On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > And in many cases, the end user is "less screwed" by needing to pay for a > > supported proprietary piece of software than they would be by needing to > > support free source software themselves. > > Of course. But then that user wouldn't have to worry about open source > licenses, so the "screwed" WRT that doesn't really apply to them. They can > get "screwed" in other forms (like the users of CodeWright). > > > It is nearly insulting to equate "needs to pay for something" with > > "screwed." Take note often you still need to pay for open source software companies for support or packaging. Redhat and Novell charge quite high cost for their client Linux workstation software. So paying for something is not the discussion topic here. > I think the "screwed" means that the chain of being able to make use of > derivated works of the original software is broken. Say there is an open > source web server. Someone makes some changes to it and doesn't distribute > the source code. Now say that changed server becomes some kind of standard > -- the users of that server can't change that server to fit their needs, > not even the authors of the original software; the chain has been broken, > which in this sense may be called "they're screwed" by some :) > To me it seems it is the maintenance of this chain that's the objective > for much of the open source movement. That is a good objective. Availability of source code (no need to be using an official endorsed open source license) does have an edge here. Example (post 34 and 36) http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=336190&mpage=2 Even though AVIX seems to be a good RTOS, I will think twice using it since it is from a small company and no source codes are available. Regards, Xiaofan -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist