James Caska wrote:
> I think it comes down to intent. The real 'spirit' of OpenSource seems
> to be a big 'F.U' to capatilism actually

Please be precise in your flames - it is not all of Open Source
you seem to be having a problem with, but only that part of it
which has chosen to make itself available under the GNU Public
License (aka GPL).

Many of the Open Source offerings use licenses that are not
virus-like.  BSD, Perl, Apache etc are all (IMHO) much more
reasonable and don't require you to make your stuff Open Source
as well.

Rhetorical Question: how many here are using the MicroChip AP Note
examples or Tony Nixon's or Jinx's or ... example code in your
projects?  This is an example of an Open Source community,
where the people of the community value the sharing of their
source code and examples over charging money for it.

GPL is not my personal license of choice, and I disagree with
the goals that many in the GPL camp espouse, but I support the
GPL-crowd's freedom to choose for themselves the specific
terms and conditions under which they are willing to make the
fruits of their labors available.

Bill Gates chooses to make only the executable bits of his labors
available, and he charges $$$ for them.

Richard Stallman chooses to make the source code, binaries, build
system, documentation etc available - without monetary cost - if you
simply agree to make any derivative work of yours available to
others under the same terms he gave you.

Bill is doing it because he wants more $$$.

Richard is doing it because he wants to build a better community - one
that values open sharing of source code.

I find it amazing that people are falling over themselves to defend
a monopolist's right to exploit money from the people of this world
and lamblasting the Open Source community's efforts to build a better
society.

Sigh,
  -John

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads