Comments on: The freedom of Open source not always for free http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/ Sharing my experiences, impressions and thoughts Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:13:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Peter Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:12:20 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-49 @Przemek Your welcome and good to have you at our side again. @Przemek Your welcome and good to have you at our side again.

]]> By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Peter Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:12:00 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-218 @Przemek Your welcome and good to have you at our side again. @Przemek Your welcome and good to have you at our side again.

]]> By: Przemek http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Przemek Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:56 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-32 @Peter: I really appreciate your response, and since you have clarified that, now I can join you in 'being curious' about the future of Microsoft and especially their 'peculiar' relation to Open Source. @Peter: I really appreciate your response, and since you have clarified that, now I can join you in ‘being curious’ about the future of Microsoft and especially their ‘peculiar’ relation to Open Source.

]]> By: Przemek http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Przemek Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:00 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-217 @Peter: I really appreciate your response, and since you have clarified that, now I can join you in 'being curious' about the future of Microsoft and especially their 'peculiar' relation to Open Source. @Peter: I really appreciate your response, and since you have clarified that, now I can join you in ‘being curious’ about the future of Microsoft and especially their ‘peculiar’ relation to Open Source.

]]> By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Peter Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:53:17 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-31 @Przemek: Thanks for your great reply! I would love to have a lot of Microsoft tools for free. But of course I do not expect them to do this. Anyhow, it is obvious that Microsoft is exploring the open source area. Knowing that they need to earn money, I am just curious about the earning model they see. Furthermore I fully agree that quality not necessarily has to do with software being open source or not. And for sure I am not going to claim that the quality of open source software is (always) better. Mainly I wanted to trigger a discussion around open source and that seems to work ;). @Przemek: Thanks for your great reply! I would love to have a lot of Microsoft tools for free. But of course I do not expect them to do this. Anyhow, it is obvious that Microsoft is exploring the open source area. Knowing that they need to earn money, I am just curious about the earning model they see.

Furthermore I fully agree that quality not necessarily has to do with software being open source or not. And for sure I am not going to claim that the quality of open source software is (always) better.

Mainly I wanted to trigger a discussion around open source and that seems to work ;) .

]]> By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-216 Peter Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:53:00 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-216 @Przemek: Thanks for your great reply! I would love to have a lot of Microsoft tools for free. But of course I do not expect them to do this. Anyhow, it is obvious that Microsoft is exploring the open source area. Knowing that they need to earn money, I am just curious about the earning model they see. Furthermore I fully agree that quality not necessarily has to do with software being open source or not. And for sure I am not going to claim that the quality of open source software is (always) better. Mainly I wanted to trigger a discussion around open source and that seems to work ;). @Przemek: Thanks for your great reply! I would love to have a lot of Microsoft tools for free. But of course I do not expect them to do this. Anyhow, it is obvious that Microsoft is exploring the open source area. Knowing that they need to earn money, I am just curious about the earning model they see.

Furthermore I fully agree that quality not necessarily has to do with software being open source or not. And for sure I am not going to claim that the quality of open source software is (always) better.

Mainly I wanted to trigger a discussion around open source and that seems to work ;) .

]]> By: Przemek http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Przemek Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:24:15 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-30 @Peter,Kuba: What do you mean by saying that you 'stay curious'? I hope that you don't expect that Microsoft will anounce that Microsoft Office, IE and Silverlight are switched into Open Source. This will probably never happen. What may be expected though is that Microsoft will support and embrace software developers who would like to create open source solutions that either are built on top of their mainstream applications or use them. This already happened and is based on the: http://www.codeplex.com site. There are plenty of add-ins that we use in our daily work and .net developers may vent their open source needs buy working on software at Codeplex. I know that OpenSource has its advantages but it is not mandatory. Companies offering software solutions have full rights to sell their software and apply any licence that they deem suitable. We should not judge the quality of software by applying the open source principle. @Peter,Kuba: What do you mean by saying that you ‘stay curious’? I hope that you don’t expect that Microsoft will anounce that Microsoft Office, IE and Silverlight are switched into Open Source. This will probably never happen. What may be expected though is that Microsoft will support and embrace software developers who would like to create open source solutions that either are built on top of their mainstream applications or use them. This already happened and is based on the: http://www.codeplex.com site. There are plenty of add-ins that we use in our daily work and .net developers may vent their open source needs buy working on software at Codeplex.

I know that OpenSource has its advantages but it is not mandatory. Companies offering software solutions have full rights to sell their software and apply any licence that they deem suitable. We should not judge the quality of software by applying the open source principle.

]]> By: Przemek http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-215 Przemek Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:24:00 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-215 @Peter,Kuba: What do you mean by saying that you 'stay curious'? I hope that you don't expect that Microsoft will anounce that Microsoft Office, IE and Silverlight are switched into Open Source. This will probably never happen. What may be expected though is that Microsoft will support and embrace software developers who would like to create open source solutions that either are built on top of their mainstream applications or use them. This already happened and is based on the: http://www.codeplex.com site. There are plenty of add-ins that we use in our daily work and .net developers may vent their open source needs buy working on software at Codeplex. I know that OpenSource has its advantages but it is not mandatory. Companies offering software solutions have full rights to sell their software and apply any licence that they deem suitable. We should not judge the quality of software by applying the open source principle. @Peter,Kuba: What do you mean by saying that you ‘stay curious’? I hope that you don’t expect that Microsoft will anounce that Microsoft Office, IE and Silverlight are switched into Open Source. This will probably never happen. What may be expected though is that Microsoft will support and embrace software developers who would like to create open source solutions that either are built on top of their mainstream applications or use them. This already happened and is based on the: http://www.codeplex.com site. There are plenty of add-ins that we use in our daily work and .net developers may vent their open source needs buy working on software at Codeplex.

I know that OpenSource has its advantages but it is not mandatory. Companies offering software solutions have full rights to sell their software and apply any licence that they deem suitable. We should not judge the quality of software by applying the open source principle.

]]> By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Peter Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:37:15 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-28 @Kuba: As always to the point feed back, thanks. I fully agree that the Creative Commons initiative is a good way to share other things apart from software as well. @Kuba: As always to the point feed back, thanks. I fully agree that the Creative Commons initiative is a good way to share other things apart from software as well.

]]> By: Peter http://petersopinion.com/2009/04/16/the-freedom-of-open-source-not-always-for-free/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Peter Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:37:00 +0000 http://www.peterhorsten.com/?p=93#comment-214 @Kuba: As always to the point feed back, thanks. I fully agree that the Creative Commons initiative is a good way to share other things apart from software as well. @Kuba: As always to the point feed back, thanks. I fully agree that the Creative Commons initiative is a good way to share other things apart from software as well.

]]>