On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, No Spam wrote: > All, esp. Sam: > > It irks me that some companies or individuals could use open-source > software for profit under "internal use", and not pay the original > author.
If what you want is to create a monopoly and charge a monopoly rent (paying the author royalties) or control "internal use", then you don't want open source. As a contributor to Open Source I oppose the concept of monopolies and monopoly rents, and do not care what sector (public, private, education, etc) a user/contributor comes from, or whether they are for-profit or not. That is my choice, and I choose Free/Libre and Open Source Software. If you don't agree with that choice, then create/use/distribute/modify non-free software. As soon as you go with non-free software you have lost the open-sharing of the open source development model which exists only because of the lack of a monopoly required to collect a monopoly rent or control "internal use", so you should not concern yourself with "trying to have your cake and eating mine too". Off-topic plug: If you are Canadian, are a supporter of Commons-based peer production, the Internet, FLOSS, are opposed to the DMCA being brought into Canada... We need you. We are running an information campaign during the federal election on these issues: http://digital-copyright.ca/ -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Open letters with Susan Crean http://www.flora.ca/creators/ Petition for Users' Rights, Protect Internet creativity and innovation Election 2004: http://digital-copyright.ca/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
