• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 1 of 1

My comments

• Agreed. Conflating the open source (license) and the open source (development) leads to the ambiguity and arguments that really don't get us anywhere, except maybe to realize better definitions would help avoid wasting time. The same situation can happen when people use the term "free" in that it could mean free as in "no cost" or free as in "freedom" to modify the source.
  
  In this article the author argues open source development underwritten by a for profit company (not volunteers) will shift from relying only on charging for support to that plus charging for closed versions of the software containing additional benefits and features.
  
  Is that likely to happen in 2009? Some companies are already trying to do this.
  
  But it remains to be seen if a company can transfer development costs for the open source (licensed) core to the volunteers. If the company can't do this, then the core+ ("exclusive or proprietary features only available when you pay") will necessarily be priced higher since the company's developers will have to spend time on the core as well as core+
  
  I think companies that attempt to do this will have their credentials in the free software community suspended if not revoked, but they will probably still seen as members of the open source community. There is a difference, you know :) In reply to: "Open source becomes paid software in 2009"

  December 29, 2008

  0 replies