YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Hi Ben and others,
After some more thinking, I decide to try the virtual credit approach afterall.
Last time Ben's argument was that the virtual credit method confuses
for-profit and charity emotions in people. At that time it sounded
convincing, but after some thinking I realized that it is actually
completely untrue. My approach is actually more unequivocally
for-profit, and Ben's accusation actually applies to OpenCog's stance
more aptly. I'm afraid OpenCog has some ethical problems by
straddling between for-profit and charity. For example: why do you
need funding to do charity? If you want to do charity why not do it
out of your own pockets?
Why do you think people create foundations? Or for that matter why do
they seek funding for normal businesses, even open source based ones,
while starting up on nearly nothing except what change they found in the
lint of their pockets and enthusiasm? There is nothing unpure about
seeking funding. Funding allows you to go further faster.
Why use a dual license if the final product
is supposed to be free for all? etc.
I am not sure you understand dual licensing. Typically, although I
can't speak for this case, the source is completely open and all
non-commercial users can do whatever they want gratis. Commercial users
pay a fee for using it commercially. This is one way to have all the
benefits of open source plus support the effort and even turn a healthy
profit. MySql is a well known example (or was) of such licensing.
- samantha
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
