Re: Query on "delayed open source" licensing
"Russell Nelson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Well that's unfortunate. Consider that anybody who is developing open source software in a cathedral manner is doing a form of delayed open source. The only difference is that they don't distribute the version under development. I think people's dislike of delayed Open Source is the anti-market bias. You see this bias in organ donation as well. It's illegal to buy an organ from someone in the US, even a kidney. You can compensate them for their expenses, but nothing more. Why? Anti-market bias. Same thing for blood. You can get a gift of nominal value, but you otherwise are making a donation to the Red Cross who, by the way, sells your blood. Clearly somebody got an exemption. Another lesson in economics from the Angry Economist, because understanding economics is like a superpower. On 10/31/23 15:47, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I agree that delayed FOSS is not open source. _______________________________________________ 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