Having thought about this issue since about 1983, when I talked to rms about what eventually became the current iteration of emacs, I've come to the following conclusions:
1. You can make money supporting open source software (Redhat model), or do other service-sector-related things. For example, the GBIS model was to start an ISP using open source, and contribute changes back the community. (Our first access servers were BSD/OS servers with a bunch of modems and the stock PPP package.) 2. You can make money using Open Source software to develop systems that are useless as Open Source -- embedded systems, for example. If I write firmware to control a bottle labeling machine, that firmware is not going to be useful to anyone else. In either case, it's to your benefit to contribute to the open source, and in fact to develop new code and contribute it to the open source community. If you don't fit any of the above modules, then you *should* go down the road of proprietary software. I don't believe there is anything wrong with this. I never bought into the argument that intellectual property MUST be free. I could never reconcile that with it still being okay to charge for my expertise. I don't see a difference between my expertise, and IP that I created *using* my expertise. That being said, and at the risk of opening up another can of worms, I don't believe that software patents should be allowed. -- Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299 Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412 http://www.greatbasin.net _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
