Definition of open source

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

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
per-copy royalties. 

> 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.

Absolutely.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/