Definition of open source
Marius Amado Alves
amado.alves at netcabo.pt
Sat Nov 6 15:22:59 UTC 2004
>>Why should someone be able to make money on someone else's code,
>>without any financial responsibility to the originator of that code? (Alan)
> The whole idea behind open source is that the code is open; it's freely
> available to all. (Arnoud)
This is the only difference. A difference in principle. And an
Note Arnoud did not really reply. Alan asked *why* should authors not be
entitled to payment. Arnoud simply said that authors should NOT be
entitled to payment.
The known only reason why open source is contrary to author being
entitled to payment is a vision of the world where authors are paid
through donations only.
Alan can forget about changing this aspect of the definition of open
source. It is "the whole idea" of it.
More information about the License-discuss