Open source

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Open source describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end product's source materials—typically, their source code allowing users to create user-generated software content.

[edit] Sourced

  • There is no such thing as free software. Nobody develops software for charity. For innovation to continue, there needs to be value - and even open-source applications have some form of market model, which incentivises them to continue innovating.
    • Paulo Ferreira, platform strategy manager at Microsoft South Africa, March 2008 [1]
  • ... there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with ... nobody can ever improve the software.
  • [open source software] is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not [sic] be used to combat it.
    • Vinod Valloppillil, Microsoft Program Manager, "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology", 1998
  • Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects.
    • Vinod Valloppillil, Microsoft Program Manager, "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology", 1998
  • The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says "no" to some of the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad thing--that the GPL "excludes" some proprietary software developers who "need to be brought into the free software community."
    But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot "bring them into our community" if they don't want to join.
    What we can do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: "If you will make your software free, you can use this code." Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins some of the time.
  • Paying isn't wrong, and being paid isn't wrong. Trampling other people's freedom and community is wrong, so the free software movement aims to put an end to it, at least in the area of software.
  • For example, the GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.
  • So the whole 'We have a list and we're not telling you' should tell you something. Don't you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they'd just tell us and go, 'nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'?
  • Nobody should start to undertake a large project. You start with a small _trivial_ project, and you should never expect it to get large. If you do, you'll just overdesign and generally think it is more important than it likely is at that stage. Or worse, you might be scared away by the sheer size of the work you envision. So start small, and think about the details. Don't think about some big picture and fancy design. If it doesn't solve some fairly immediate need, it's almost certainly over-designed. And don't expect people to jump in and help you. That's not how these things work. You need to get something half-way _useful_ first, and then others will say "hey, that _almost_ works for me", and they'll get involved in the project.
  • The legal system doesn't work. Or more accurately, it doesn't work for anyone except those with the most resources. Not because the system is corrupt. I don't think our legal system (at the federal level, at least) is at all corrupt. I mean simply because the costs of our legal system are so astonishingly high that justice can practically never be done.
  • I bumped into him (Craig Mundie of Microsoft) in an elevator. I looked at his badge and said, "ah, you work for Microsoft." He looked back at me and said, "Oh ya, and what do you do?" And I thought it was some kind of tad dismissive, here is a guy in a suit looking at a scruffy hacker... so I gave him a thousand yard stare and said, "I am your worst nightmare!"
  • The Many Minds Principle: the coolest thing to do with your data will be thought of by someone else.
  • Let's put it this way: if you need to ask a lawyer whether what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt. Let's not go there. We don't base our morality on law.
  • "Sharing the code just seems like The Right Thing to Do, it costs us rather little, but it benefits a lot of people in sometimes very significant ways. There are many university research projects, proof of concept publisher demos, and new platform test beds that have leveraged the code. Free software that people value adds wealth to the world."
  • I personally believe open source is most important is in the operating system and in file formats. As long as those two things remain open source you can never have a monopoly. No company can dominate by any means except a superior product, and that puts the choice back into the hands of the public.

[edit] Unsourced

  • Open-source development violates almost all known management theories.
    • Marietta Baba, Dean of the College of Social Science, Michigan State University
  • Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them.
  • [W]e have a problem ... when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.
  • "Do you understand the GPL?" And they'll say, "Huh?" And they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them. […] There is a part of open source called GPL [that] makes it impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work. So what you saw with TCP/IP or (e-mail technology) Sendmail or the browser could never happen.
  • I assert that open source software—available widely through the Internet—has the potential to provide our nation's enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are restricted by US law.
  • There are plans to rely on Linux to control our most advanced future defense systems, including the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), and the Global Information Grid (GIG). Until Linux achieves the same level of reliability and security required of commercial operating systems, it should not be used in critical defense systems.
    Now that foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists know that Linux is going to control our most advanced defense systems, they can use fake identities to contribute subversive software that will soon be incorporated into our most advanced defense systems.
  • Intellectual property (IP) socialism is the worst that can happen to any IP-based society ... and we are an IP-based society. If there is no way to protect IP, there is no reason to invest in IP.
    • SAP AG Executive Board member Shai Agassi, November 10, 2005, Speaking event at the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley

[edit] External links

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has an article about:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Open_source&oldid=1362569"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
In other languages