3 ms·
FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not beli
by cookiecaper 14y ago
FOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mindcrime 14y agoFOSS, as it's defined by the FSF, is not really compatible with profit as it practically destroys the monopolistic benefit of copyright. Most people do not believe traditional uses of copyright are immoral, and therefore the strict adherence to freedom 2 as required by the GPL is simply meaningless deprivation of profit potential. But it's only incompatible if you believe that you must have monopolistic copyright control in order to derive a profit. I think Red Hat (and others) disprove this premise. RH make money and pretty much everything they "sell" is available for free. In the case of RHEL, you can grab CentOS or Scientific Linux, and for the JBoss products, they make binary downloads freely available themselves. And most of the JBoss products are under even more liberal licenses than Linux (historically JBoss used the LGPL as their main license).