Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes open-source software should have restrictions and limitations.

    The time and effort a programmer invests to code a software application deserves to compensated and protected. By putting restrictions on the use and licensing of the software the members of the open-source community can still contribute and modify the program while protecting the interests of the original author of the program.

  • No There Should Not Be Any Restrictions On Open Source.

    If You Can't Trust Our Own To Government To Protect Us Or Others From Criminals Then Why Would You Trust Them To Successfully Imposse Restrictions On Open Source.

    Gun "Free" Zones Where Implemented By The Government And They've Had More Shootings Then Areas That Allow You To Bring Your Guns Inside.

    States With Strict Gun Laws Have A Higher Rate Of Crime Then The States With Loose Gun Laws.

    The Public Education System Is Controlled By The Government And Students Constantly Drop Out, Or End Up With Low Grades & Low SAT Scores.

    Our Government Tells You How You Can & Can't Raise Your Kids And Has Been Known To Take People's Children Just Because That Child Was Put In Timeout Or Hot Spanked.

  • There is no point

    There is no point to restrictions on open-source software. Since the code is out there and available to everyone, anyone who knows what they are doing can do whatever they want with it. Wishes and preferences can certainly be made known, but expecting the whole Internet to play by your rules is folly.

  • Open source software should not have restrictions.

    The whole idea behind open source software is to make it available to the public, so that they may change and improve said software. If a company releases software as open source, then the software shouldn't have restrictions. If restrictions are desired, there are other ways to release software besides open source, such as closed source or source available.

  • No, that defeats the purpose.

    Open-source software should have no restrictions at all. That's why it is there, afterall. Why would you even propose such a question. If something is going to be open to the public and is beneficial to them, then leave it open to the public. There's no reason to do otherwise.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.