Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
You get more ridiculous with every post. Capitalism is based on private ownership of property, and selling it for profit, not property owned by the government or some "community". Trying to co-opt the word "capitalism" for your so called community isn't going to work LOL.
Basically, it doesn't contain Stallman's rabid anti-business philosophy. For example, you could modify some Mozilla code and integrate it into your closed-source, for-sale application, but you would only have to license your modifications to the Mozilla code under the MPL. Your own code can remain proprietary.
Going the other way, IIRC you could make a closed-source module linked to the Mozilla application and sell the whole thing under the conditions above.
Maybe, but most "open source" is based on Stallman's license, to the tune of 75 percent or so I'm sure you know.
Sorry guy; Capitalism, by definition, does not compel you to sell your private property. You can, so long as you choose to sell your private property but you may also give it away and still be a capitalist (because its *your* private property), you may also keep it to yourself (because its *your* private property).
You may also license the use of your property with conditions of your choosing (because its *your* private property). What you may not do is compel someone to do something with their private property for your or anyone else's economic benefit which is what you advocate doing..
Souds a bit like the LGPL..
What would you propose I do instead, support the copyleftists like yourself?
Source?
It's not private property when you give it away for free, and private ownership is the basis of capitalism. The rest is just you spinning and distorting like usual.
Its still the intellectual property of the copyright holder and they may dictate how its used. I hear songs on the radio all the time for free, it does not give me the right to copy them and use them to make profit...
And when I provide it, you will do what exactly? You've never done anything before except continue your devotion to all things copyleft.
Forget "money," think "value," which is what really matters in capitalism. BobCo received value from the previous OSS programmers in the form of free code. BobCo then makes some changes and additions (which have value). BobCo then gives that value away, but is probably still ahead, since most likely it received more value that it gave.
In the closed-source model it's reversed. BobCo gives value (money) to get a license to modify and resell software, but keeps value in its modifications.
Now BobCo redistributes. JohnCo does the value thing the same, getting and giving value with its use of the original and additions. Now BobCo downloads JohnCo's improvements to its code. BobCo just received value again because somebody else improved its additions to the software. The only way BobCo was able to receive that value a second time was by giving value initially.
I wouldn't get too worried about it. Netscape and IE are both free as well. Danged capitalistic competition.....
So pretty please tell us where you got this number of 75% of OSS products are under a license that Stallman wrote. Now maybe you have something, but given your history I don't take too much you say at face value... Kind like when you said Linux was only 10% of the world server market...
Please, not that old crap again. I've explained it to you how many times now? Those are tongue-in-cheek, user-submitted banners in a graphics style popular at the time that was used for many things not relating to politics or ideology. Hell, I used that style to make a couple of party flyers.
BTW, that's "party" as in drinking and dancing, not "party" as in communist. Pretty good parties too, I might add.
It is the oldest. But the amount of software under the MPL is growing fast. It helps that the MPL is much more detailed on various copyright and patent issues, something that Stallman is trying to put into the GPL 3 that even Linus is currently trashing.
Sort of on the subject of module additions to MPL code, but it's a lot clearer, and does it the other way (MPL code as a core part of your application).
All companies benefit since they spend less time solving problems that other companies have already solved. Imagine if every company had to write their own indexing software instead of simply using a package, like Lucene.
Private property is what allows you to give it away for free. You can't give away what's not yours.
Besides, nobody gives away OSS code. They retain copyright, the code is licensed. They only allow free use of the code under certain conditions.
Linus and Stallman have never goten along, Torvalds is much more pragmatic.
Where's rdb3??
___________
He has MS and I wish him well. Matter of fact I was thinking the same this morning
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.