4 ms·
I disagree with the making money argument you make, look at rawmaterialsoftware.com and the JUCE library, look at John Carmack's FPS engine releases. You mentio
by eliasmacpherson 15y ago
I disagree with the making money argument you make, look at rawmaterialsoftware.com and the JUCE library, look at John Carmack's FPS engine releases. You mentioned Redhat. All these businesses make money while at the same time releasing software under the GPL. I'm sure other users can contribute more examples.
- Arelius 15y agoIf you are citing John Carmacks engine releases as a way to make money, then you must forget that both, his assets have never been free, and the engine has never been released as GPL while he has been making money off of the product. He is releasing historical code as GPL, which is a far cry from running a business on a truley "free" product.
- eliasmacpherson 15y agoI agree with you, it's a distinction worth making. The software makes money and then releases software as GPL after it has stopped making money. The GPL'd engines have had a secondary influence, increasing demand for future licences of his engine technology. So the act has made them money, just not as their primary source of income. It's not completely tangential to the way the company makes money.