What's best for the world may not be best for developers. What you should want is what is best for the world (as long as you can make a sufficient living).
OpenSource != Free Software
OpenSource just means the source is available. That is if the person purchases a "developer" version of your software, they get the source. You can then dictate that your source cannot be passed to other people -- so you an get paid.
Open source exposes API's. API's need to be exposed for the best interest of us all. Closed API's take away choice and possibilities, never letting the code achieve it's true maximum potential. Everything good should achieve it's true maximum potential of goodness.
Bottom Line:
All "tree" code such as libraries and OS's in gov't should be open source (cuz this exposes API's and helping to achieve maximum efficiency and possibility).
All "leaf" code can be either or (cuz these have no useful API's per say and don't need to be exposed).
Slashdot Mirror
Upenn just set up all first year Ph.D. with linux boxens...
Sounds like you should have become a marketeer.
What's best for the world may not be best for developers. What you should want is what is best for the world (as long as you can make a sufficient living).
OpenSource != Free Software
OpenSource just means the source is available. That is if the person purchases a "developer" version of your software, they get the source. You can then dictate that your source cannot be passed to other people -- so you an get paid.
Open source exposes API's. API's need to be exposed for the best interest of us all. Closed API's take away choice and possibilities, never letting the code achieve it's true maximum potential. Everything good should achieve it's true maximum potential of goodness.
Bottom Line:
All "tree" code such as libraries and OS's in gov't should be open source (cuz this exposes API's and helping to achieve maximum efficiency and possibility).
All "leaf" code can be either or (cuz these have no useful API's per say and don't need to be exposed).