Money is going into various projects. There is a variety of models and
a mixture of community contribution and enterprise contribution..
You may be interested in this article: Microsoft vs. Open Source: Who
Will Win? : http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4834.html
The issues involve everyone really. Taking without making a reciprocal
contribution is leechlike behaviour. If you buy from M$$$$$, that's
your contribution to its success.
Earning a living has to come first at some point, unless you've already
done that to excess and don't need to do it any longer.
Randolph D Garrett wrote:
Thanks.
The question is more oriented towards the financial side. It's hard to
'support' in a way (maybe the word is participate?) open software
development IF it is designed as "unprofitable" and therefore doesn't have a
hired work force.
The basic concept of "no one owns the code / design", that is no patent, is
great! No monopoly! No government either. However there is a committee
involved in a way. ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I FULLY support open software as it is a great way to
create software as well as shareware and other methods recently (last 20
years) developed in creating and dispensing products.
However I cannot WORK in open software development as I, and a lot of people
I know, just don't have the free time to do so. Employment (and money) is a
first consideration in life.
So essentially all the developers are unpaid as there is no "profit center"?
Red Hat is such a profit center. Just trying to understand all these open
development concepts from a bean counter perspective. And therefore what's
in it for me...
--
If you're seeking, check out http://www.rci.org.au
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
