On Tuesday 25 September 2007 20:36:53 Lorn Potter wrote: > > Yep, but there's this undeniable fact that having 0 entry cost invites > > a whole new class of developers that you wouldn't have otherwise. I > > think we could perfectly choose QTopia and just handicap commercial > > developers, either of the options is better than having two options. > > You are confusing 'commercial' with 'closed source'. No one says open > source software cannot be sold commercially. You just have to offer and > release your code to your customers should they want it.
From the sentiment on the list, it seems that the license model is wrong. Everybody is talking about free-to-do-whatever-I-want-to-do-with-it in a BSD style license. If the project really welcomes any kind of support and/or software, free and/or commercial, the type of license should have been BSD, because as it stands, it has very little to do with the GPL. I'm not implying GPL is a superior license but rather that from what I read on this list, people say GPL even though they mean BSD - both valid choices, as long as you don't confuse them, which happens quite regularly around here (like calling GPL-d software non-free). _______________________________________________ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community