I work for SUSE, which is a free software company. > What firms are bringing in billions licensing or selling free software? What's left? Seriously, as I'm trying to see how close proprietary, shared source can get to FOSS without loosing the "sustainable, cash flow" part. Can also give discounts or free copies to academics to get their improvements. Do note that the project can give free copies in exchange for testing/feedback to get many eyeballs effect. What are you missing other than widespread, free distribution in this model? As in, the availability of freeloaders that rarely contribute crap back. If non-profit stop supporting or distributing it, it goes BSD or Apache immediately per terms of the license or charter. You can also re-distribute that to other paying customers of the project. You can use, modify, whatever the software as long as you pay the non-profit that develops, maintains, and supports it. My concept is to give you all the freedoms except for free distribution for a given project. The free ones often aren't developed much, maintained, and so on. The proprietary ones just tend to scheme on customers, disappear, and other stuff. Whereas, useful and proprietary software can bring in significant money from customers esp in enterprise or government scenes. You can sell truly free software but almost nobody will buy it w/ you being super-niche in revenue. What firms are bringing in billions licensing or selling free software? I need a list of successful companies longer than Red Hat that can compete in both investment and lawsuits with big, proprietary firms. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software" "Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. I must have skimmed it with my brain jumping right past the actual words to its intuitive guess of what they meant. Whereas, we're arguing in different ways that they can. I bet it's because free, commercial, and false in same sentence almost always are arguing against what you said. "I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" - meaning that you can have commercial free software."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |