Wrong. GPL protects the developers more than open source.
Open Source allows commercial exploitation by allowing it to co-exist with
proprietary and closed software.
I have come to distrust anything that is 'closed', although to make a
living I have to work with it.
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/05/2004 06:32 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Anyone Nagios? (GPL discussion)
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 06:29:19PM -0800, Ranga Nathan wrote:
> I agree. Where woudl be all the software without GPL?
>
> Let us picture this:
>
> If as a developer I want to develop a software that I think will be of
> wide-spread use and provide me a livelihood, I could pitch it on
> sourceforge.net and invite others to join in and contribute. I can then
> offer the software to customers and offer customization or support. The
> other developers can do the same. I get to receive authorship, can
> possibly write a book (royalties), support money, some lecture tours and
> some fame. Much of this can translate into a decent revenue stream. When
I
> am bored, I can pitch another project. If I want to quit supporting, I
can
> do so in the comfort that there are others who will pick up the ball and
> run. Everyone goes home happy.
There is absolutely nothing in this scenario that requires the software be
licensed under the GPL. Any Open Source Definition-compliant license will
serve.
