Parts of DuckDuckGo are Open Source, as described here: https://duck.co/help/open-source/opensou...

The rest of DDG is non-Open Source and is defined here: https://duck.co/help/company/architectur...

DDG is free to all users, which is why non-JavaScript versions are available at:
posted by x.15a2 Community Leader4 years and 19 days ago Link

I've mentioned that DDG is free software largely, but that does not cut it for me. I do use the HTML version and it is free, which is good, but most people do not use the HTML or lite versions. And the HTML and lite versions lack features that the JavaScript version has, such as theming. This is not the end of the world, since I will still have a fully functioning search enigne but it puts me under a disadvantage over the people who use the JavaScript version. We don't want freedom just for some hackers, but we want freedom for everyone and this will be a step in the right direction for the movement. So will you make the JavaScript free?
posted by kzer_za 4 years and 19 days ago Link
i have some questions:

who is "we"

what is "the movement"

what are some other significant web sites including search engines that are "free" by your definition

since ddg does not collect any user identifiable information what is the harm

why do you think that a for profit company cannot have proprietary code
posted by buckeye 4 years and 19 days ago Link
Sorry that I confused you, let me explain.

I meant "we" as in the people that support Free Software, such as myself and "the movement" is reffering to the Free Software Movement to spread use of free software.

Well, it is difficult to give examples because not many websites have free JavaScript but sites such as stallman.org and fsf.org do, but they are sites promoting free software so they would. It is dissapointing that most websites are not free but we do try to convince them (which is what I'm doing at the moment). AFAIK there is no free search enigne except for the ones without JavaScript at all.

DDG does not collect personal information, which is good but freedom is a different to privacy (though they do connect closely). I believe that DDG should be 100% free software to the user (does not have to be the server though, that is up to the people who run the server) so that people could have a fully private engine and that they know what their search engine is doing.

Just because a piece of software is made commercially does not mean that it must be propietery. I believe that all software should be free, commercial or not. Most companies' excuses are that propietery software is better for the money. But that is just them hiding their greed. Making free software is a business and you can make money out of it if you wish.
posted by kzer_za 4 years and 18 days ago Link
This comment has been removed for violation of our forum rules.
posted by <hidden> • 3 years and 10 months ago
> Companies have to make money somehow

I'm pretty sure they meant free as in freedom, not price. When we say "free software", people sometimes think that we mean that the software must be free of charge, which is not true. When we say "free", we mean that the software respects user's four basic freedoms: To use it, study it, modify it and share it. I support using the term "libre software", to avoid confusion.

> should *all products* be free?

That's an entirely different matter. I personally don't think it's a good idea and don't support it. Software needs to be libre because it's software, but it doesn't have to be free of cost. Non-software, obviously, doesn't have to be free of cost, nor libre.

> If you could explain why it would, that would be great.

I can see that making money from libre software might be different from proprietary software. But there are companies that do it and show that it's possible. For reference, the company "Red Hat", or the libre, yet commercial game "Sleep is Death".

> By making all software free, you're paying personal data instead of cash.

Sorry, but could you please elaborate? I don't see how libre software would be dangerous to users' privacy. On the contrary, you can never be sure what exactly is proprietary software doing, therefore you can't be sure that it doesn't collect data from you. Libre software is also open source, which means that anyone can check the code to make sure it doesn't do anything bad.

> I'm willing to pay for good products, and anyone else concerned about privacy probably should be too.

I would also be willing to pay for good products. If a program is libre, I'm still willing to pay for it, because I appreciate the developers' work.
posted by Tirifto 3 years and 10 months ago Link
This comment has been removed for violation of our forum rules.
posted by <hidden> • 3 years and 10 months ago
> I meant free as in money, not free as in "libre".

Ah, yes. While some cases like that exist, I believe it's surely not a rule. A lot of libre and free of cost sofwtare is also very secure and respects your privacy. (I say libre because libre can be verified, but some proprietary free of cost software might also respect your privacy.)

Perhaps you refer to companies like Google, who don't charge you for their services, but track your every step in return. DuckDuckGo is a good example of company that gives you a gratis service, but still respect your privacy.

Of course, values like freedom and privacy come first. If someone provides a safe service for free, that's great! But if they can't afford to make it gratis without sacrificing freedom or privacy, it's better if they make it commercial and keep it moral. Perhaps I should learn to express myself more briefly, though.
posted by Tirifto 3 years and 10 months ago Link
Sorry, I never meants price. "Free" is a confusing word in the English language. (I should have used 'libre' instead) I am fine with people charging their programs, but their programs should be free/libre software.

I do like gratis things but I do agree that some things must have a price.
posted by kzer_za 3 years and 10 months ago Link