[plug] Fwd: [SLUG] Lucky 13 for Linux

Greg Mildenhall greg at networx.net.au
Wed Apr 14 11:54:37 WST 1999


On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Justin wrote:
> At 02:21 AM 14/04/1999 , Greg wrote:
> >Yep. If there are 200 people out there who want a copy, then between them
> >they should be able to hire a programmer to make it for $2000.
> >At this stage, the software has been written, the programmer has been
> >paid, and I would consider there little benefit in not giving it, along
> >with it's source, to others who want it.
> So you are suggesting that if a program is developed for a purpose, and
> that purpose if fulfilled there is no real reason why the code can not then
> be set free...
Precisely. Even if there is no purpose at all, there aren't many reasons
not to make the code free. At present, people don't free their code
because they won't get paid if they do. If we can work out ways to make
sure they _do_ get paid, then we can make all software free - which is
better for everyone.

> ie, a program is written for company X by programmer Y to change a set of
> blobs to blips.. program is finished, X buys it and is happy... 
> now that Y has been paid to produce the program they can change the
> licence/ copyright to copyleft and set it free for anyone else to modify
> and sell/ use etc...

> is that one way it can work? a sort of combination of Proprietary and Free
> software development models...
It seems like a purely Free model to me. If you have a contract to assure 
you you're going to get paid, then you can even open up the source at the
_start_ of the development process.

> or is that totally contrary to Free software philosophy?
I don't see anything in it that doesn't fit the philosophy of the Free
Software Foundation, if that's what you mean.

-Greg



More information about the plug mailing list