Re: OSI's purely-neutral policy position on production of proprietary software (was Re: Query on "delayed open source" licensing)
"Russell Nelson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
It's harmful, but it's part of what people give up in order to get the benefit of whatever the proprietary software does. Just like you get "free" OTA TV (apologies to our British friends) by having commercials interjected. You get "free" web applications by having commercials in the interstices. Just like you have to pay for proprietary software. Just like you can get proprietary software bundled with a hardware purchase. All these things are harmful to one degree or another, because whatever you give up in order to get this software, you could have done something else with it. Or you could live with unicorns, rainbows, and rock candy mountains and only use open source software. Your payment for doing so is giving up whatever benefits are provided by the proprietary software. There MUST be benefits, otherwise why would anybody use proprietary software? Today's lesson in economics is brought to you by the Angry Economist. On 10/31/23 14:05, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > not *fundamentally* harmful, just harmful :) The OSI is not going > around wagging fingers. _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org