Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : mschaef Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 03:33 pm In article , Scott Moore wrote: >Guys, this thread is never going to end. > >To the software communists: Sorry, this is late and might well be out of context. But... Open source has some real benefits, even in a capitalist economy: * OSS allows a market to form around suppport for software rather than the software itself * OSS ensures that software can be developed/maintained as long as the market will pay the costs. * OSS is particularly beneficial in education, where the whole point (almost) is open dissimination of information. * OSS provides creative outlets for lots of otherwise under employed developers. * Because product sales don't drive development, OSS provides a good platform for more 'experimental' types of software. >You aren't going to get what you want. There's nothing (yet) legally that keeps OSS and Closed Source from both being viable models. >Why ? Nobody is for it. There are only a few people that are for OSS-only, but a hybrid software marketplace is likely to achieve much broader acceptance. >Sure, people steal software all the time. Theft is bad. >But they don't do >it because they feel its their moral right. They do it because they *CAN*. That's exactly the kind of reasoning that could drive open source 'out of business'. Closed source only is as bad as open source only. -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com .