Ian Lance Taylor
ian at airs.com
Wed Mar 28 19:35:28 UTC 2001
Angelo Schneider <angelo.schneider at oomentor.de> writes:
> I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try
> to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not
> everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc.
I think most people on this list understand that.
> Also its a bit pathetic to say: "Yeah, he gives you also the source, but
> that is not Open Source. He should make it closed sorce again or true
> open source". That doesn't serve anybody.
I think very few people on this list say that.
What we do say is something which I think is very simple: open source
has a meaning. It is probably true that it is harder to make money
producing software that is open source than it is producing software
which is not open source. However, that fact does not in any way mean
that we should change the definition of open source.
Quite a few people on this list have said that if you want to provide
source, along with a license fee, by all means go and do it. Just
don't call it open source.
I think that is a very simple position. I honestly can not understand
why anybody has a problem with it.
More information about the License-discuss