On Monday, August 8 at 05:34 PM, quoth Bob Van Zant:
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.
True, but without the open-source software, ACME gets to write it's own IMAP server and spend even more money. The thing to remember here is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Using an established widget as a base for the whizbang, ACME saves lots of development money. The other way to do that is to buy the rights (or a license) to a commercial established widget. This means more money!
Open-source, rather than requiring monetary payment for the widget, has use requirements. If you can't stand the use requirements, buy a widget. THIS is capitalism.
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.
And you feel this is less likely to happen with GPL'd software than with BSD'd software? What (evidence?) makes you think this is the trend?
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 :-)
That's not capitalism, that's "theft". Just as much as getting a copy of a commercial widget's source code without paying for it would be theft.
I'm curious - what makes you think that a company that is willing to commit a crime to get ahead financially is going to be more interested in using (or contributing openly to) a BSD-style licensed widget than a GPL'd widget?
~Kyle
--
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.
-- Chuckles the Clown
pgpFCxg2i1nOK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
