Hi, On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 02:05:19PM -0500, steve paesani wrote:
> > ... Developers charge for the actual work being done -- and once > > payed, > the > > availability of the results doesn't need to be restricted > > I agree. No you don't. You are proposing some kind of license model that *does* restrict the availability of the results. Or at least you did originally -- don't know what your current idea is. > True, free software is, by fact, a myth. What the FUCK are you talking about? I guess you still don't even know what "free software" means. Must have been illusory of me, expecting you to follow my advice; to actually take a look at gnu.org, and *try* to understand what it is all about. Say http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for example. > Lest developers have starved to death after 7 or so days of > programming GPL licensed code they were sustained, somehow, by others > which invariably equates to getting paid. See, you agree that there is no problem :-P > The organised and suastained suport however form much of the software > written in this manner can be said by some if not may to be lacking. Oh? I don't think RedHat customers are complaining about lack of sustained support. > I am for an open development compensation licence. It is > straightforward, honest, and alleviates the what I and perhaps others > might say is overcharging for running a 'market copy and print' shop, > aka royalties, after development, maintenance and enhancement costs > are covered. I don't see how this differs from free software published under the GPL. -antrik-
