> it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. Open source means open source. There's no

> it arguably violates the spirit of open source. Open source software is meant to be free and available to everyone. Open source means open source. There's no implicit requirement that the developer must have received no monetary compensation for developing the source. Besides, a whole lot of open-source software is written by developers who, while developing it, are getting paid by a parent company. Consider Apple, who has contributed open-source software as an outgrowth of their work on OS X. Do you think they demanded that their developers work for free, so as to avoid tainting the spirit of the open source movement and complicating the ethical calculus? Of course not.