FC4 does not work, "out of the box" for me; GUI/X11 fails
craigwhite at azapple.com
Tue Nov 1 21:40:02 UTC 2005
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 16:06 -0500, Kevin Kempter wrote:
> ---- For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 15:42 -0500, Kevin Kempter wrote:
> > > Your comments about forcing people to give away their work indicates that you don't understand the concepts and philosiphy of open source development and and open source business models. Poke around on the web for examples of open source business models and if you can pick up a copy of the book: "The Cathederal and the Bazaar". This may help...
> > ----
> > I have indeed read it and I don't see how that applies to my comments.
> > Craig
> The point is you don't get to "own" the source code - ever. The source code is owned by the community. This is the basis for open source software. No-one ever gets to move ownership from the community to their own domain. This allows for the community to make great strides in software development and stability. This means that any commercial ventures must find revenue streams outside of the "rent my binaries" model, thus the cash for services model seems the most realistic.
I'm not sure that I'd agree with that both semantically and in realistic
terms. I'm gathering that you are speaking of GPL license and are being
very imprecise. There are other open source licenses. Companies can
release under dual license and thus your term of source code as owned is
imprecise as there are things such as copyrights.
I have vaguely made reference to things such as 'you own it' in terms of
open source in that you can change it to make it fit your scenario but
that is somewhat flippant because ownership of copyright and licensing
truly represent ownership. Licenses such as GPL define the terms of
usage, participation and continuity.
> If a company could take open source code and declare that it's now closed source due to the most recent additions that the company added then the entire model breaks down since the community looses any incentive to make better source code if that same code could at any time be declared closed source based on the work that the community started. Which seems reasonable to me.
that of course is your opinion and that is not always how it's done.
There are open source releases that some projects have asked
contributors to sign before putting their changes into the tree.
> Just my .02 cents...
Still don't see how any of this had to do with my previous comments or
relate to this message base.
My .02 cents
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the users