Open Source v. Closed Source

Started by fugibo, February 26, 2008, 10:28:34 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Which do you support the idea of more (not prefer)?

Open Source aka Free for Everyone, No Restriction
6 (100%)
Closed Source aka Microsoft
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 5


Please post your opinion, and if someone would please post a definition of each I would much appreciate it as I am just too tired right now.


I think that open source is better. When everyone can edit it, and produce addons for something, it always gets some awesome features.


February 27, 2008, 09:06:58 am #2 Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 09:08:17 am by Blizzard
You have a little confusing something up there. "Free" doesn't mean "pay nothing", it means something like "everybody can use and modify it". Hence why it was renamed to open source later rather than Free Software.

I don't prefer anyone as both have their advantages and disadvantages. While with Closed Source you can make it harder for others to copy you and get a more safety against theft (which is a real problem) while Open Source allows easier modification and more flexibility.
And "No Restriction" isn't completely right. You can't sell a program and claim it to be yours and reproduce it that way just because you have the source code.
Check out Daygames and our games:

King of Booze 2      King of Booze: Never Ever
Drinking Game for Android      Never have I ever for Android
Drinking Game for iOS      Never have I ever for iOS

Quote from: winkioI do not speak to bricks, either as individuals or in wall form.

Quote from: Barney StinsonWhen I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.


February 27, 2008, 03:01:01 pm #3 Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 03:01:57 pm by Susys

ill go with open source.


The definition of Open Source, from Wikipedia:

QuoteUnder The Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses. Below is a copy of the definition, with unauthorized explanatory additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under/for fair use.

   1. Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to encourage sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
   2. Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
   3. Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
   4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
   5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no one can be locked out.
   6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded.
   7. Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
   8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
   9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
  10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.


Yeah, Blizz, me knos. I just want to keep things as simple as possible for people who don't do programming/messing around (ie ppl besides us two)

Woah... total ownage coming from the Open Source side... Yay!!!

And by they way, here are a few open source programs that you may or may not know about:

Open Office: a.k.a MS Office for free, but legally.

Firefox: Hmm... You probably know this one.

(?) Pidgin: A IM client that works for MSN, IRC, AIM, and tons of others. Though I'm not sure if it's actually Open Source, I know it's free (lowercase, as in no cost).