Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
Carol A. Kunze
ckunze at ix.netcom.com
Sat Mar 31 14:32:07 UTC 2001
At 01:23 AM 3/31/01 -0800, Chris Sloan wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > He explained the difference using the example of a museum
> > open to the public. Any member of the public has a "right"
> > to enter the museum. But they still have to pay the admission fee.
>I would have said that, precisely speaking, a member of the public
>doesn't have "the right to enter the museum." He has "the right to
>enter the museum upon paying admission."
>Many rights are limited or assume certain conditions. Living the the
>US, I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that it is
>the "right to free speech without limits."
>Maybe I missed the distinction you were making.
>cds at ghs.com
>Systems Software Engineer
>Green Hills Software
Stepping away from a technical interpretation of the OSD, the requirement
of a license fee seems inconsistent because it jeopardizes the primary
byproduct resulting from the open source model of developing and
distributing software - the stability and high quality of the product.
When the potential talent pool from which a product can draw programmers is
the world - the consequences show in the quality of the product.
Charging a license fee to run the product reduces that talent pool to a
company's programmers and its paying customers. What's more it means
centralized control. This isn't bazaar - its cathedral.
More information about the License-discuss