of words to something sensible, otherwise it gets truncated - let's cut the bollocks.QuoteThen write your own licence. i.e. "Here's the code for the firmware and schematics, you may use it for non-commercial purposes and repairing the produce but if you want to manufacture and sell it you have to seek my permission and pay." You may not be able to claim it's fully open source, shared source is probably a more appropriate term.QuoteIt's not all about being able to make it. It's also about being able to learn about it and fix it when it goes wrong.

author: Frangible
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2011, 11:00:00 pm
content: Quote from: westfw on August 04, 2011, 12:32:40 amMicrosoft "stole" that idea from Apple, who "stole" it from Xerox.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2011, 04:17:01 am
content: Arguing about who stole what and when is silly, IMO. Just about every concept you see now is a derivative work of something else. One might call that technological progress.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2011, 04:27:14 am
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on August 14, 2011, 04:17:01 amNo sillier than the idea of patenting key sequences or gestures or button layouts or even the colour purple. It's all glass houses and stones. Our out of touch patent law has the mud being thrown in all directions.