They probably meant "with or without source code", meaning that one does not have to release one's source. Source code copyright (and control of the source) remains with the author, regardless of which compiler he/she uses.
You seem to be confusing 'corporatism' with 'capitalism'. These terms are not synonymous. Readers interested in individualism might wish to check out Reason magazine for another perspective.
... is one that IMHO is not worth the time/money. I was frankly amazed that this one made it through the O'Reilly editorial process in its current form. As (I believe) someone on Amazon said, it looks like someone's PowerPoint slides on UML slapped into an O'Reilly cover.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably meant "with or without source code", meaning that one does not have to release one's source. Source code copyright (and control of the source) remains with the author, regardless of which compiler he/she uses.
You seem to be confusing 'corporatism' with 'capitalism'. These terms are not synonymous. Readers interested in individualism might wish to check out Reason magazine for another perspective.
... is one that IMHO is not worth the time/money. I was frankly amazed that this one made it through the O'Reilly editorial process in its current form. As (I believe) someone on Amazon said, it looks like someone's PowerPoint slides on UML slapped into an O'Reilly cover.
I agree. If it was meant to be funny, it's a lame effort. Obviously time I start filtering out the "humour" efforts.