Okay, I'll extend the statement above one step further: intellectual property and open source have the same goal. Copyrights, as well as patents, encourage disclosure of information by protecting the author. Seriously. Intellectual property law is supposed to promote the sharing of information by guaranteeing compensation for the author. It does so by giving the author/inventor a monopoly on certain rights related to the work. Basically, intellectual property and open source are two different attempts at solving the same problem. Intellectual property law is a capitalistic approach (guarantee them money, and they will build it). Open source takes a different approach, roughly related to "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" (I'm quoting from memory, ask me if you want the source). Neither is perfect. I personally am intrigued by the idea of some form of government tax funding innovation (and yes, I am an academic researcher currently). I believe Stallman alluded to this idea.
I thought that I'd mention a fact that I'd seen that has relevance here. I think I saw it in "Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts". The source stated that it is estimated that 90% of all scientists in the course of history are alive today. In other words, scientific development is at an all-time high. Therefore, it seems to make sense that there would be many more patent applications than ever before.
But aren't these synonymous, for all practical purposes? True, Red Hat makes money - for now. When more people have fast network connections, their business is gone. I was talking to a non computer person a few days ago about the ideas GNU/FSF espouse; they were like, "pay for support? Not!" My point is: selling support services isn't going to run a business. Some form of licensing is required. If you think you have a better idea for running a software business, why not post it? Otherwise, a list of good day jobs might be nice:)
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll extend the statement above one step further: intellectual property and open source have the same goal. Copyrights, as well as patents, encourage disclosure of information by protecting the author. Seriously. Intellectual property law is supposed to promote the sharing of information by guaranteeing compensation for the author. It does so by giving the author/inventor a monopoly on certain rights related to the work. Basically, intellectual property and open source are two different attempts at solving the same problem. Intellectual property law is a capitalistic approach (guarantee them money, and they will build it). Open source takes a different approach, roughly related to "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" (I'm quoting from memory, ask me if you want the source). Neither is perfect. I personally am intrigued by the idea of some form of government tax funding innovation (and yes, I am an academic researcher currently). I believe Stallman alluded to this idea.
I thought that I'd mention a fact that I'd seen that has relevance here. I think I saw it in "Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts". The source stated that it is estimated that 90% of all scientists in the course of history are alive today. In other words, scientific development is at an all-time high. Therefore, it seems to make sense that there would be many more patent applications than ever before.
But aren't these synonymous, for all practical purposes? True, Red Hat makes money - for now. When more people have fast network connections, their business is gone. I was talking to a non computer person a few days ago about the ideas GNU/FSF espouse; they were like, "pay for support? Not!" My point is: selling support services isn't going to run a business. Some form of licensing is required. If you think you have a better idea for running a software business, why not post it? Otherwise, a list of good day jobs might be nice :)