JTK wrote:
> 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.
Red Hat makes money off selling Linux CDs and Linux books, as well as
providing tech support. You can go to their web site and download Linux
for free. The only catch is you get no manuals, and they won't provide
tech support. HAHAHA, why am I telling you this? You are the know all
god of open source, you know all this already
>
>
>>Unlike RMS, I
>>don't see selling software as a sin.
>>
>
> As long as it isn't Microsoft doing the selling, right?
Microsoft can sell software to their hearts content. It's just a shame
that I paid for an operating system and instead got a web browser
>
>
>>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.
Um, ok. Mozilla is free. Mozilla is the software people are
developing. You make it sound like someone on the outside works on the
instant messaging code and is then prohibited from using it. Anything
contributed to mozilla.org is free for public use, and free to use in
any commercial product. Are you missing a few brain cells or something?
>
>
>>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.
Excuse me??? Software involves no labor? So you mean I just sit down
and type:
Ok computer, I want a W3C complient web browser, and all the source for
it, hit enter and then suddenly a couple hundred million lines of code
pop up and I get a web browser? No, not quite. It takes a very, very
long time to write a web browser. It's taken MS over 5 years and they
still haven't done it right.
