|
I thought this might be the response..
1) I never said charity was bad.. only that we all have to eat (and therefore need $$).
2) I never said I wanted to reinvent the wheel. I spend a lot of my time integrating with code from many sources.. code I didn't write.. but that someone else did. That is the job as I've known it since I started doing this professionally in the 80s. Your agrument is a strawman argument.. I didn't even suggest that I like reinventing the wheel..
3) Innovation, like it or not, is not driven by charity, but by greed. There have been some very striking historical proofs of this fact. The old USSR, which was organized around 'man's desire to do good for his fellow man', and 'pay all men fairly and equally', was a complete disaster. Very little innovation.. and plenty of shortages of all types of things.. yet across the pond in the USA.. under a capitalist system organized around human greed, there has been a literal innovation engine and plenty which the world has not seen ever in history. SOME people are charitable.. to generalize that to MOST I believe is misguided. And the vast majority are in it to enrich themselves and no one else. That is why America has been so innovative over the last century and a half. Greed.
I DO encourage folks to act charitably.. I do myself. I just never lose sight of the fact that all that stuff which looks free, ISN'T. My time, like yours.. whether you accept money for it or not, has value. Otherwise folks wouldn't take advantage of the products of charitable activity.
|
|
|
|
|
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
