Why bluescreen when you can...

azcn2503 · Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:19 am

Open source means open source. It does not make something free.

treeseph · Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:19 pm

Seems we've lost alot of arguing here

DRAGON · Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:43 pm

OPEN SOURCE DOESN'T MEAN FREE. End of

Now there's no need for the arguing there was before

Skillers · Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:46 pm

I don't see how something that has the source freely available ISN'T free. I mean, you can download and compile yourself for no charge.

treeseph · Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:58 pm

I guess it depends on how honest you are

azcn2503 · Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:01 pm

Inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

treeseph · Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:12 pm

I see

Nannal · Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:53 am

they can sell the compilation, but someone else will just compile it for you (or you can compile it) for free if it's open sauce

treeseph · Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:13 pm

sauce like tomato?

Skillers · Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:21 pm

Exactly.

Ogris · Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:14 pm

If you can compile it yourself, people are basically saying it ISNT open source.

You see, if you can compile it, it's open source, and you can compile it free of charge, if they charge you for something it CLEARLY isn't open source that or your a bloody moron who bought it from a shady guy on ebay

Aljidy · Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:29 pm

Everything NEEDS to be open source so it can be easily backwards hacked

Skillers · Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:06 pm

It's not hacking if they encourage it

Aljidy · Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:40 am

Skillers wrote:

It's not hacking if they encourage it

Wow!! I fail once again D:
O well, backwards editable or somthing <sob> <sob>

Nannal · Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:37 am

Backwards compatible, what with the commador 64?

Why bluescreen when you can...

Who is online