|
SLACKER007 wrote: Nothing in life is free
Clickety[^] 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! 
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. "
— Hunter S. Thompson
My comedy.
|
|
|
|
|
I charge big but i support for free ( 2 years)
Programmer's C# { Do it Better;}
|
|
|
|
|
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
You do not support it for free: the initial price includes a two year service contract. 
|
|
|
|
|
lol
Programmer's C# { Do it Better;}
|
|
|
|
|
I support all of the above. I am surprised that isn't on the list.
m.bergman
-- For Bruce Schneier, quanta only have one state : afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, depending on the situations, all of the above might be prefered.
|
|
|
|
|
I concur, I believe the developers (and funders) of code should have the right to determine the license under which it is released.
The Open Source movement can do the community some disfavour when they get too restrictive on this - I prefer most other licenses to GPL (although LGPL has some improvements). But I guess its the developer's choice - if you can't live with the restrictions, use some other software.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not an Aussie linguist - but are you referring to "code" or "software"? I think you mean executable "software" but you're calling it "code" (which to me means "source code")... 
Distinguishing between them opens up the possibility of other answers - "selling code licenses" vs. "selling software licenses", or "open-sourcing code libraries while selling support/development services".
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
Thank you for stating what I was going to say  Code = code, which could be utility code like a template library up to the source for a large system, or parts thereof. Selling software is an entirely different issue, though I agree that's probably what they meant...but the wording should be fixed.
Thanx,
Sean
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
