Free?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 23.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Chante:
> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:j81ve0$7jf$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Am 23.10.2011 22:59, schrieb Chante:
>>> "Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote in message
>>> news:j81rap$1f50$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> On 10/22/2011 01:56 PM, Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>> I'd never seen it before - maybe I lead a sheltered life.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPL: "Free as in Herpes"
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that just hit the nail on the head.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. It's pure flamebait. Nobody wants to get herpes and 
>>>> it
>>>> serves no useful purpose. On the other hand, many people happily use
>>>> GPL software and like the fact that the source is available and will
>>>> remain available with further distributions.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't like GPL then don't use it. It's not hidden and going to
>>>> infect you without your consent.
>>>
>>> It is "subtle": a programmer exposed to the viral source code (or some
>>> software company's source code) becomes "tainted" from that exposure.
>>> Most programmers, unfortunately, do not consider this. It is 
>>> especially
>>> "evil" in the case of viralware because a youngster at home just 
>>> wanting
>>> to learn programming or build some software will download the viral 
>>> code
>>> and become "tainted" at an early age (way before he/she is able to 
>>> make
>>> decisions concerning his/her future and what is best for them). It's 
>>> like
>>> marketing cigarettes to youngsters!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is like claiming anyone who ever worked with proprietary code can
>> never again work at another company because he is tainted.
> 
> It is to be considered. Or should be, but most people don't think very 
> deeply about anything and rather "just go with the flow" ("sheeple"?). 
> Virginity is sometimes a requirement. It may be wise to value that to 
> keep the possibilities open.
> 

I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer that
has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
In the contrary, prior job experience (which mostly implies having
touched proprietary code) is often required or at least helpful, and
having worked with open source code (GPL or whatever) usually is a bonus.
Often having experience with Linux and other GPL'ed software from the
Linux environment is even required - many companies use Linux and
related software + their own proprietary stuff, so you end up modifying
GPL'ed code so it works with your product and thus have to touch it.

> It's not "black or white", of course. There are varying degrees of 
> "baggage" ("taint") one has. If all a programmer has known is viral 
> source projects, he/she probably knows too many (or only) viral source 
> code passages and can't program effectively otherwise. Surely too big a 
> risk for pristine source code (again, IMO). Before one starts to learn 
> programming, they should think about where they want to go with that in 
> the future, for unwise choices early on can hamper (or worse) the 
> possibilities. Caveat emptor. 
> 

I think this (don't look at GPL- or otherwise "viral" code if you want
to become a professional programmer) is groundless fearmongering. Sounds
like FUD directly from Microsofts worst marketers.


But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this newsgroup
who earn money with software development (or have done so in the past):
Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software as
a hindrance for a job?
Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
(Or both - "depends on the job"?)

Cheers,
- Daniel