>> Something like FreeBSD where I can give back the changes that I want >> to (think what Apple has done for various open source projects) >> makes me feel good and is probably a fair compromise. > > That's no compromise for the user, only the developer, in that ACME > can build a whizbang out of the developer's work and make megabucks > without contributing anything back.
Remember that it takes money to make money. As you well know, ACME can't just take the software and sell it as-is. I think this is capitalism at its finest (debate capitalism somewhere else). ACME takes the open source software and invests a relatively large amount of money into resources to transform it into a fine piece of commercialized software (tech support, packaging, etc) and sells it for mega bucks. However, there was risk involved in the investment (what if the product never sells?). With risk comes reward. If the original developer of this mythical open source project had the energy to pursue this risk then the rewards could have been his (or the losses). Often times companies utilizing open source in key portions of their business will hire on the lead developer(s) of a project to help them build it. In some sense this is "giving back" in multiple forms. First it is giving the lead developer his dream: getting paid to work on the one thing he loves the most. Second, with the lead developer at the helm it is likely that many of the changes the company makes will end up back in the community. It appears that I'm definitely in the minority here. I guess I have a bit more faith in big business than some of the other people around here do. Which is funny because I figure companies break the GPL all the time whereas you think they just use more "open" licenses :-) -Bob
