Re: [Fsuk-manchester] RMS on Swedish Pirate Party vs Free Software

[Matthew Larsen]

(whoops forgot to copy the list in)

My take on it is pretty similarly aligned in thought; I expose or work
on an open-source software project if I can see a benefit for it being
open-source. A database interface or code for a front-end to a business
system I see no point in open-sourcing (and indeed, many businesses
would prefer you *didn't* open-source that stuff). However if I were to
write some sort of (for example) digital music exchange system, I
probably *would* push for that to be open-sourced.

It is of course always a game of tug-of-war with the employer, but
heck, just because you develop closed-source at work, no reason for not
writing open-source at home (or in spare time @ work *looks shifty*).

Regards,
------------
Matthew G Larsen
   > address@hidden
   > United Kingdom

   > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mglarsen

2009/7/26 Matt Lee <address@hidden>

On 07/26/2009 11:06 AM, Pater Mann wrote:

> To give an example. For a previous company, I wrote an EDI translator
> which was used in most of the company's products. This was a piece of
> software that is only of interest to businesses (only large companies
> use EDI) so the only result from releasing the source would be to make
> it much more difficult for the company to recoup its costs in
> developing it - the software would be of no use to the "public".
> Therefore I cannot agree that *all* software should become free.

You don't have to release the source code to the public. It's perfectly
normal to give the source code to the client on a project, and custom
software, written in-house is neither free software, nor the kind of
proprietary software that is released to the public, which is the real
problem.


_______________________________________________
Fsuk-manchester mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester