Posted on 02/23/2006 7:31:29 AM PST by N3WBI3
LOL, thanks for confirming you don't even know how they get the numbers you sourced...
Not at all. (Although that does in fact work in many cases). Many programmers get paid to work on open source projects, by companies selling support or services based on them.
Over time, however, the desire for stability within a company's code base, coupled with divergence from Open Source as companies modify Open Source for their own needs, ends up killing the model.
Not necessarily. Companies will often prefer to contribute their changes back to the main source tree, so they don't have to keep maintaining their patches.
Eventually, somebody simply grabs the Open Source, locks it down as a baseline, and starts selling their own modifications to all comers.
And if the license permits it, that's fine. Apple uses lots of BSD code in OS X, but BSD continues to exist. Choice is good.
That's a quick way to get the Google "death sentence," where they reset your rank to zero. They've even done it to a lot of high-profile companies.
But they have no problem with simply paying to have your rank improved. I have a couple of pages that have been up for well over a year with specific and unique text. I submitted them to google, but they never show up in searches. It isn't important to me, but it aroused my curiosity about how they search.
Y'all will notice that the wanker doesn't even try to dispute her trollish behavior.
Forrester Research and SourceForge are certainly reliable sources for the fact that 70+ percent of open source is based on "Stallman's rabid anti-capitalistic license. If you think you can disprove it, go ahead, but why would you, since you're so devoted to open source just as it is? You do constantly post all these links and articles praising that "rabid anti-capitalistc license", or are you goinh to deny that now too?
As expected, immediate name calling and no response whatsoever to the facts posted.
It absolutely is. When you give a Christmas gift the gift never stops being private property.
Don't distort the facts, open source is given to the proverbial "community" for free, meaning anyone who wants it. Why can't any of you debate honestly, or do you really just not iunderstand what "free software welfare for the world" really means??
Yup its just you against all of us commie freepers...
No it's not, and there's not that many of you either. Your type is easy to pick out too, with names like shadowman, newbi3, and anti-Republican or similar. Whatever happened to Red Neck and Red Zone? Haven't seen them much lately.
I've heard up to 80%. However, a quick search through SourceForge (the most popular repository for OSS, where most of the software is GPL) will show you that a vast majority of those projects are nothing, most not even out of the beta stage. There are about four times as many projects that have not progressed to production/stable/mature as have.
Let's look at software that matters: Linux, gcc, Apache web server, Firefox, Thunderbird, Tomcat, Python, Perl, SpamAssassin, MySQL, PostgresSQL, PHP, FreeBSD, CVS, X-Windows, Solaris, Darwin (OS X core). I can't think of any other open source software off the top of my head right now, can you?
Four of those are under the GPL, and MySQL has an alternate commercial license. The rest are under other licenses.
Openoffice.org uses the LGPL.
More like if you could ever prove your invented ties.
Venezuela's commie president probably wears cotton. Cotton must be communist! It is the choice of communists!
Whats x.org using?
Mono, Wine, Yast, Gimp, Hurd, and how could you forget Open Office? It's GPL isn't it?
Most are Gpl because it has a sneaky little clause the Free Software Foundation lawyers use to confiscate code from others.
So you're ready to condem Stallman and his GPL licenses and recommend these other licenses like CDDL instead? Sure you are.
What's paid for is conspicuously separated from the search results.
I submitted them to google, but they never show up in searches.
How many other sites link to yours? That's extremely important to your rank.
Each IP owner should choose the license that works best for them..
I don't know, maybe the owner of this site you're posting on? I'm sure for him it's not an ideological thing, but like the rest of us "commies" here sees OSS as a good business choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.