Re: Blocking Gmail ads
On 05/13/2008 09:01 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
[...]
Hate to break it to you but I use FOSS all the time for my private and
personal use as well as my professional use. There is code I have that will
not ever be redistributed and as such you, nor anyone else, has right to that
source because you will never, EVER use it. That is my choice. On the other
hand if I did release it for others to use I would obligated to release the
source along with it. An obligation I have fulfilled on all the software I
have chosen to release for others to use.
They haven't released it for others to use. They're under no obligation
to share the source. That's not a loophole. That's freedom.
Exactly. Thank you for liberating me from having to write that.
What some people refer to as a loophole should actually be called
"vendor SaaS freedom." Vendor SaaS freedom just makes sense, and it
keeps OSS alive. If vendor SaaS freedom were taken away, OSS would start
facing major opposition from the many people who use OSS to make money
through software as a service.
There are some individuals companies who have the resources to build
services from scratch or to use proprietary software. These companies
have chosen OSS because it's better for their bottom lines and doesn't
conflict with their business models; however, they could as well choose
to develop and support proprietary software.
If we force OSS to conflict with the most important way people will make
money on the Internet in the future, we endanger the future of OSS.
Without at doubt, a significant number of people who are doing SaaS use
OSS because they can make money with it--not because of love for the
principles of OSS. But if free software moves against vendor SaaS
freedom, we'll lose these people.
Oh, and by the way, one of those "people" might be Google. Would we be
smiling if Google abandons its opensource efforts and throws its weight
behind proprietary software and Microsoft's TCPA?
Reply to: