The "State" should "pay" for it.

The programmer should be treated as a scientist, and be payed by the state... of course, all of the "scientist" work should belong to the state, and the state should belong to the people

It sounds slightly as a "Communist" idea, but I like it ... anyway, I like It better than any "Capitalist" based idea...

The only other way I see to make all software (and other things) free or Open Source, would be in some kind of "Jacques Fresco" designed society, but that is a bit too far from where we are now...

 

No thanks, I don't want a government in control of creation of software or art.
There are plenty of countries with state censorship, that's bad enough already.

The answer to all our thoughts, wishes, fears and struggles is:

basic income

 

well, if the "state" belongs to the people, than, actually the people decides about what should be produced and what is needed...

in this case it would be a kind of democratic communism LOL

 

I wonder if merchandising is guarantee of anything.Perhaps for individuals directly involved in pop culture represents an achievement, but I’m more sceptical about the good effects over figures of historical proportions. Merchandising makes people or events more popular, but perhaps at the cost of becoming a simplification if not a cliché or a complete distortion.

I would find scaring to drink from a mug with the printed head of Ghandi, while I take cookies from a jar printed with the famous Einstein´s face and wearing a scene of the crucifixion in my t-shirt.

Just too much importance crushed in layers of sudden insignificance.

 

I see a lot of views in regards to earth changes.

But the part of the question that no one has yet answered, is the part in regards to coding:

What process in coding should change and how, so that any software can be freely collaborated on?

 

Again?
Have you read any of the replies from many people or you just can't get the concept?

I will quote my reply posted some days ago:

 

.ok, so do you mean a universal hack that has the potential to unlock the code?
rather than all software being opened freely by the creator?

I think your sentence structure is a tad confusing in that case

 

You all are looking at it from a way too difficult perception....

This is not a hard question, a simple query on the practice on coding


Let me break it down for you:

1.What process is it that determines that any software, is sealed from further collaboration.

( what is the software protection, and what makes it impossible for me or you to go in and add a feature in to Bitwig or Logic Pro ) ?

2.How should that process change for the software to be open source.


I am not expecting an answer anymore as i see no one knows this, but if someone does please enlighten me

Thank you for all the answers that were related to some parts of the topic.

 

1. compiling

2. http://bfy.tw/BTe

 

Hi, I'm an ubuntu member, and working in opensource and foss system administration for about 10 years, so I know a bit about it, here's my input.
- opensource do and will work fine for a modular toolchain (ie. server softwares) in a modular environment. Your computer's OS isn't modular. Neither is the DAW you're using (and you want to stick with an integrated DAW, I swear).
- opensource works best if authors and users are closely related (ie. devs and admin). As a musician, you don't want to dive in computer science while you're making music.
- a software isn't only line of codes, it's a whole environment and answers to many use-case and environment. My computer is very different from yours. And it's fine that way, but our DAWs will work the same, in your use case, it's to the software to adapt itself, not the opposite.
- if you'd have the code, the process leading to a usable binary, isn't trivial, and will depend on 3rd party code (maybe open source too) (actually Logic, Bitwig and Live relies on TONS of OpenSource code (which is perfectly credited, if you know where to look), certainly same applies to other actors)
- There's some opensource DAW available : they work (Checkout Ardour). They remain obscure and unused, because there's no support on this.
- Support is costly, (end-use) testers are costly, end-user state of mind is costly : Ardour is awesome, but you need to dig in it, only to install it, and it might not fit your use case). Actually my job is making free software work right and solid : i don't write them. I make pretty good $ and I'm no communist at all.
- Read about Heartbleed story : OpenSSL, fondamental brick of security and confidentiality on internet... was almost an abandonware, funded through SMALL donation. There's your crisis. It was working very good!! did the job awesomely : BUT!! it was poorly documented (for coding around it), middle and end users were out of the scope... And everyone were counting on someone else to maintain it. And this wasn't a DAW, it was a server side, major security component.
- Did you know that MacOS X kernel was freely available at first ? But... they removed it, because NOBODY was using the archive : people want MacOS X to use it in an end user scope, because deploying it in an end user environment was a pain in the ass and poorly documented, and there was no real need.
- It's important for some tools to be available with openness in mind (a textbook for example! you'll want to write your own stuff in it, and be able to take pages off to fold a paper dove, right ?), you don't really want to get involve in the whole deal of machinery within a car or a plane if your goal is going from A to B.
- The competition is high between DAW to be "advanced enough". This goes through : giving a predictable behavior to anyone, if anyone's input is allowed, it should be checked and accepted/refused... but the daw isn't trivial, it must carry a user-experience, and deal with the current userbase : it has a "feel", it won't simply get absolutely better (like a trivial or a server-side program would). : if it was a simple matter of opensource, there would be a super DAW already, like there's firefox or VLC.