Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Does software piracy hurt the open source community?
Suarez-Potts thinks it's bad for everyone including the open source community since pirated software theoretically takes "customers" away from open source projects. For example, a college student may never end up downloading Open Office since he copied Microsoft Office from a friend, but that's not to say it hurts the money-makers like Microsoft at all. A little bit of piracy helps to establish big company's products as "the standard", hurting open source projects even more and making it harder for them to get their foot into a user's door.
Now we'd like to pose a question: Like the college student used in the example above, does pirating software generally prevent you from trying Open Source software or would you have put the cash down anyway even if you couldn't get it for free?
| Yes | |
|---|---|
| No |
Comments
24
Subscribe to commentsJordanJul 30th 2008 11:15AM
The problem with some things is that people pirate it because it is better than the open source option. I would rather have Office 2007 than open office but I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. If Open Office could get a far better interface I would use it. The same goes with gimp vs photoshop. Filezilla vs SmartFTP. The list goes on.
SteveJul 30th 2008 1:53PM
People pirate software so they don't have to pay for it. Any other supposed reason is total bull.
I would rather drive a BMW than my Mazda 3, but I don't have the money. I can't just jump a lot fence and take the car I want because the car I drive doesn't have the same features ("interface").
SRobbinsJul 30th 2008 11:20AM
Piracy is just a polite way to say THEFT. I don't believe in stealing the intellectual property of others.
I prefer to be loyal to my wallet, and ethical too. In general, if I can find Open Source software that gets the job done, I avoid the payware. If Open Source doesn't meet my requirements, I will open my wallet and purchase the software that does.
YayajaJul 30th 2008 11:17AM
I think that what hurts Open Office is not that I can get MS Office for free, its that Open Office just isn't as good as MS Office. Many romantics like to think that you aren't sacrificing a single thing by switching the Open Office but they are deluding themselves. None of my favorite Excel keyboard shortcuts (which were stolen from Lotus) for example, work on OOCalc. When Open Office because a true competitor to MS Office, and not just a cheaper alternative, it WILL be adopted. Corporations spend millions a year on MS licenses, and if they could really get something that was good enough for free, they would.
RocketboyJul 30th 2008 12:49PM
Don't forget Open Office's support for VB is gimped. Without full support, there's no way I can use it, as part of my job has to do with making internal use(only) tools in Excel.
beldenJul 30th 2008 9:42PM
"I think that what hurts Open Office is not that I can get MS Office for free, its that Open Office just isn't as good as MS Office."
Exactly. There was a time when I downloaded and tried OpenOffice because it was free. After about five minutes I uninstalled it and went back to looking for a "free" copy of Microsoft Office. It didn't even really matter to me what features OpenOffice had, it didn't even look good. There were about three inches of empty white space on the sides of the document and toolbars at the top with poor quality graphics.
Maybe it's a result of not having the same budget or resources, but this is a problem with the majority of open source software. They don't fit in well with whatever else you are doing. Most of the programs were originally from Linux and it shows. Look at something like GIMP or Pidgin. I've used both of them before, they work well, but they are brown and gray and visually unappealing. That probably turns away half the adopters right there. Firefox on the other hand has managed to become both popular and look good and I honestly believe there's a connection between the two. Granted, a web browser doesn't need much flash, so that helps, but the fact is that it looks better than IE.
My point is, if OpenOffice had the same level of polish and flash applied to it as something like Office 2007 did you would probably see a large rise in the amount of users.
Gardiner WestboundJul 30th 2008 11:22AM
I’m still using my licensed copy of Office 2000. It does everything I want an office suite to do, though it undoubtedly lacks the latest bells and whistles. If you don’t know what you’re missing, you don’t miss it!
If the day comes where I feel I need something more modern I will go free and open source, to OpenOffice or IBM-Lotus Symphony. There is no way on earth I will pay Microsoft several hundred dollars for the latest Office version.
clintJul 30th 2008 11:24AM
does endlessly commenting on things which are as real and regular as the tide make any difference? no
hazardJul 31st 2008 5:37AM
actaully it can .. you may develop a greater understanding on a subject by publicly expressing your opinion or it could expose you to points of view or concepts you may not have known or previously considered .. from little things big things grow (Paul Kelly)
drunkenpoetJul 30th 2008 11:32AM
I do believe Software piracy hurts the Open Source movement... Here in Chile, where I live, just a few people pay attention to Linux as a desktop OS, because Windows is "free" (you know, installed by a friend who has a pirated copy)... The same goes for the other software, like Adobe...
I think many of those people would try open source alternatives if they had to pay the real prices to get the software.
Nonetheless, software piracy is as old as software itself... So, the open source movement will have to make much better software to be able to compete with the "free" pirated software. Example: MySQL, Firefox, etc.
IMHO,
drunkenpoet
EricJul 30th 2008 12:20PM
I did an entire report on Internet-based piracy...
It could be argued that piracy actually helps the open source community, by forcing them to improve their software in order to compete with the corporations.
It does hurt them, however, because those who are looking for free software generally look for "Microsoft Office," rather than "Microsoft Office alternative."
That is with your "average" computer-user, at least. Most people I know don't even know there are alternatives to Microsoft.
Rajib GhoshJul 30th 2008 12:43PM
I agree with this. I am a IT Consultant for a few small and medium sized businesses. Clearly, the businesses find it bank-breaking to adopt and support the latest and greatest from M$. Yet, the easy availability of unlicensed versions of their products makes it impossible for me to introduce OpenSource programs into the organisation.
Just like a previous commenter, I get queries like 'Not similar to xyz software from M$'. The users clearly forget that not 10 years back, they told me the same thing when I tried to wean them off WordStar and 123.
For creativity and patent/license reasons, OpenSource software may choose to be slightly different from it's M$ counterpart. Businesses need to understand that they are not making a stop-gap arrangement, but rather committing themselves to a movement that's constantly evolving for the better.
squirrelkingJul 30th 2008 1:10PM
What about those of us who might be guilty of using pirated software, but also have a legal copy, and use open source alternatives as well?
I think this type of situation would most commonly be operating systems, but I have a friend who has legal and illegal liscences of office and uses open office on some of his other machines.
DiRTJul 30th 2008 1:17PM
"Does pirating software generally prevent you from trying Open Source software or would you have put the cash down anyway even if you couldn't get it for free?"
You kinda missed the whole point. Try "Does pirating software generally prevent you from trying Open Source software because you can still get it for free?" Putting the cash down isn't an option for 'plugged-in' people who pirate software.
RobJul 30th 2008 6:04PM
If things like open office were to MS Office, as Firefox is to IE then I would download a lot more open source software.
MattJul 30th 2008 2:55PM
At home I used to use pirated commercial software, but now I prefer to use open source or freeware alternatives. I can generally achieve everything I want with open source, and I feel warm inside as well. That's not to say that open source is always better - it just works for me, and I can work around the glitches and differences.
At work I don't have a choice of software. MS or nothing.
WLJul 30th 2008 3:15PM
I think piracy encourages innovation in the open source community by driving developers to create better products instead of secondhand alternatives.
wattssr60Jul 30th 2008 7:30PM
The big difference for most people is CHANGE. They don't like it and having to learn a new software is something they would prefer not to do. The IT people don't like it as well. Because it causes more problems for them during the learning curve. So until a company or you decide to go to the open source and stick to it, working out all your problems as you go and getting in the habit of using it. Forget it you will not go to open source.
hazardJul 31st 2008 5:20AM
Most people will take the quickest/easist path to get the job done. If students use MS Word at school/Uni then guess which word processor they are most likely to want to use at home. If schools and universities prioritised the use and support for open source software then the demand for pirate commericial alternatives would reduce. However, I can imagine it would be quite hard to refuse the inducements MS offers these "grass roots" organisations.
zephroelectroJul 31st 2008 7:40AM
I personally think that as well as the open-source community, it is having a worrying effect on how the future developers will start off in a fulfilling career.
People such as myself who are hoping to perfect the skills they have in computer-based work..will soon begin to feel like there will be no hope for the future of the things they make. Why study and perfect a knowledge or a skill, if others play with them like they are toys?
There use to be a era where the big-time devs were an inspiration, but piracy has almost made pirates the ones in control in a way...and those who want a chance at doing something decent will be too worried that it will just get ripped off and used for free. Because lets face it, as much as people say they only pirate things to test them...that is not true.
Those who may spend a lot of time developing solutions and ideas, that become useful and popular to many, deserve to be phrased for their efforts right?,
So how can such a thing be possible if everyone is too CHEAP to bother? Sure, they could ask for a possible donation if you like their product, but the chances of someone giving that for something that is free?
...Quite small I would think.
It is true, that some of the messages given out by pirate communities are good ones...like the idea behind the ease of sharing content with others...but so far it seems the only sharing that is happening both ways..is between the consumers.
Those who are getting it for nothing are barely bothering to share something back to the developers. Yes, we all know that means money.
If you have so much time to be using all these wonderful and free things, maybe that explains why many don't have the money, or jobs even? I don't know.
Maybe the problem is that with the modern, rapidly increasing living costs, maybe the amount of money people get paid should be increasing as well? But I guess that is where greed comes in. Those in control can either be fair about things, or they can be greedy. That is the main two factors that I think play a good role in why piracy is mainstream now...and it is. One could ask, why so greedy?
I think there are many different ways that piracy is affecting people as a whole...but I think at the most, it is twisting the roles of those who consume...and those who develop.
That is what I think on this topic anyways.
This random rant was brought to you by coffee :D