Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Willem <willem@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:18:41 +0000 (UTC)
Joe wrote:
) Anyway, I'm not really saying that OSS is better or worse quality-wise - the
) openness or not of the source probably cannot be used alone as an estimate
) of the quality of the software. What I'm arguing is that OSS (which is
) often only considered because it is free cost), is not necessarily the best
) option in the long run for most people.
Would you not say, then, that you are actually arguing that *free* software
is not necessarily the best option ?
Anyway, of course sometimes there is better open source software, and
sometimes there is better closed source software.
My argument is roughly: if you use any piece of software that is closed
source, if would have been better if the vendor had decided to release
it under some open source license.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
.
- References:
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Prev by Date: Re: New tutorials site. Help wanted.
- Next by Date: hack makes the world run fast, programmer
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Next by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|