| |||||||||||||
Open Source vs NoncommercialOpen Source vs NoncommercialPosted Jan 16, 2004 18:07 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Open Source in Politics by proski Parent article: Open Source in Politics It's a very astute observation that open source doesn't mean non-commercial. But the reason people confuse them is that in practice, open source and non-commercial are highly correlated. Commercial means involving trade. Most users of open source software, especially the visible ones, do not compensate the producer for it. Most developers of open source software do not do it for compensation. Conversely, there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world. What we have is one of these unfortunate terminology shifts, like when "IDE" comes to mean ATA.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Source vs Noncommercial Posted Jan 22, 2004 17:42 UTC (Thu) by syntaxis (guest, #18897) [Link] "there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world."Nonsense. What most people think of as "Freeware" is software provided free of charge with no strings attached, but without the source code. Such software is both closed-source and non-commercial.
|
|||||||||||||