What exactly, if anybody knows for sure, is the basis for the opposition to open source within the realm of freeware?
I understand Microsoft's opposition, say, to making Windows open source. They don't want someone making a fork of Vista with no registration/activation that's given away free under another name but otherwise does the same thing, because they've sunk however many millions into its development. And Internet Explorer, while free, must be closed for various reasons (I assume, so somebody doesn't stick an ad blocker in it, is a biggie).
But on the other hand, you have all these free programs out there: uTorrent and CCleaner are two I hear about a lot up here, they're free to download and use, yet in the FAQ on their site or perhaps otherwise, they have written up as a question or however, "will you ever go open source" and their attitude is like, "no this will never happen".
Using open source software has made me suspicious of free software that is not open source. Perhaps they have something to hide? Or is it more that they don't trust someone else to repackage it without their name on it? In the case of the latter, surely they could do what Mozilla do, trademark the name and require alterations to carry different branding, although they might not have the strength to enforce violations as Mozilla perhaps does. Of course, I still use non-open source freeware, but I remain suspicious.
Does anybody have this from the other side?
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
1. As a newbie I was ashamed of the quality of my code and therefore I didn't publish it. And now I know that it was even worse than I thought and I'm sure that I did well. What if sb. as newbish as me back then would take it as example?
2. Yes, perhaps some have technologies that they want to stay their distinctive features? If they opened it, soon everybody would either just copy it or (if there are license issues) would have it easier to make own implementation. Freeware often fights for customers and makes money too.
3. For a small personal project, playing with trademarks and similar stuff is unnecessary hassle.
There are surely other reasons too.
Also, being suspicious is reasonable. Myself, I don't trust uTorrent or Chrome and therefore won't use them.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov
But one explanation I was given by a freeware developer was that he didn't want people picking up his code, bloating it or worse and redistributing it. Also didn't want others taking credit for his work.
Another reason can be business. Look at some of the Google freewares. Picasa, Earth, Gmail, Google Desktop, etc. They dont make it OSS because they want people using Their application. Also (I assume) they don't want a commercial competitor using the code from their software for an EEE tactic or something similar.
PortableApps.com Advocate
Let's not forget the authors that:
- have multiple products, some of which are freeware. They use the freeware items as advertising for the other products or lead-ins to their related commercial product.
- are also consultancies, again using the freeware as advertising.
- are interested in self-promotion (not necessarily a bad thing) or sole control of their ideas.
- want to prevent illicit use of their creations by prople inserting virii, worms and the like.
I see freeware that is not Open Source as valid as any other license, chosen to meet the author's needs - and mine. I use OSS when it best meets my needs and other freeware or commercial products when they meet mine, And, one of my important needs i to be independent of single suppliers on critical applications when possible.