On Apr 17, 2011, at 7:15 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Peter Brigham wrote: > >> On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >>> Scott McDonald wrote: >>>> Where I was getting it mixed up, was that I was equating selling >>>> commercially with not making the source code available. >>>> >>>> But of course, they are not the same thing. >>> >>> Not exactly the same, but how many people pay for milk when they can get >>> the cow for free? >> >> Many, many people. If it means they don't have to milk the cow themselves, >> and feed it, and stable it, and call the vet when it's ill.... There's value >> added by the coder who puts something useful together and maintains it, even >> if the product is open license and could be hacked at will. > > Can you think of three examples of software governed by the GPL has its > development expenses met by sales of the software itself? > > It seems most of the FOSS world is doing something very different....
I expect that you are right, and I actually don't know all the ins and outs of the licensing schemes, much less have any experience with choosing any of them. I guess I was just responding to the general point. How it plays out in practice I'll defer to you and others who know more. -- Peter Peter M. Brigham pmb...@gmail.com http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different." -- Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
