Re: MS vs Open Source link
A good way to handle this is to take the Apache projects, name them something different, add a pretty UI and then sell them for lots of money to those same customers under a more restrictive and closed-source license. I'm in contact with one company that already does this with HttpClient, which is of course completely fine by the license. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MS vs Open Source link
Overall a good article. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985221.html?tag=fd_top The scary thing is I have heard clients that they think that if they use any open source... now their software is open source or in a conflict with comerical software they are using. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MS vs Open Source link
The scary thing is I have heard clients that they think that if they use any open source... now their software is open source or in a conflict with comerical software they are using. A good way to handle this is to take the Apache projects, name them something different, add a pretty UI and then sell them for lots of money to those same customers under a more restrictive and closed-source license. Oh, wait, IBM already does this =) (Not bashing IBM, just making a funny - this is sorta the point of the Apache license) -Brian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MS vs Open Source link
I can understand them thinking that. I had my gut feeling on it slightly off for a while, mainly as I was viewing one type of software. ie) Say I grab an LGPL/GPL Java library and incorporate it into my product, which btw I install onto client's machines via jnlp. As I am distributing a product, I have to open source it and furthermore GPL it. Now, the mistake I made was to apply this example to other software which ran only on the server, ignoring the fact that it wasn't being distributed in this case. Still, it's a pain to have to deal with and not worth the effort. That's only for the viral *GPL stuff though. As for the article itself, I think it's more the open atmosphere to bug-reporting that means opensource is less buggy, and the frequent releases, than the code itself being open. So there's no reason why closed source shouldn't be the same, except that they're unable to replicate the culture that popular open source projects have. Hen On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Vic Cekvenich wrote: Overall a good article. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985221.html?tag=fd_top The scary thing is I have heard clients that they think that if they use any open source... now their software is open source or in a conflict with comerical software they are using. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MS vs Open Source link
Henri Yandell wrote: (...) As for the article itself, I think it's more the open atmosphere to bug-reporting that means opensource is less buggy, and the frequent releases, than the code itself being open. So there's no reason why closed source shouldn't be the same, except that they're unable to replicate the culture that popular open source projects have. Culture is already a big enough answer. Being impatient as I am, I find increasingly that culture in closed source groups, no matter how big, is much less cosmopolitan than, say, Apache or Debian people. One of the reasons is because they cannot discuss freely (with lines of code) the technical problems except in a reduced population, and they tend to have narrow thinking. Also, I think a key answer is about shame and pride. I have already felt ashamed committing very hacky code in public repositories due to the need of having it working, quick fixing, etc. In a closed source culture thee is no compelling reason to revisit this code, and the probability of somebody else fixing or refactoring it is quite small. ;-) You have both a positive reason (being proud of your own code) and a negative pressure (being ashamed by other people looking at it) to ensure highr quality of initial Open Source contributions. On top of this, you have a feed back process to fix problems. So, I won't be marvelled if the results are (asymptotically) perfect. Regards, Santiago - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
