On 23 Oct 2003 12:51:31 -0700 "D. Cooper Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... | "In recent years, there has been a growing challenge to the commercial | software model, often referred to as the Open Source model. Under the | Open Source model, software is produced by loosely associated groups | of unpaid programmers, and the resulting software and the intellectual | property contained therein is licensed to end users at substantially | no cost.
This is just *WRONG*, like saying that all penguins are mean. Some are... but many open source developers, especially the ones working on projects that threaten M$ the most, are paid IMHO. Good info though, Cooper; thanks for passing it along. Maybe some folks have ideas on how to more effectively or accurately describe the Open Source model? I understand that a LOT of work is done "for free" although I don't believe for a minute that any such developer gets "nothing" for their work -- simply the equity of being an *known* expert of a system is worth a lot, potentially leading to a great-paying full-time position or some easy-going contract work, is worth a lot these days. I wonder if M$ is planning to go the "free for non-commercial use" route that seems to be a growing trend in proprietary software these days. I really wonder... cheerio, Ben _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
