Proprietary software

In the early days of computing, software was generally free, and it was something that was shared among researchers and developers, who were usually eager to improve it. That situation changed as computers became more common, and the production of proprietary software became an excellent business model for many companies.[1]
The restrictions on the use of proprietary software are usually enumerated in the end user license agreements end user license agreements (EULAs) that users must consent to.[1]
Nothing, Open Source as more software there more integrated, more easier, more secure to use and they work out of the box, and have been around for a longuer time. Proprietary software are loosing its users everyday.[2]
For some free software, the same laws used by proprietary software are used to preserve the freedoms to use, copy and modify the software. This technique is called copyleft.[3]

• Microsoft's Ms-LPL is an example of a licence where the source code is made available but it remains proprietary software.(More...)
  
  

Microsoft's Ms-LPL is an example of a licence where the source code is made available but it remains proprietary software. For certain proprietary software where the user can access source code, such as online applications (such as Internet forum software) or Java applications (where the source can be obtained by decompiling), some developers will obfuscate the source code in order to make it difficult for users to obtain the original code. [3] Some proprietary software comes with source code or provides offers to the source code. Users are free to use and even study and modify the software in these cases, but are restricted by either licences or non-disclosure agreements from redistributing modifications or sharing the software.[3] Exclusive legal rights to software by a proprietor are not required for software to be proprietary, since public domain software and software under a permissive licence can become proprietary software by distributing compiled (binary) versions of the program without making the source code available.[3] Proprietary software is any computer software with restrictions on use or private modification, or with restrictions judged to be excessive on copying or publishing of modified or unmodified versions.[3] The term proprietary software is thus the antonym of free software, generally speaking. These restrictions are placed on it by one of its proprietors. Similar terms include " closed-source software " and " non-free software ". These restrictions are enforced by either legal or technical means, or both.[3] The Free Software Foundation classifies semi-free software as non-free software, but draws a distinction between semi-free software and proprietary software.[3] For some free software, the same laws used by proprietary software are used to preserve the freedoms to use, copy and modify the software. This technique is called copyleft.[3] The Open Source Initiative prefers the term "closed source software". Proprietary software vendors usually do not use this term or use it with another meaning.[3] Proprietary software can be distributed at no cost or for a fee, and free software can be distributed at no cost or for a fee.[3] Proprietary software is said to create greater commercial activity over free software, especially in regard to market revenues.[3] Proponents of commercial proprietary software, like Microsoft, argue that requiring users to pay for software as a product increases funding for the research and development of software. They claim that per-copy fees maximise the profitability of software development.[3] If the proprietor of a software package should cease to exist, or decide to cease or limit production or support for a proprietary software package, recipients and users of the package can be left at a disadvantage and have no recourse if problems are found with the software.[3] Well known examples of proprietary software include Microsoft Windows, RealPlayer, iTunes, Adobe Photoshop, Mac OS X, WinZip and some versions of Unix.[3] Proprietary software Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely.[4] Semi-free software is much better ethically than proprietary software proprietary software, but it still poses problems, and we cannot use it in a free operating system.[4] Non-free software Non-free software is any software that is not free. This includes semi-free software semi-free software and proprietary software proprietary software.[4] Nothing, Open Source as more software there more integrated, more easier, more secure to use and they work out of the box, and have been around for a longuer time. Proprietary software are loosing its users everyday.[2] What if the author is posting comparisons to proprietary software. If they were not doing any comparing Linux would never try to emulate some of the basics of Apple/M$. (i.e. gui desktops, file managers, etc.) It may seem like common sense to have those, but I guarentee you that the "marketing" points that were brought up matter to a much greater extent to a large number of people than you would all like to believe.[2] Fifty-seven percent said that source code access matters, while 41 percent cited community code review as an important benefit of open source over proprietary software. Clearly, source code matters, whether the customer exercises such rights by proxy or directly. Other things like bug fixes, which have been shown to be dramatically superior in open source, get taken for granted a bit. Take them away for awhile, and I would imagine that their importance would get called out by open-source users.[5] Interestingly, neither open source nor proprietary software score well on "IP protection." Either they're both equally good, or they're both equally bad. Either way, they don't seem to offer distinct advantages, one over the other, according to the customers surveyed. The same holds true for security and code quality. It's aces between the two. Looking at these numbers, I'd prefer to have open source's advantages.[5]

Freeware, not to be confused with free software, is a type of proprietary software that is offered for use free of monetary charges. As is the case with other types of proprietary software, there are generally severe restrictions on its use and the source code is kept secret.[1] The restrictions on the use of proprietary software are usually enumerated in the end user license agreements end user license agreements (EULAs) that users must consent to.[1] Proprietary software will remain strong in some niche markets, mainly for business and technical applications for which the demand is relatively small or specialized and for which users will be willing to pay relatively high prices.[1] Some industry observers think that the role of proprietary software will decrease in the future because of the growing competition from free software. This view holds that free software will eventually come to dominate operating systems and major application programs.[1] Virtually all Microsoft software is proprietary, including the Windows family of operating systems and Microsoft Office. This includes software that is given away at no charge, such as Internet Explorer. Other major producers of proprietary software include Adobe, Borland, IBM, Macromedia, Sun Microsystems and Oracle.[1] In the early days of computing, software was generally free, and it was something that was shared among researchers and developers, who were usually eager to improve it. That situation changed as computers became more common, and the production of proprietary software became an excellent business model for many companies.[1]

The free software movement's founder Richard Stallman sometimes uses the term "user subjugating software", while Eben Moglen sometimes talks of "unfree software". The term "non-free" is often used by Debian developers to describe any software whose license does not comply with Debian Free Software Guidelines, and they use "proprietary software" specifically for non-free software that provide no source code.[3] The original copyright holders for a work of free software, even copyleft free software, can use dual-licensing to allow themselves or others to redistribute proprietary versions.[3]

The literal legal mean of "proprietary" in relation to software is that it has an owner who can exercise control over what users can do with the software.[3] Some free software packages are also simultaneously available under proprietary terms.[3] Non-copyleft free software (i.e. software distributed under a permissive free software licence or released to the public domain) allows anyone to make proprietary redistributions.[3]

Copylefted software Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure that all copies of all versions are free software. This means, for instance, that copyleft licenses generally disallow others to add additional requirements to the software (though a limited set of safe added requirements can be allowed) and require making source code available. Some copyleft licenses, such as GPL version 3, block other means of turning software proprietary.[4] "Commercial" and "proprietary" are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary proprietary, but there is commercial free software, and there is non-commercial non-free software. GNU Ada is always distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is free software; but its developers sell support contracts. When their salesmen speak to prospective customers, sometimes the customers say, "We would feel safer with a commercial compiler."[4] The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program.[4] A software company can compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary proprietary software product. The X Window System X Window System illustrates this.[4] As proponents of open source software, it should not be beneath us to pursue popularity or to look to proprietary developers as examples.[2]

Software that is not proprietary includes free software free software and public domain software.[1]

Section Contents:

• Means of legal enforcement can involve copyright (with a restrictive software licence ) and patents.(More...)
  
  

Means of legal enforcement can involve copyright (with a restrictive software licence ) and patents. The source code of such programs is usually regarded as a trade secret by the owner. [3] When no other vendor can provide support for the software, the ending of support for older or existing versions of a software package may be done to force users to upgrade and pay for newer versions.[3]

Semi-free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software that is not free software, but comes with permission for individuals to use, copy, distribute, and modify (including distribution of modified versions) only for non-profit purposes. Such software is also rejected by the Open Source Initiative and Debian.[3] Free software Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use, copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis or for a fee. This means that source code must be available. "If it's not source, it's not software." This is a simplified definition; see also the full definition full definition. If a program is free, then it can potentially be included in a free operating system such as GNU, or free versions of the GNU/Linux system GNU/Linux system.[4] Private software Private or custom software is software developed for one user (typically an organization or company). That user keeps it and uses it, and does not release it to the public either as source code or as binaries. A private program is free software in a trivial sense if its unique user has full rights to it. In a deeper sense, it does not really make sense to pose the question of whether such a program is free software or not.[4] We hope you will decide to follow it too. Freeware The term "freeware" has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use "freeware" to refer to free software.[4] In some cases, an executable program can be in the public domain but the source code is not available. This is not free software, because free software requires accessibility of source code.[4] If the source code is in the public domain, that is a special case of non-copylefted free software non-copylefted free software, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all.[4]

In the GNU Project, we copyleft almost all the software we write, because our goal is to give every user the freedoms implied by the term "free software."[4] In actual practice nearly all copylefted software uses the GNU General Public License GNU General Public License.[4] GPL-covered software The GNU GPL (General Public License) GNU GPL opnbrktGeneral Public Licenseclsbrkt is one specific set of distribution terms for copylefting a program.[4]

If there is a job that needs doing with software, then until we have a free program to do the job, the GNU system has a gap. We have to tell volunteers, "We don't have a program yet to do this job in GNU, so we hope you will write one."[4] Shareware Shareware is software which comes with permission for people to redistribute copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is required to pay a license fee.[4] Most free software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally given permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license.[4] Open Source software The term "open source" software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted.[4] We prefer the term " free software free software " because it refers to freedom--something that the term "open source" does not do.[4]

The Free Software Foundation itself is non-commercial, and therefore we would be legally permitted to use a semi-free program "internally".[4] Commercial Software Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to make money from the use of the software.[4] Please help spread the awareness that commercial free software is possible. You can do this by making an effort not to say "commercial" when you mean "proprietary."[4] For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order: the important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether it is commercial is not a crucial question. The additional development of GNU Ada that results from its being commercial is definitely beneficial.[4] The GNU system The GNU system GNU system is the Unix-like operating system, which is entirely free software, that we in the GNU Project have developed since 1984.[4] A Unix-like operating system consists of many programs. The GNU system includes all the GNU software, as well as many other packages such as the X Window System and TeX which are not GNU software.[4] Since the purpose of GNU is to be free, every single component in the GNU system has to be free software. They don't all have to be copylefted, however; any kind of free software is legally suitable to include if it helps meet technical goals. It isn't necessary for all the components to be GNU software, individually. GNU can and does include non-copylefted free software such as the X Window System that were developed by other projects.[4]

The README or manual of a GNU package should say it is one; also, the Free Software Directory Free Software Directory indentifies all GNU packages.[4] The differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free.[4] Nearly all employment for programmers is in development of custom software; therefore most programming jobs are, or could be, done in a way compatible with the free software movement.[4] There are many possible ways to write copyleft distribution terms, so in principle there can be many copyleft free software licenses.[4] The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free.[4] There are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you.[4] Non-copylefted free software Non-copylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it.[4] Semi-free programs have additional restrictions, motivated by purely selfish goals. It is impossible to include semi-free software in a free operating system.[4] If a program is GNU software, we also say that it is a GNU program or a GNU package.[4]

Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.[4]

Examples include Pine, the Microsoft Shared source licence program, certain proprietary implementations of ssh and MINIX.[3] The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work.[6] A treacherous computing application would let you read the words on the screen, but would not let you produce an unencrypted document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free software package, makes security features available to the users; they use it. Treacherous computing is designed to impose restrictions on the users; it uses them. The supporters of treacherous computing focus their discourse on its beneficial uses beneficial uses. What they say is often correct, just not important.[6]

The extensibility and cooperation with external programs adds to the functionality without sacrificing simplicity or efficiency for other users. This is where I think open source software, and desktop Linux in particular, has a lot of room to grow.[2] Open source developers have made great strides in recent years in developing office software that eases migration from Microsoft, and there are some powerful applications for Linux in just about every field.[2]

As stated above not every one wonts to spend time to try and work on software. They would like to plug it up; turn it on; do what they need to do! If you know the linux OS that well then more power to you.[2] There aint in devlopment there work in progress meaning there used by many artist as there working tools, because unlike you they dont steal most of the music software they use, like say Cubase SE.[2] I am glad you pointed it out. "Open Source as more software there more integrated, more easier, more secure to use and they work out of the box, and have been around for a longuer time."[2] " "Mac? I do not like Mac myself and don't know much to compare." The mac as radically changed, both in hardware and software, wait until friday 29 april and go look at tiger. Its not the same as GNU/Linux, GnU/Linux you can change anyway you feel like. "I know this and do give money to projects that I like and use on a day-2-day basis."[2] Most home users just wont things to work right and do not wont to install more than one boxed software. Change that. most would like it preinstalled for them and a easy guide to go w/it.[2] From your first paragraph you must have a very narrow definition of "best". For one user, best may not mean feature laiden software that does everything they would never need to do. It may mean software with less features that matches their needs and lets them get their job done quicker.[2] In iLife, Apple not only created great software with cool features, but provides new users with a clear point of entry that provides quick results. This hooks new users and keeps them coming back.[2] Linux software can surely provide that "wow" impression to a user, but there is not often enough an easy point of entry that brings that "wow" to a new user quickly.[2]

I've been writing software over 20 years on a wide range of systems and languages. Feel free to disregard my word, as I will do with someone who makes such sweeping assumptions.[2] To open up one software and do it all is nice for some people. For me, I have my fav. softwares and will not pass them up.[2] I am not saying that open source should ever go that way, but rather I want to point out that software development involves more that nuts and bolts programming.[2] I made it easy on myself. I split the $80 w/the three of them and orderd a box set. It comes w/nvidia drivers, java and some more things you don't get from the download set. My time was spent only walking them through the install. His topic was only to be "like" other software.[2] Why ? So that I too become a criminal, no sir, 9 years in prison per stolen software is better, the BSA whas invented for people like you.[2] Like I said we got the software, that war is over, problem is where still leeching off Microsoft and Apple Hardware.[2]

If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your computer does.[6]

Source code access and community code review, and at market-beating prices, are not. If they were, more proprietary vendors would offer these benefits. They don't.[5]

1. proprietary software is opposite of free software
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/proprietary.html

2. Linux.com :: What proprietary software can teach open source developers about winning over new users
http://www.linux.com/articles/44112

3. Proprietary software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

4. Categories of Free and Non-Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

5. Why choose proprietary software over open source? Survey says! | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9789275-7.html

6. Can You Trust Your Computer? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html