Definition of open source
galactus at stack.nl
Sat Nov 6 15:40:32 UTC 2004
Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> 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.
Oh, you can get paid all right. You're just not entitled to
> 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.
In my view, programmers perform a service, for which they may get
paid if they can find people willing to pay them. Just like lawyers,
plumbers and other specialists.
I don't have to pay the plumber every time I flush my toilet,
why should I pay Linus every time I copy Linux?
> Alan can forget about changing this aspect of the definition of open
> source. It is "the whole idea" of it.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
More information about the License-discuss