Free Software seems like a model aimed at maximizing the available benefit for all people, while Open Source seems like a model that aims to maximize growth (in

Free Software seems like a model aimed at maximizing the available benefit for all people, while Open Source seems like a model that aims to maximize growth (in both quality and quantity) of that benefit, even if unevenly applied. To me, this seems very analogous to some economic models I could mention. Communism sure sounds good, but I feel pretty confident in stating that the wild growth Capitalism has encouraged has made even the poor much better off than they would be in a system that was purely communistic for the same time period. That said, I wouldn't call our current system purely capitalistic, which I think goes a long way towards explaining why the poor have an increased standard of living, and points towards the truth of what you're seeing (and what we've been seeing more recently with "interesting" business models using Open Source). The middle ground is often much more beneficial than the ideological extremes. To bring this back to Free Software and Open Source, do we think there would be nearly as much high quality free software if Open Source had not introduces the large talent pools and funding of businesses? Would Open Source have had anything to entice those businesses with had not Free Software provided the base upon which to build the current ecosystem? They both provide a large benefit, but for different aspects. I think a mix of them is the most beneficial way forward, whether that's a third way, or a vacillation between these extremes as more licenses are developed and tweaked that change how the market for software of this type responds.