I understand Rod's point, and I believe that if you choose to restrict your activities to a purely altruistic ideal, then what Rod talks about and what Eric Rayomond talks about is just fine. But, I argue that at any point you invest time into open source (as a user,developer, etc.) it is always part of a business model. It's just a matter of degrees.
For the benefit of open source, it can no longer, especially in the case of health care software, remain "garage at-home projects." Capital needs to be fed to those individuals doing the work, AND it's important to make sure those individuals are always associated with the project in the public's eye. Otherwise progress will become stagnate. The question is, which business model accelerates open source development faster? Richard Rod Roark wrote: > On Saturday 25 March 2006 03:08 am, Thomas Beale wrote: > >>Rod Roark wrote: >> >>>The point is, open source (as in Free Software) is NOT a business >>>model. It's a method and end result of collaboration among users. >>>I make good money at it only because some of those users are willing >>>to pay me to do the techie work for them. >> >>if someone is paying you something, then there is a business model. It's >>better to be aware of what it is than pretend that it isn't there.... > > > My business is just work for hire, and I can assure you that I'm aware > of it. :-) This has nothing to do with my point. > > For a better understanding of the nature of Free Software, see Eric > Raymond's classic work at: > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ > > and as an interesting exercise, count how many times the word > "business" appears. > > -- Rod > www.sunsetsystems.com > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/