Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Apr 2012 20:09 UTC, submitted by fran
Linux "Linux vendor Canonical said it has 'no interest' in Linux kernel development. Two weeks ago a Linux Foundation report showed that since version 2.6.32, Microsoft had committed more code to the Linux kernel than Canonical. Since then, Canonical has faced claims from rivals that it does not contribute to Linux as much as it should given its popularity. Recently Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth told The Inquirer that his company has no interest in contributing to the Linux kernel." Why is this such a bad thing? You can contribute more to open source than code alone. Like, I don't know, users?
Permalink for comment 515090
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by ideasman42 on Sat 21st Apr 2012 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
Member since:

OK sorry about that, I regret what I said.

The thing is, even if I wasnt, my point still stands...

The way I see it, free software is not a social contract, as with some cases where there its not a rule to give, but frowned not to.

- By releasing free software, I want my users to use it guilt free without some implied understanding they should give _anything_ back.

- If you are given dirty looks for not giving-back, some people would probably prefer to pay and be done with it.

If someone makes money with free software which is doing poorly, then they may help fund it - let peoples & companies self-interest direct which projects are contributed back to.

Reply Parent Score: 1