[News] Crytek Showing Off CryEngine On Linux At GDC

This is something that people often get confused. 'Free Software' and 'Open Source' DO NOT MEAN that the software doesn't have a cost associated with it. Under the terms of the GPL, I am entitled to charge a fee for the software I have released. Under the terms of the GPL, I do NOT have to give the ENTIRE WORLD the source code.

'Free Software' in the world of the GNU foundation and the GPL means that you, as the purchaser of the program, are entitled to a copy of the source code, which you can then modify any way like FOR YOUR OWN USE. THAT IS ALL IT MEANS.

People should not expect to get the fruits of the labor of others at no cost. I have to feed my family, same as you. Why should I have to simply GIVE you my work for free? That's slavery, dude!

By the same token however, I should not expect to get a 'license fee' from you EVERY YEAR, just so you can continue to use my product. Nor should you be beholden to me and my whims to make any changes you want to the operation of the product. THAT is what the 'Free' in 'Free Software' means. You buy the product, you get the source code, you can do whatever you want with it for your own use. You can even redistribute it yourself, if you so choose, so long as you don't claim it as yours.

[edit]Richard Stallman has a really nice post here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html explaining all of this.[/edit]

Again, I rather obviously didn't know that. Thanks.
Yet...
He didn't try to lock it up.
Did he make this money by taking a piece of everyone else efforts, or only off his own efforts. It seems important to me and I don't know.
He doesn't charge me for what he does for me, I know because I never pay him anything.":O}
I always assumed Linus was making a decent living, his time is in to great of demand for him not to.

Yet 'm put in mind of Santana"s mothers advice to him

"Never forget where you came from
and
fear money".

It's like Chris said. Linus started it as a hobby, and it became something that drew attention, and then it became a phenomenon. Established projects like GNU incorporated it into their project, Red Hat made a Corporate/Enterprise version that sold for actual dollars, and they recognized Linus's efforts by awarding him with stock. I am quite sure he did not expect those serendipitous events when he began.

Has he profited from other peoples' work? Of course. Linus claims that of the current kernel code, he's only written about 2 or 3% personally, because of the large number of contributors. But remember - he is the final word in what gets added to the Linux kernel; he is the master of his domain, and that in itself makes him indispensable.

He makes a substantial income from speaking engagements, and is sponsored by [read: draws a big salary from] the Linux Foundation. He also wrote and develops 'git', the commonly used revision system manager, which I am sure is valuable.

All in all, quite a shrewd businessman, no?

All of this stuff gets so complicated. Its confusing to just about everyone. What it it really comes down to for the end user is:
I use software for what I need and if I don't have to pay for it, great.

Everyone else pays for their software and try to get the best deal possible. Or try to find used copies, student versions, etc. and have to manage keys, licenses and policies.

The last party are the people who pirate software.

I prefer open-source in the long run

Absolutely, and if you can find something that does what you want for free, that's awesome. It's just unreasonable to EXPECT that. It's just as unreasonable for a software developer to EXPECT that you will CONTINUE to pay money for the privilege of using the software.

One is slavery. The other is usery. BOTH are WRONG!

Really, I think the ideal model (or at least closer to the ideal) is where I write the software and you pay me for support. This mostly what happens in the world of free software. Sure, you can get the code, compile yourself, install it yourself and do whatever you want with it, and that is great. But if you run into problems you can't handle on your own, you have to pay someone for their time to resolve the issue, and you're quite likely going to call the guy who wrote the software, since he's the logical 'expert'.

That's just and reasonable. It leaves everyone in control of their own destinies. You are free to decide whether to hire me or not. I am free to decide whether to work for you or not. We can negotiate a mutually agreeable price for my services. We are both free to use/modify the software as we see fit.

Most importantly, I'm not holding you hostage to my software.

Where a LOT of companies get their leverage is that they get you to invest in their 'system', but they don't give you any documentation on the internals of it; the data structures used, the organization of the database, where the files are stored, etc., etc. That means that if your relationship sours, they've got you by the short-and-curlies, because you've got no way to get your data out of their system in an intelligible fashion. And if you fail to pay their extortion protection support agreement fees every year, your right to use the software terminates.

I've lived your last point.
There are several results to paying for proprietary software that is frustrating:

• Stuck using Proprietary Software (MS Office) and loosing support because company can't afford to upgrade
• Subscription based software - Company is forced to update software & it breaks due to unsupported hardware
• Online services host software and DRM (Steam, Origin, Uplay) - Company/end user looses all data when service is ended or company disintegrates

Some of this might be off-topic, but Holy Moses it gets complicated paying for licenses and following policies. Keeping track of installations and versions of everything. Paying is always bundled with politics.

Hey! The Whole world loves a "Good Businessman."
It's an enviable talent to have...
Who loves Bill Gates?

So the word "Good" must mean more to me than the accumulation of wealth, as I'm sure it does to you as well.

I confess my opinion on this comes to me "As through a glass darkly."
As I'm not over familiar with the particulars of Linus's life and accomplishments.

But hasn't Linus not only made money for himself, but left the door open for others to follow?
Even helped others to follow to their mutual benefit?

Joking aside,
I don't really think there are any saints...
But there is
Donald Trump and Elisabeth Warren
Gates and Linus
and god help us if we can't make the distinction.":O}

How did I know Trump would enter the conversation eventually?

I only mentioned the scumbag as an excuse to summon the spirit of Elisabeth for our protection.
Chris...T.R....If you know anything bad about the Big E.W. keep it to yourself for a day or two will ya?
I'. still reeling from learning that Linus uses money..":O}