[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> There appears to be a misunderstanding as to what OpenSource software
> means. OpenSource is a business model. OpenSource software may be
> commercial software or software released to the public domain.
>
snipped
>
> Furthermore Free Software demands that anyone who makes and distributes
> changes to the software must make the sources containing his changes
> available publicly as well.
snipped
> Walnut Creek, SuSE, Red Hat and Cygnus (I'm not sure how well Cygnus is
> doing) are three companies who have demonstrated that OpenSource software
> can be the basis for a lucrative business. $49 or $59 per CD ROM
> containing an Operating System is not that much cheaper than MS Windows or > OS/2.
>(Of course, you get better quality ;-).
Starting with the last reveision, SuSE is selling through CompUSA at $29
US. I think SuSE doesn't get much revenue this way, but the book and
six CD are sure moving! With rev. 6.3, I believe SuSE offers the option
of a DVD instead of the six CDs. Low cost distribution is here, but it
is not free. Revisions are about every four months. Also, one whole
section of the (probably) 1300 titles on the set is COMMERCIAL stuff.
ie, demo packages that will only keep running after you pay your money.
BTW, all of this stuff should be relatively easy to port to a QNX
kernel, depending on the nature of the GUI.
>
> NextStep, which was incorporated into MacOS, is an example for a
> commercial software that incorporated Free software as part of a
> commercial package -
> the GNU C/C++ compiler, with permission of the FSF, in a deal in which
> NextStep contributed an Objective C front end that was redistributed under
> the GNU license, pretty much putting StepStone our of business. (StepStone
> is/was Brad Cox' company. Brad Cox was the inventor of Objective C.)
>
> In short the OpenSource model does not guarantee that users will be able
> to obtain the software without paying for it, nor does OpenSource exclude
> the programmer from making a living.
>
> Finally, OpenSource is not always the appropriate business model for a
> software.
>
> With respect to REBOL, it would be helpful, if REBOL Tech committed to
> releasing REBOL under an OpenSource license, if and when for some reason
> they decide to discontinue it and cannot find a commercial entity
> interested in continuing to maintain and evolve it. The reason I say this
> is that in the early/mid eighties I was using Coherent (Mark Williams
> Company). They went out of the business but Coherent continues to be
> proprietary. One of the disks I have was damaged and now I have no legal
> way of replacing it. There is no organization to back it and there is no
> way to continue to evolve it so that it makes use of new hardware
> capabilites etc.
>
> Elan
>
