On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Mark P <pierh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This approach seems to me to be a good compromise between > open source and proprietary funding. It provides all the benefits of > open source over time, yet provides a tangible reason for paying > licence fees beyond just goodwill. It also means that employees > who are part of businesses that can't understand voluntary donations, > can more easily justify the expenditure.
This strikes me as a potentially disastrous idea; look at how much mindshare going the proprietary route has cost Rebol, for instance. martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
