I remember watching some video (history of Linux or something), where Open Source actually just means access to the source code to change stuff that you feel needs changing, but not necessarily free (although in most cases it is).

 

I don't remember the guy's name, but he was a chubby guy with a beard and was the one that made the GNU acronym (and was particularly pleased that it was a recursive acronym).

If you have access to get to the source code, then you can compile said soure code.

 

Linux has always been distributed under the GPL. In fact, I think the GPL was written for Linux.

Probably.

 

Although there are many more Open Source licenses than GPL:

 

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

I'm a big fan of the CCL, personally.

I'm actually only really familiar (and not all that much) with GPL.

 

My teacher/boss was able to convince a professor from SoCal to release some of his research under GPL, which has really helped out the research that we're doing.

Creative Commons License gives people some limited control over their contributions to open source, and it also requires that if you change code that you share your changes.

 

With GPL, you can download code, change it, and never share your changes.

 

CCL benefits open source communities more, in my opinion.

True. But perhaps more of a hassle

 

Maybe my GPL code changes don't make the program better

Linux communities already split up and war amongst themselves too much. GPL is probably the right way to go for an OS, but for smaller projects I'm all about the CCL.

Do you see Open Source as the way of the future? I think it still lacks the profit motive.

Do you see Open Source as the way of the future?  I think it still lacks the profit motive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it aids capitalism, as capitalism is all about competition. If you can't put out a product that can compete with open source, then maybe you're in the wrong business.

 

Either we get free software, or we get better commercial software, and either way the consumer wins.

 

My main concern is international law on intellectual property. Interpol apparently oversees illegal copying of movies, as we get said warnings. But do they do anything?

 

Retail establishments in Asia sell pirated DVDs, CDs, video games, software programs, etc.

 

If countries like the United States don't find a way to protect their intellectual property overseas, we will be in a hurt of trouble.

Yeah, piracy is up the yahoo in Asia.

 

 

I remember getting into a discussion with some guy on these forums who claimed to be from the Phillipines.

 

He didn't mind about the piracy

I purchased all nine seasons of the X-Files for $70 plus shipping. I think it cost me just over $100.

 

But, it's wrong! Don't do as I do! Do as I say!

LOL!

 

 

I still pirate the occassional song, but given that I would like to make video games as my career, I found it a bit hypocritical to pirate computer games.

 

The only games I have pirated since late 1999 have been older games that I cannot find in a store.

I download music generally to replace CDs I've lost, or unreleased bootlegs.