On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded it
> > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
> > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to do
> > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and Open
> > Sourcing it would detract from that ...
>
> Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
> development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
> to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
> FreeBSD projects.
>
> If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain free.
Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go
that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had
unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not
*need* clients to pay for that development ...
You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you
not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute
proprietary, Closed Source software?
First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards,
its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff
under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do
have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the
time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep
their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the
drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to
use in our "Open Source" environments ...
*shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...
