At 5:17 PM -0500 12/3/00, mlw wrote:
>I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
>it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
>how anyone could think differently.
Yeah, it really sucks when companies that are in buisness to make money by creating solutions and support for end users
takethe hard work of volenteers, commit resources to extending and enhancing that work, and make that work more
accessableend users (for a fee).
Maybe it's unfair that the people at the bottom of that chain don't reap a percentage of the revenue generated at the
top,but those people were free to read the license of the product they were contributing to.
Ironically, the GPL protects the future income a programmer much bettter than the BSD license, becuase under the GPL
theoriginal author can sell the code to a commercial enterprise who otherwise would not have been able to use it. Even
moreironically, the GPL doesn't prevent 3rd parties from feeding at the trough as long as they DON'T extend and enhance
theproduct. (Though Red Hat and friends donate work back to maintain community support.)
To me, Open Source is about admitting that the Computer Science field is in it's infancy, and the complex systems we're
buildingtoday are the fundamental building blocks of tomorrow's systems. It is about exchanging control for adoption, a
trade-offthat has millions of case studies.
Think Different,
-pmb
--
"Every time you provide an option, you're asking the user to make a decision.That means they will have to think about
somethingand decide about it.It's not necessarily a bad thing, but, in general, you should always try tominimize the
numberof decisions that people have to make."http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51