Hi there,

What would need to happen, for all programs to be openly editable after their release?

 

It will happen when pigs will fly

 

People have to start coding for good and not money. See above comment.

 

World peace, limitless free energy and an end to poverty, thats just for starters

But seriously, when food , accommodation and everything else is provided for free, maybe then but coders got to eat, live somewhere and be able to buy the normal things we all need.

 

Question of the day

 

Thank you,

So we are expecting a change in society before this may happen, some expect more radical things are needed than others, lol

What process in coding would need to change, for all software to be openly editable?

 

Mate, you probably don't have clear the meaning of open-source. It means that the developer make the source code freely available and doesn't earn any profit from the software, whatever it is.
That should be enough to understand your question is quite weird.
I know it may sound strange to some people, but coders need to eat, drink and have a roof above their head just like any other human being

 

i see this i many video games that are released today in order to create mods so why not with the software? ...what would be needed? ...that is a question no one has the right answer to it ...goodwill for sure is one thing *yes*

 

Besides the other replies you already got above, you also have to factor that a lot of programs are not owned by one single programmer (sitting in his basement) or a few partners; some are owned by rather large companies which are comprised of many programmers hired and working for the company which owns the entire project and codes. So, I guarantee you that even after "pig flies", World War III and mutltiple shift in society, don't ever hold your breath and hope to see Apple release anything from its catalog, nor Avid giving away its premium audio and video software codes. Adobe? Man, forget it! I mean we have Presonus, Waves, UA, Native Instruments, Novation, Akai, Steinberg, etc... the list goes on and on. These are major businesses (and corporations) that have a tight hold on their employee's work and codes; By now these codes are worth millions (if not billions) for these entities.

The real answer to your questions is MOST LIKELY NEVER and I'd stop dreaming about this *no*

 

It is done for SOME games engines only. And they release it because they already earned BIG cash on their engine with previous games.
Before writing another from scratch, that will serve for years again, in several games

And in games, there is a content : scenario, GFX, sounds...

If Waves release their code today...they can close the door today

Microsoft is trying to convince us they will open Windows source. But it is not today.
Apple don't even pretend to

Short answer : they do it in game industry because an old engine is useless for them. They earn more cash with hype around their gift than keeping it for themselves Yes, i know the concept of earning money from a gift is hard to grasp

 

Big corps will never willingly release their source code, because then everyone could see how they pirated and used loads of 3rd party code without crediting its source.

Plus they would also reveal NSA/Govt backdoors, which is "bad for business" of course.

 

Mahatma Gandhi says: “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”

This means YOU need to MAKE the BEST softwares for music and then to share them with the world for FREE.

 

what a dumb question...

 

Yeah but Ghandi was a racist and he certainly didn't change the world.
So take his advice with a grain of salt.

How many of you have given this real thought before dismissing it as impossible?
Plenty of "impossible" things have happened over the years
People still think man never walked on the moon. lol

What if a company that owned the networks discovered that if they employed or contracted programmers to make high quality niche software for free that encouraged users to share data and increase usage?
And that as a result, they increased profit.
When software companies saw the massive shift in users away from other software and on to the free stuff, they jumped on board buying up shares in companies that controlled the networks and using their expertise to create more free software?
And what if this spread to a point where it was ecenomically to difficult to produce software for an aver decreasing percentage of people that would pay for software rather than use the free stuff just because of a couple of small features the free stuff didn't have at that time?

Wouldn't that set of circumstances be what he's asking for?

What if, people!

 

Open source does not mean for free.
There is a lot of commercial open source software that costs (often good) money.

 

Nobody still answered the question:

What process in coding needs to change ( and how does it need to change ) for any software to be openly editable by others?

 

Uh? Which process? Just take the whole source code of your software, and upload it to github (or sourceforge). Done, you are now open source *yes*
Still I can't get the point, anyway, peace everybody

 

My bad, forgot the british colony is the world.
And they pulled out of every colony they established and handed control back to the native population.
Oh wait.....

 

The widest spread business model with open source software: free for personal use, with costs for business use.
This is well established and really common.
There is a lot of open source software that is not free.
I don't get why you guys keep fantasizing about something that is a reality for ages. Can someone explain this to me?
FYI:

http://bfy.tw/1ob

 

My apologies, I misread the original quote.
I thought it was 'change the world' where it is 'change in the world'

Yes he is influential on a world scale and i fear we've gotten off topic.
my original post was made out of frustration because of the dismissive laughter without thought.
combine that with my dislike of ghandi and well...
you get smart arse vince. my bad.

Back on topic,
free software would need to generate more profit through an alternative stream than software sales directly.
what that stream might be i am not sure.
but it wouyld have to be a significant discrepancy to justify the open source software.