View Full Version : GT+ is going open source
obsidian
05-04-2005, 10:15 AM
Direct from the GT+ forums (http://www.pokerdominion.com/viewtopic.php?t=278). I think this is great personally. Not because I refuse to pay $50 for PV, but because it most likely involve both products getting better faster. With all the new poker sites going up now I think open source might be the best route.
This is excellent news...I was actually thinking that having an open source tracker would be best (no one is scared of ppl stealing info...all the code is out in the open) and 10 people can add sites 10x as fast as 1 person (since it can be done in parallel).
Excellent news, you can count on me making a contribution to this /images/graemlins/smile.gif
MicroBob
05-04-2005, 03:09 PM
what does open source mean?
meep_42
05-04-2005, 03:15 PM
It means that the source code is available to all -- so anyone can modify or add-on to the existing code.
Unlimited writers, unlimited testers, free.
-d
[ QUOTE ]
what does open source mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
Basically the source code (the computer code that runs the program) is going to be freely available for anyone to change/manipulate/download/compile and depending upon the release conditions they cannot sell it for a profit.
An example would be Linux, an open source operating system, where groups of people have spents tons of time working on it and it still remains free and very useful.
wdbaker
05-04-2005, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
what does open source mean?
[/ QUOTE ]
MicroBob,
I love it when you ask simple one line questions. Your cat picture mirrors what I would look like if I were a cat and just popped out from somewhere to ask a question about something someone said /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Made me smile
P.S. I have a cat also
One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co
MicroBob
05-04-2005, 03:30 PM
my cat thanks you for the compliment.
jcolter
05-04-2005, 03:55 PM
I think this is a great idea. Since GT+ is free (as in price anyway)we might as well seek to best optimize it.
It would be great if PT proper would adopt a free software licence like the GPL, although I understand why that is unlikely.
By the way, most free/opensource licenses at least those used a sourceforge do allow resale of the new binaries.
SlyGuy
05-04-2005, 04:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a great idea. Since GT+ is free (as in price anyway)we might as well seek to best optimize it.
It would be great if PT proper would adopt a free software licence like the GPL, although I understand why that is unlikely.
By the way, most free/opensource licenses at least those used a sourceforge do allow resale of the new binaries.
[/ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
icepick
05-04-2005, 04:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
nnoobi
05-04-2005, 05:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
But people who buy your program can give it and the source away for free.
GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)
SlyGuy
05-04-2005, 05:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, so it's free. You either release it to no one or it will end up freely available. Why would anyone pay for GPL code? You may pay for service or support or some fancy packaging and a manual, but GPL code ain't no one gonna pay for.
kross
05-04-2005, 05:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, so it's free. You either release it to no one or it will end up freely available. Why would anyone pay for GPL code? You may pay for service or support or some fancy packaging and a manual, but GPL code ain't no one gonna pay for.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you've never heard of RedHat?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, so it's free. You either release it to no one or it will end up freely available. Why would anyone pay for GPL code? You may pay for service or support or some fancy packaging and a manual, but GPL code ain't no one gonna pay for.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you've never heard of RedHat?
[/ QUOTE ]
You pay for the support, not the software
SlyGuy
05-04-2005, 07:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If its GPL selling it is pointless because you have to provide the source for free. Your statement is misleading.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. You only need to make the source available to the same people that have the program. You can charge for your program as long as you provide the source as well.
GPL does not always mean zero cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, so it's free. You either release it to no one or it will end up freely available. Why would anyone pay for GPL code? You may pay for service or support or some fancy packaging and a manual, but GPL code ain't no one gonna pay for.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you've never heard of RedHat?
[/ QUOTE ]
I can get RedHat ISO's in one of many places absolutely free.
kross
05-04-2005, 07:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can get RedHat ISO's in one of many places absolutely free.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can. That's my point. RedHat makes a good living selling what you can get for free.
astroglide
05-04-2005, 07:37 PM
redhat doesn't make free products anymore, they're relying on fedora to carry the load. even if you get a copy, you can't use up2date from them legally and will have to do something like yum from 3rd-party sources. centos is a compiled from the rhel sources, but TONS of enterprises still pay money for 'the real thing' just to avoid potential trouble.
kross
05-04-2005, 07:40 PM
Well, to be honest, I haven't used RedHat lately, I use Debian, so I'm not sure what their current strategy is.
SlyGuy
05-04-2005, 08:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can get RedHat ISO's in one of many places absolutely free.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can. That's my point. RedHat makes a good living selling what you can get for free.
[/ QUOTE ]
They aren't selling the GPL'd software. That's not their business model. They extend it by building new tools and adding support.
jcolter
05-04-2005, 08:26 PM
Not to confuse the non GPL people here, but I agree that it would pretty hard to sell PT if there was a free community forked version.
That said, I would be nice for the community to develop something like PT that could be open source. Don't get me wrong I love PT but would love to have the flexiblity that free software provides.
Also I think the copy protection in PT is a little on the extreme side as you have to email for a new installation code whenever you change computers, reformat, etc..
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.