Too bad you can't go to the alternate reality without unions where everybody works 60hrs/week and you can be legally exposed to any danger without the company having to worry about being responsible.
For some reason engineers and software developers got the idea years ago that they were "professionals" and thus should have pride in finishing no matter the cost.
Of course, the jobs that are really considered "professional" by most people (lawyers, doctors, etc) don't operate this way.
"The point being, and I'm sure you agree, is that Redhat's model, which was a little bit controversial at one time, has proven to be reasonably successful."
Redistribute somebody else's work (which happens to be the world's most famous open source product) and sell it to customers who want a one-click update procedure.
Yes, I know Red Hat contributes to Linux, but that's a lot easier and less risky than developing an OS on your own.
You couldn't start a company like Red Hat today because you're not going to find another product like Linux and today's developers aren't going to be as naive and idealistic as those who created Linux.
I don't give a rats ass about the leadership of the kernel one way or another. I'm talking about the conclusions drawn from the Linux example.
There's still no evidence that there's much opportunity for a pure software company to be viable if they go fully open source.
The exceptions are companies that are essentially selling software that they didn't originally write (e.g. RedHat) or gained such a strong following that proprietary companies wanted to buy them out even if they didn't know what to do with the product (e.g. MySQL).
Speech is communication. Donating money isn't communication.
Do you realize that many corporations donate money to both sides of a race? If there's any communication there it's this: "No matter who wins, we want you to give us special treatment in exchange for a donation".
Well, I think these other groups shouldn't have special consideration either, but corporations are king when it comes to special treatment.
BTW, I forgot about bankruptcy. Compare the ease with which a corporation can go bankrupt compared to an individual. Where's the waiting period? What happened to the mandatory financial counseling? Why should a corporate mortgage be covered?
I'd have no objections if corporations were treated like any other group:
No corporate tax breaks No exemption from usury laws No shielding of personal responsibility
My guess is that the officers of most corporations would prefer to continue to be treated differently than other groups when everything is on the table.
What SCOTUS got wrong is the idea that spending money = free speech. Besides, what was the purpose of creating a corporation? Evading personal responsibility for making false claims about Clinton perhaps?
I think you misunderstood my point, but in any case, I don't think users will be happy to pay for features only to find out that others are getting it free. Reciprocation is a nice theory, but too abstract and indirect for most customers to buy into.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad you can't go to the alternate reality without unions where everybody works 60hrs/week and you can be legally exposed to any danger without the company having to worry about being responsible.
For some reason engineers and software developers got the idea years ago that they were "professionals" and thus should have pride in finishing no matter the cost.
Of course, the jobs that are really considered "professional" by most people (lawyers, doctors, etc) don't operate this way.
"The point being, and I'm sure you agree, is that Redhat's model, which was a little bit controversial at one time, has proven to be reasonably successful."
Redistribute somebody else's work (which happens to be the world's most famous open source product) and sell it to customers who want a one-click update procedure.
Yes, I know Red Hat contributes to Linux, but that's a lot easier and less risky than developing an OS on your own.
You couldn't start a company like Red Hat today because you're not going to find another product like Linux and today's developers aren't going to be as naive and idealistic as those who created Linux.
You won't be getting those discount coupons for MS products after all.
Red Hat is really a distributor. What original products have they developed?
Novell is a primarily a proprietary software company.
Linux Foundation - I don't know - non-profit perhaps
Oracle = another proprietary software company who dabbles in Linux.
Name me some successful software companies who created a new product and is 100% open source.
"No one is getting a piece of the action on Linux license sales, because there's no action to get a piece of."
You mean the RedHat doesn't get "action" every time an organization buys a copy?
I don't give a rats ass about the leadership of the kernel one way or another. I'm talking about the conclusions drawn from the Linux example.
There's still no evidence that there's much opportunity for a pure software company to be viable if they go fully open source.
The exceptions are companies that are essentially selling software that they didn't originally write (e.g. RedHat) or gained such a strong following that proprietary companies wanted to buy them out even if they didn't know what to do with the product (e.g. MySQL).
No, you're still misunderstanding. What does "reciprocal commercial development" have to do with my question?
"Why is it *not* free speech?"
Speech is communication. Donating money isn't communication.
Do you realize that many corporations donate money to both sides of a race? If there's any communication there it's this: "No matter who wins, we want you to give us special treatment in exchange for a donation".
How else can they force people to upgrade?
Funny, I remember that many of Netscape's proprietary extensions were made a part of the standard.
The problem is that RMS used the word "freedom" inappropriately. I don't think it was accident, the ambiguity was intentional.
The open issue is whether most software companies could make money writing exclusively open source software.
why anyone should perceive a connection between having high ideals and this story.
"The people paying them do."
Sure, but that's not what the GP was arguing.
That's got to be the longest non-responsive post I've ever read.
Well, I think these other groups shouldn't have special consideration either, but corporations are king when it comes to special treatment.
BTW, I forgot about bankruptcy. Compare the ease with which a corporation can go bankrupt compared to an individual. Where's the waiting period? What happened to the mandatory financial counseling? Why should a corporate mortgage be covered?
Yes, you're simply wrong.
I'd have no objections if corporations were treated like any other group:
No corporate tax breaks
No exemption from usury laws
No shielding of personal responsibility
My guess is that the officers of most corporations would prefer to continue to be treated differently than other groups when everything is on the table.
"I really hate this whiny assed victim mentality so many pussies have today."
You can talk with pussies? That must come in handy.
What SCOTUS got wrong is the idea that spending money = free speech. Besides, what was the purpose of creating a corporation? Evading personal responsibility for making false claims about Clinton perhaps?
I think you misunderstood my point, but in any case, I don't think users will be happy to pay for features only to find out that others are getting it free. Reciprocation is a nice theory, but too abstract and indirect for most customers to buy into.
I wasn't paying her for sex, I was just exercising my free speech rights to protest prostitution laws.
No, it's the judges of SCOTUS who are defective.
That's OK. For most VB apps there wasn't any "back end".