Qtopia coming for Neo1973
plists at prometheus.org.yu
Tue Sep 25 22:11:07 CEST 2007
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 20:36:53 Lorn Potter wrote:
> > Yep, but there's this undeniable fact that having 0 entry cost invites
> > a whole new class of developers that you wouldn't have otherwise. I
> > think we could perfectly choose QTopia and just handicap commercial
> > developers, either of the options is better than having two options.
> You are confusing 'commercial' with 'closed source'. No one says open
> source software cannot be sold commercially. You just have to offer and
> release your code to your customers should they want it.
From the sentiment on the list, it seems that the license model is wrong.
Everybody is talking about free-to-do-whatever-I-want-to-do-with-it in a BSD
style license. If the project really welcomes any kind of support and/or
software, free and/or commercial, the type of license should have been BSD,
because as it stands, it has very little to do with the GPL. I'm not implying
GPL is a superior license but rather that from what I read on this list,
people say GPL even though they mean BSD - both valid choices, as long as you
don't confuse them, which happens quite regularly around here (like calling
GPL-d software non-free).
More information about the community