There are issues with GPL and Open Source too, though. Look at mySQL. They've split their community and enterprise versions. They will not release free binaries anymore. The community editions, unlike Fedora, are actually updated LESS frequently than the enterprise version. This means that updates are actually being vetted by the Enterprise Customers instead of the non-paying customers. This is a bad idea. Its actually worse for paying and non-paying customers.
And look at CUPS. Since all contributors gave rights to their code to the corporation originally sponsoring it, Apple was able to swoop in and buy up the corporation and the code. The existing GPL code can, of course, be forked, but the primary developer is now an Apple employee, and they don't have to legally release any new code to the public, since they also own all the copyright. Who knows if they will or not. I guess I feel to some extent that these are both bait and switch tactics....'free software...' I mean, if I'd written a program which used mySQL I'd be fairly angry that I either needed to pay for a supported version or build my own binaries from scratch. That's not what they were advertising a year ago. They just wanted people to use it, and now that they are using it...they want to charge them. Technically its their right. The GPL doesn't demand that they release binaries. But its really more in the spirit of FOSS that these things don't happen. J On 7/18/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Mike Wohlrab wrote: > > > Well with Linux, you have to use their file format. > > Wrong. > > > There is always something > > proprietary to the software/ hardware that makes it more so that > > you use their > > stuff verses someone else's stuff. > > "Different" != "Proprietary". > > > With open source, they are trying to sway > > people over to their stuff, largely by getting the help of the > > public so they > > can spread out the cost of doing business/ creating their product > > and with it > > being free, they will attract the attention of the public. Most > > likely when they > > get enough people looking and using their product, they will start > > charging just > > like how Linspire charges for their versions of Linux thus > > maximizing profits. > > Sorry, but that's a complete load of crap, since once you release > something, you can't later "take it back". Linspire charges for their > stuff, but that's because they offer a service that is worth > something to people. Red Hat charges for support, too. Nothing says > you can't make money off of open source. But to call it "proprietary" > is flat-out wrong. > > -- Ed Leafe > -- http://leafe.com > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
