Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2005 16:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 42710
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-20
Software licensing in general is icky. It doesn't make economic sense that a vendor can charge you more for a product when providing that product is no more difficult for them. IE, they can deliver you one cd with an operating system which you can install once or a thousand times without making the vendor work any harder.
Of course the opposite extreme of paying only for the effort put in by the vendor and not the usefulness of the end product doesn't make any more sense.
That is, of course, why oss is a better model for the industry going forward. You get more collaborative development -> better integration. And at the end of the day, the money that does change hands is for something that *is* difficult to reproduce: service. Hell, the code doesn't even have to be open so long as the product is free-as-in-beer to use.