> > I'm thinking some not very nice thoughts about Luminousity right now... > > Best, > > == dp Dave, Me too, but not too many. Instead, embrace the idea. I'm sure we've all thought about and raised these concerns at different times. I know I was talking up ways to work around this a year ago on the Ardour lists. I'm convinced there are ways to do it and it's going to take people doing things like what is on Ebay to get the group moving. Maybe it's just me reacting wrong to what I've read, but none the less some of this conversation seems like people don't want to really accept the financial model that Open Source predominately promotes - that effectively to the end user the software is free, as in no money, and that the only way people make money in and around Open Source are 1) Selling CDs, 2) Providing support or 3) licensing specifically by getting a manufacturer of hardware to embed the program in their design. This guy is doing #1, or trying to, so what's wrong with that? While I do NOT like the way this person is promoting his product it *seems* _legal_ on the surface of it, and not that different from buying a book from Sams that has a Samba CD in it. Maybe Sams provides more support, or better info, but maybe this guy on Ebay has written some user's guide or something that adds value also. We don't know yet. (Anyone wanna buy a copy and find out?) I'm sure the Samba guys, or the kernel guys, or the XFree86 guys, at one time or another, have looked at what's happened with Open Source and thought 'what if...', but the answer to that question is generally that it wouldn't have been as big. Open Source is just different. I think the community just needs to wake up to this. When it does, and when it decides it *wants* the developers to make some money, then I'm convinced there are ways for all of us to make money for the developers, and that will be good for all of us. (Even if that is bad sentence structure...) ;-) - Mark
