Aaron Konstam wrote:
> I think then we are clear there is no money to be made in the selling of
> GPL or open software.
Incorrect on a few points.
Firstly, all Free/Open source software is *not* GPL'd. Please do not use it
as if it was the only F/OSS license option. (Though, according to SourceForge,
it is the most commonly used for projects.)
Secondly, I think we need to clear up the whole "selling software" phrase.
The idea of selling a piece of software generally refers to the selling of
a copy of that software *and* a license to use it in various ways. With the
F/OSS models, this becomes much more separated. A copy of F/OSS software is
already fully licensed for limitless use for any purpose (by the respective
definitions of "Free Software" and "Open Source Software").
Thirdly, there are several companies that make substantial profit from F/OSS,
including selling warrantied support and services (such as Red Hat, Novell,
and Canonical).
> It is nice that there are people that are willing
> to work to develop such software but that can't be their primary way to
> make money.
Several kernel, glibc, and other GNU/Linux system hackers are employed by Red
Hat and Novell. They get *payed* rather significant salaries to help make sure
that the code is functional, secure, and clean. They get payed to add cool
new features to it. They get payed to fix it when something breaks. Your
presumption that Free Software cannot be profitable business venture is flawed,
as these examples have shown you.
Commercial Free Software development is a Very Good Thing(TM), presuming
that the software remains Free within this development.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
This message was sent through a webmail
interface, and thus not signed.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
