jesus X wrote:
>
> Garth Wallace wrote:
> > MPL is more restrictive than the BSD license but not so much as the GPL,
> > AFAICT.
>
> To me, I consider the MPL more open than the GPL license, similar to the BSDL.
> Why? Despite Roblimo's article in Open Magazine, the GPL is somewhat contagious.
> Mainly in the aspect of never being able to make money from it.
Please explain how you're not able to make money from GPLed software.
Red Hat somehow has stayed in business for quite a while, though you
claim they don't turn a profit.
> Unlike RMS, I
> don't see selling software as a sin.
As long as it isn't Microsoft doing the selling, right?
> There's the idea of service being the
> revenue stream, but how do you get a product to support without having someone
> make that product?
Sucker people to do it for you for free, then don't give them the same
rights to the software that you have. Hypothetically, of course.
> Ok, so you get some capital and hire some programmers and pay
> they wages. But what about the small time programmer? Sure, you pay a carpenter
> by the hour to come fix your house, but you'd ALSO pay him for a cabinet if you
> buy it from him. He would never make money if he gave away the cabinets and just
> hoped when they broke people would pay him to fix them.
>
Cabinets have what is known in the world of economics as "variable
cost". Wood costs money. Building each and every cabinet requires
labor, which costs money. Software doesn't have this cost. Ergo, your
comparison is faulty.
> --
> jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
