Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> The Twisted Definition of Open Source
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Just Because its Free Does Not Mean it Can't be Sold. One
> | of the problems that I have come across within the open
> | source community is that a sizable group of users seem to
> | believe that open source has to be completely free to the
> | end user.
LOL! No one in the "Open Source" community thinks /that/...it's only
FUD-saturated IS ding-dongs who mouth those fallacies.
Every real OSS person has Free Beer!=Free Speech ingrained in their memeplex
and knows that Richard Stallman, the software proto-capitalist, used to
sell casette tapes of his "free" open source software (selling the
*distro*, not the source).
> | Folks, this is simply not true. And I think that
> | rereading the licensing agreement for open source software
> | titles may be just what the doctor orders to remedy the problem.
> | [...]
> | As I wrap up this piece, I would like to point out that
> | I'm not at all saying that we ought to be selling software
> | in an effort to get rich. Rather, by selling open source
> | software in attractive packaging, we can begin to appeal
> | to the big box store fan base. To some, this may seem like
> | an unneeded turn to take. But if we would like to see a
> | wider adoption rate, we need to make some concessions just
> | so long as we are not working against the efforts of the
> | open source developers.
> | First up, open source software applications. Next up,
> | Linux distributions...