In political economics, it's called 'fencing in the commons'. You find a resource that's owned in common for public benefit. You find a way to stake a claim on it and then you charge for the right to access what used to be common. It's no more than business as usual in a capitalist economy.
Some folks like version numbers. In fact, I like version numbers, especially if their incrementing is done consistently over time. A version number can tell someone familiar with a product a fair bit about its features and state of development. I think both IBM's version numbering of AIX and Progress's of their database are useful to their customers in discussions about the products.
My preference is for parsimony in incrementing the first digit, increase it only when there are major design changes. I think when it's increased too often: 11.x, 14.x and so on, none of us can remember what the differences are across the range. Our brains are only good for about 3 - 7 objects at a time. Not only that, but I can't think of a product that's gone through a dozen major transformations and remained the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
In political economics, it's called 'fencing in the commons'. You find a resource that's owned in common for public benefit. You find a way to stake a claim on it and then you charge for the right to access what used to be common. It's no more than business as usual in a capitalist economy.
Some folks like version numbers. In fact, I like version numbers, especially if their incrementing is done consistently over time. A version number can tell someone familiar with a product a fair bit about its features and state of development. I think both IBM's version numbering of AIX and Progress's of their database are useful to their customers in discussions about the products.
My preference is for parsimony in incrementing the first digit, increase it only when there are major design changes. I think when it's increased too often: 11.x, 14.x and so on, none of us can remember what the differences are across the range. Our brains are only good for about 3 - 7 objects at a time. Not only that, but I can't think of a product that's gone through a dozen major transformations and remained the same thing.