Marius Amado Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Again on words. It seems what you sell is not "open" after all, > because you "have not contributed back yet". Your selling the > future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell > it, is not open.
Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is that what we are selling is not publically available except through us (or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that you see the shifting target. If your point is that there exists something which can be described as open source and which can not be sold, I concede. The same is obviously true of proprietary software. This is a weird argument all the way around. Nobody disputes that Red Hat is selling open source software and services. Nobody disputes that they are a successful company. What else do you need to see for an example of commercial open source? Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
