With eclectic musical tastes and a love of all things Web 2.0, Ewan was the natural choice to review Mobbler, a new S60 client that integrates with Last.FM to share your music favourites with the world and present to you other tracks and genres that you'll probably like. And it's Open Source too, i.e. free - what are you waiting for?
Read on in the full article.
I like the scribbled-with-a-biro icons, they look fun. 😊
Incidentally, Last.fm is a great service. If you haven't tried it, give it a go, it will get you in touch with music that you haven't heard but may well enjoy. It's free and you don't have to "scrobble" to use it.
> And it's Open Source too, i.e. free - what are you waiting for?
Perhaps you should be more explicit about 'open source' means 'free'.
'open source' is more well defined than the word 'free'; the latter could mean a few things, one of which is 'zero-cost' which does not equate with 'open source'.
It's true that open source doesn't necessarily mean free-of-charge, but:
1) Very few people know what source code actually is, so the true definition of "open source" is meaningless to them
2) All open source software seems to be available free-of-charge (at least I can't think of any OSS which costs money, though support may be charged for)
Put the two together, and "open source = free-of-charge" actually makes a lot more sense than the real definition. From a consumer point of view, that's the only definition that counts really.
Tzer2 wrote:It's true that open source doesn't necessarily mean free-of-charge, but:1) Very few people know what source code actually is, so the true definition of "open source" is meaningless to them
2) All open source software seems to be available free-of-charge (at least I can't think of any OSS which costs money, though support may be charged for)
Put the two together, and "open source = free-of-charge" actually makes a lot more sense than the real definition. From a consumer point of view, that's the only definition that counts really.
Unfortunately, the differences between open source and free-of-charge are *very* important. The whole point in Open Source is nothing to do with free-of-charge, even if that may be most commonly the case.
If people keep using OSS when they mean free-of-charge, then people are going to be very confused when they are charged for things.
Never heard of Red Hat or SUSE? They both have OSS for which they charge...and that's just off the top of my head.
Nothing but pedantic tangents. You people give people like me a bad name.
Unfortunately, the differences between open source and free-of-charge are *very* important.
You're right, they are very important differences, but they are impossible to understand unless you know what "source code" means, and most people don't.
Software to most people is something they install on their machines, which only ever happens after it's been compiled by the publisher. To consumers there's no practical difference at all between open source and closed source, because consumers never use the source code anyway.
The whole point in Open Source is nothing to do with free-of-charge, even if that may be most commonly the case.
The thing is, being free-of-charge is the only reason most people use open source software.
Most ordinary computer users don't know or care whether something is open source. All they want is something that works and is as cheap as possible, and the big selling point of OSS is that most of it is completely free-of-charge.
I'm not happy with that, I'm just saying that's the situation at the moment.
Nothing but pedantic tangents. You people give people like me a bad name.
How can we give you a bad name when you post anonymously? 😉
Seriously though, I don't think it's pedantic to discuss people's real reasons for using OSS. If people want OSS to spread (which the authors of this mobbler app clearly do as they released the source code) then it's important to know what motivates the majority of potential OSS users.
It doesn't matter if people don't understand what source code is or what it means to be open source. Equating the open source with free-of-charge is wrong (and is not pedantic in the least). If people don't know what open source is, then that's fine since they can find out. What you're doing here is telling them it means free-of-charge when that is wrong, plain and simple, and telling people that doesn't do them any favours what so ever.
If it's 'free-of-charge', which not just say that? If they don't care if it's open source, then don't even mention it. They are different terms for different things - they are not synonyms. If you want to say both, then use 'open source *and* free-of-charge', not 'ie'.