"Santiago Gala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're assuming, of course, that you can't have commercial software that
>> *is* open source :-). Such models do exist -- so I'm assuming you are
>> primarily talking about closed source commercial software.
>
> This is a very meaningful distinctions. IMO, the fundamental distinction
> here is that of Open vs Closed, not beer-free vs Commercial, where Open
> means Free-freedom (I don't want to go GPL vs BSD here)
I agree wholeheartedly... We're planning to change our servlet container
because we can't get the sources of the one we're using right now. (No, as
of now I'm not a Tomcat user, and probably not even in the future).
The one we use ATM is good, but comes in "binary only" and had already to
decompile the classes TWO TIMES to figure out why some of our web
applications were failing. No fun.
On the other hand, I don't mind paying for a Servlet container which gives
me full access to the source... I have some problem on "live", if I have the
sources, I can check it out and try to fix it... Having the sources is also
beneficial if I want to have a support contract with my container: if I see
a bug, they can tell me to modify and recompile the sources, apply some
patches, we can work together to solve it, instead of being a blind process
of receiving a "jar" file and putting it live...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
