On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 03:40, jt wrote:
[snip]

> Some other sticking points:
>
> I would think a native Samba/400 would be better than an AIX port, but don't
> know for sure...
>
> Don't know that I'd do OSS...  But I will NOT work using the GPL.  From Gnu
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:

That's a bit of a stickler as Samba is GPL'd...

> "Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
> modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone
> anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you
> do not have to ask or pay for permission."
>
> Great philosophy, coming from a guy whose salary (from my understanding) was
> paid by MIT when he developed e-Macs...  Don't work so hot, in my situation.
> IOW, if I work my butt off for months to develop a better mousetrap, by
> definition of Gnu I MUST DONATE all my time and efforts to the community...
> (I know..  I know..  I'm free to make ALL THE MONEY I want, as long as it's
> from SECONDARY sources of income.  Just can't sell the software...
> Hmmmm....  What if ALL I PRODUCE is source code?  What if I code full-time
> and DON'T HAVE any secondary source of income to put some bread on the
> table...?!?)

This is talking about the *source*. Charge what you like for binary
distribution, as long as you make the code available to those who have
the binaries. How do you think the likes of RedHat can charge $60 for
their current Linux distribution? Charge for support, value added
features, etc. Or do things the SuSE way and include some non-GPL
installer/admin software that directs the proceedings and prevents
anyone making their own SuSE based distro.

That's not to say you'll make a fortune from selling purely GPL'd
software, just that it *isn't* against the license to charge for your
programs. But if all you do is write code (that hopefully builds to a
useful piece of software - unless you plan on releasing it in novel form
;-) ), then open source, regardless of license, isn't for you. At least
the license doesn't stop you using GPL'd software to make your non-free
code, or control what you can or can't say with it, unlike some recent
licenses from a certain big company[1]

As the author gets to set the license, you could always sell your
software, then open source the original version say a year later. That
way the current version stays under your control, but people can benefit
from the code at some point. That way they'd be less worried about
vendor lock-in, as they'd get the code to the apps they've purchased in
due course.

[snip]

Regards, Martin
[1] http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011011S0007
--
martin@dbg400.net  jamaro@firstlinux.net  http://www.dbg400.net
/"\
DBG/400 - DataBase Generation utilities - AS/400 / iSeries Open        \
/
Source free test environment tools and others (file/spool/misc)
X
[this space for hire]  ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML mail & news  /
\



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.