Originally posted by thefirstm
View Post
Are you sure about that? I think your _VERY_ wrong here.
If money is not the point to writing open source software then why does IBM spend millions on Linux development? Why does Redhat regularly acquire closed source companies and immediately open source their products. You think the point behind JBOSS is not to make money? Do you think that Novell puts lots of development into Mono and the Gnome desktop because they don't give a shit that they are spending their investors money?
You don't write open source software to make money by selling restrictive licenses. You write open source software because it's what you can do with the software that makes you wealthy.
you sound like a socialist and probably are, and thats ok. But let me please remind you that the cash flow apple has is much greater than linux as a whole. Maybe not being open source freaks is doing them some good. You cant argue with results, sorry.
The people and corporations put money into Linux because of the money they can make with Linux, not through what they can force other people to pay through exploiting government laws.
See:
It's a study from a couple years ago that goes into the economic impact that 'FLOSS' (Free Libre Open Source Software).
-----------------------------
What is more socialist?
Using government-enforced laws to force people to pay you licensing fees and restricting what they can do to compete with you through patents? If you don't pay Microsoft or Apple's fees for using their software then they can sue you.
Or
Providing a service were people pay you money because you help them make money by what they can do with the software support services and hardware they purchase from you? When people pay Redhat support services it's not because they are forced to, for the most part, it's because the services that Redhat offers will make them more money (or at least save them more money) then if they otherwise didn't pay for the service.
Comment