Why use Open Source? (was Mozilla 1.2)

I don't think that this was unclear...

The issue with Mozilla is that it's difficult to support the Mozilla Open Source team if you don't want to support AOL/Netscape, as the better Mozilla gets, the better chance AOL has in the market. So, in this case you're actually helping a big company by helping open source software.
 
I think one thing to consider is that big businesses, such as AOL, is going to help itself either way. They may use the Mozilla source code but all the development of Netscape comes from paid AOL employees.

Also keep in mind that AOL is trying to do with Netscape what many people are trying to do in their own right, get away from Microsoft.

The bigger picture is that when you support Mozilla, you are supported many independent projects that don't have the time nor money for starting from scratch and employing developers.

If you are truly concerned about not supporting AOL, use Mozilla and turn off Talkback. Bug reports will not be sent back to Mozilla, thus, you will in no way have supported future builds of Netscape but at the same time, you may hinder the development of other Mozilla based projects as well.

Netscape is an entirely different beast than Mozilla. Netscape is not trying to win some browser war. Netscape is an AOL portal, linking you to everything AOL from the start page, to bookmarks and different toolbar buttons. Mozilla on the other hand doesn't have anything AOL related in it. Its a browser plain and simple.

Once again, I stress, by downloading Mozilla you are not supporting Netscape.
 
Once again, I stress, by downloading Mozilla you are not supporting Netscape.
Click to expand...

I think fryke's concern is that if you contribute to the Mozilla project, you indirectly support AOL/TW/Netscape's efforts - whether that's submitting bug reports, crash reports, or actually work on the code itself. Turning off Talkback certainly curbs part of this participation, to be sure, but the act of downloading and using it suggests, to me at least, a measure of support for Mozilla, if for no other reason that it excludes (even part-time) the use of another browser. (fryke, correct me if my read of your statement is wrong.)

Does it (support of Moz) indirectly support AOL/TW/Netcape? I think it does, but I also don't think it matters. As mentioned, Mozilla is a different beast, with a completely different focus. The way I see it is that Mozilla is a browser for the browser's sake (with features that make it a really nice browser for the user), whereas AOL uses Netscape to further their goals with the portal. This almost complete lack of overlap works well, to me, since it means that AOL is, at worst, simply riding Mozilla's coattails.

But, I find it hard to imagine that AOL/TW/Netscape is not feeding back into the Mozilla project at all. It may not be the level of contribution that we'd prefer, but I don't think it's zero. Can anyone more familiar with the inner workings of the Mozilla project comment on this? I've done a cursory look at the FAQs and am not seeing an answer...
 
i'm not sure but i think fryke was just explaining my position. which reassures me that i have communicated it and that some people do understand it. you don't have to agree with it to understand it.

what i want to know is why people are sooo defensive about mozilla and their approach to open source? why can't we simply have 2 different perspectives on this and agree to disagree?:confused:
 
Well, I'm quite old on here and have been through some browser discussions, Ed. ;)

I guess it's that people _do_ understand that they don't want to support AOL, but it's a dilemma, really, as supporting open source usually is a _good_ thing - as it may hurt Microsoft in some or other way.

Also, since Chimera is definitely the fastest browser out there today, people are attracted to it. I must say myself that back when IE 5 appeared for Mac OS 8.6, I switched to it immediately, because it was the most complete, stable and the only standards-compliant browser around.

So, while politics _do_ move people, so do features. And the freedom to choose is, of course, also a burden. Responsibility comes with it.

And we just have to respect other people's decisions.

My decision was clear when I first saw OmniWeb and got onto their mailing list: I wanted to support those guys, so I bought a license. And I'm kind of glad that OW _isn't_ open source software, as this gives me the right to complain. And someone answers my complaints. And how well they do it shows me that I've put the money to the right people.

Another difficulty is how far you're thinking. If you don't stop, you might hurt the wrong people: Let's say I use iCab because I don't want to help Microsoft, so I don't use IE. Now, hurting Microsoft there could end in Microsoft stopping software development (or slowing it down) for Mac OS X. This, again, could diminish the attractiveness of the platform. And could thus hurt Apple. So, does supporting iCab hurt Apple?
 
ah, so you are saying that it is the age old issue of existential fear of freedom? i hadn't quite seen this in this light, but the timing is perfect for you to present it this way. i have been looking at several other things in life from this perspective recently, including my school progress. at least part of what you are saying makes great sense and i will think more about it.

but i also suspect there is more to it than this as well. ;)
 
well, you sent us to the gnu philosophy which i think i totally support. mozilla is not published under a gnu license, but is BSD. there are 2 different ways to go about the selling and distribution of open source. i think it may be simplistic to try and talk about them as one.

originally posted by kilowatt in another thread
Ed, I think I have this figured out.

This is the classic case of a GNU/GPL person clashing with a BSD-style person.

there is nothing I can say now :)

Check out http://www.gnu.org
and http://www.freebsd.org
if you wish to compare the licenses. I have a feeling you will fit in just fine at gnu.org ;-)

No offense intended, though. I hope you find your prefect license through this ;-)
Click to expand...
 
oh, and MacLuv - i think you left the door open for the discussion to steer towards the mozilla implementation of opensource when you included it in the title of the thread.

d'oh ;)
 
i think it would be interesting to hear from some actual developers who have participated in contributions to open source software, their perceptions of the 2 licenses and how they feel about the idea of their work being taken and profitted off of by a major corporation.
 
Well, let's not get too deep into _that_ discussion. Communism as an idea didn't suppress the people. It was its implementation in a totalitarian system.

Choosing between GPL and BSD style licenses is really a political and a economic decision.

BSD style licenses allow you to make money. So it's a natural choice for companies that want to make money. (Directly out of a product.)
 
Isnt communism actually a good thing? The problem is, it never works out because there is always a group of greedy S.O.Bs who want more than everyone else?
 
lol. I'm kinda flattered that a whole thread has been based on my (what was meant to be mostly joking) remark.

This has certainly shed a little light on the subject. I didn't even know there were different forms of open-source. Thanks, guys. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top