On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:04:31AM -0400, Peter wrote:
> I have seen this debate here and elsewhere over and over again.

The keeps coming up because many commercial developers see software as a
product instead of software as a service.

> Closed source applications are one thing, and closed source drivers and
> toolchains are another. In the small company context one's livelihood depends on
> the functionality of the toolchains one uses. Closed source drivers and
> compilers from small companies or one man shops are often bad news for users,
> who are also small companies. One does not have the resources to sue, insure or
> otherwise protect against the toolchain or driver maker going out of business,
> selling out, or simply dropping dead.

And since they original developer thinks of software as a product, once the
transaction for the product is done, from their point of view that
transaction is over.

> How many of the developers and engineers
> on this list own thousands of dollars worth of development tools, programmer
> boxes and libraries that no-one can use anymore because they are closed source
> and the original small businesses that created them no longer exist or no longer
> support them?

Exactly.

> To me, the need to be able to 'put a screwdriver and a soldering
> iron' to my uninsured tools it vital, in case (and that happens rather often),
> they don't do something or they need to do something new. That means that I have
> a strong need for open source drivers and toolchains. This is not about
> politics, it's real life.

And even if you are an end user that cannot put a screwdriver or soldering
iron to anything, with open source you at least have the ability to bring
the product to another developer, or more likely to a community that is
interested in supporting that product, and ask for help.

> Politics is where one needs to choose which kind of open source model to adopt,
> not whether one needs it. BSD (free as in free beer and you keep the glass), GPL
> (free forever), LGPL or 'freeware', I only care about that when the time comes
> to 'release' a patch or an application. Not before. Because, even the GPL
> permits anything to be done to it as long as it is not distributed. And I am not
> into that. I need my patches for myself ... although I share them freely if they
> are needed.

Well put.

> So one can talk politics *after* the usability angle is covered properly. I am
> not saying that closed source drivers and toolchains from small developers are
> bad, I am saying that the open source version of the same is better, and that it
> has saved my day many times.

This is the user perspective I've been trying to address. Thanks for the
insight.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist